1990-10-10October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
291
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 10, 1990, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman,
F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mr. Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney;
and Mr. ¥. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:02 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Mr. Russell Seltzer said he is a property owner in Oak Hill Subdivision,
located on Fifth Street Extended past Interstate 64. Mr. Seltzer pointed out
that development is taking place all around Oak Hill Subdivision, which is in
the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdiction. However, his subdivi-
sion is not included on the Service Authority's Five-Year Plan for water/sewer
facilities. He said the quality of life of residents in this area is being
jeopardized by leaking septic fields. Sometimes the water is muddy, or has a
high bacteria count with no water flow. He said the water system is a private
well system for the entire community. In many cases, residents cannot use
their backyards because of leaking septic fields.
Mr. Seltzer also noted that the health issue is a concern to the resi-
dents because the septic problems make the area a breeding place for mos-
quitos. He feels that the variable water level should also be investigated by
the Health Department from the health safety aspect.
The size of the lots means a limited number of options for residents
experiencing septic problems. In some cases, there is no way to obtain
approval from the Health Department for another septic field as an alternative
to the current system. At best, an undersized field becomes a temporary
repair.
Mr. Seltzer feels that the County should address these septic problems
because the area is under the jurisdiction of the Service Authority. He is
concerned that newly developed areas are improved with public utilities before
an existing older subdivision with a demonstrated need is addressed. He said
the Service Authority dug up his road to put a water line through for another
development, yet left Oak Hill out. He asked for the Board's support in this
request and to have an investigation of the septic problems at Oak Hill
Subdivision by the Health Department.
Mrs. Barbara Martin said she is also a property owner in Oak Hill Subdi-
vision. She said she has written to several Board members, and she realizes
that this matter takes time and planning. She asked that the Board consider
carefully the request by the residents for public utilities.
Mr. Bowie said this is actually a matter for the Albemarle County Service
Authority. However, he asked staff to look into the health issues and submit
a report. Mr. Way and Mr. Bain agreed. The report will be made at the Novem-
ber 14 meeting.
Mr. Way asked when this subdivision was created. Mr. Seltzer said the
subdivision is well over 20 years old in some areas. He added that he submit-
ted petitions to the Clerk with 38 names of people who support the public
utilities request.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 29~
(Page 2)
Mr. St. John said there might also be a queStion of fireprotection in
this Subdivision. Mr. Bowie asked that staff include a report on fire protec-
tion. There was no further discussion of this item.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way to accept the
Consent Agenda as information, with the exception of Items 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4
which are to be discussed with Highway Matters, and to approve Item 5.10.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYs: None.
Item 5.1. Notice dated September 26, 1990, re: application of Virginia
Electric and Power Company to revise its fuel factor (to decrease its zero-
based fuel factor from 1.728~/kWh to 1.656~/kWh effective with the billing
month of November, 1990), was received as information.
Item 5.2. Letter dated September 25, 1990, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resi-
dent Engineer, forwarding a copy of the approved Albemarle County 1990-96
Secondary Road Six Year Plan. Mr. Bain asked that this item be pulled for
discussion under Agenda Item No. 7, Highway Matters.
Item 5.3. Copy of letter dated September 19, 1990, from D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, addressed to Chief John F. Miller and Captain G. M. Morris,
re: accidents at the intersection of Routes 240/250 at Brownsville and
request for traffic signal at said intersection. Mr. Bain asked that this
item be pulled for discussion with Agenda Item No. 7, Highway Matters.
Item 5.4. Letter dated October 3, 1990, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer, containing a list of Projects Under Construction, and a list of
Projects Under Design. Mrs. Humphris requested that this item be pulled for
discussion with Agenda Item No. 7, Highway Matters.
Item 5.5. Letter dated September 26, 1990, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resi-
dent Engineer, concerning Project 0020-002-S21,C501, intersection at Route 20
and Avon Street Extended, was received as follows:
"The project is still in a deferred status pending a resolution of the
underground tank problem on the Charlottesville Oil property. The
Department is attempting to reach an agreement with the individual and
corporation who are joint owners of this property which would allow
for their removal of the tank from the property. The Department could
then purchase the property without fear of inheriting an underground
tank contamination problem and the project could proceed rapidly from
that point. If agreement cannot be reached with the property owners
concerning removal of the tank, it appears progress on this project
will be slow since resolution of the underground contamination problem
with the State Water Control Board is outside the Department's control
and appears to be a low priority with that agency. I will keep the
Board advised of any changes in the status of that project."
Item 5.6. Copy of 1990 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax
Purposes for Railroads and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies from the
Virginia Department of Taxation (on file), received as information.
Item 5.7. Monthly Bond Report from Arbor Crest Apartments for the Months
of July and August, 1990, received as information.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
292
Item 5.8. Letter dated September 25, 1990, from Neal J. Barber, Direc-
tor, Commonwealth Department of Housing and Community Development, to Guy B.
Agnor, Jr., stating that the Department has completed its review of applica-
tions for Local Administrators for the 1991 Indoor Plumbing Program, and the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program has received an award of $139,739 to
operate the program in this area, was received as information.
Item 5.9. Memo from James M. Heilman, General Registrar, dated
October 5, 1990, setting out the proposed Redistricting Calendar, received as
information.
Item 5.10. Memorandum from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated October 4, 1990,
requesting authorization to Negotiate Purchase of Land on Buck's Elbow Moun-
tain. The memo states:
"The Federal Government has recently given notice to the County, City
of Charlottesville and State of Virginia that a small tract of land
(less than one acre) located on Buck's Elbow Mountain in the County
has been declared surplus Government property and is available for
disposal. This small tract of land is leased by the County for use of
a radio tower and antenna for our Police Department as well as other
County department's and emergency agencies' communication needs.
While under no obligation to purchase the property, staff requests
your authorization to begin negotiations for its purchase. Once the
cost of the property is determined, that amount will be brought back
to you for discussion."
The request was approved by the vote shown above.
Agenda Item No. 5a. Authorize Chairman to Execute Deed for Purchase of
Urban Area School Site.
Mr. Bowie said official authorization by the Board is necessary for the
Chairman to sign the deed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bain
authorizing the Chairman to sign the deed and to execute the County's accep-
tance of the deed for purchase of the urban area school site as set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, BoWie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
THIS DEED made this 5th day of October, 1990, by and between
WILLIAM W. STEVENSON, TRUSTEE FOR THE 659 LAND TRUST; WILLIAM W.
STEVENSON and CAROL W. STEVENSON, his wife; WILLIAM W. STEVENSON and
ALTON F. MARTIN, JR., EXECUTOR UNDER THE WILL OF ALTON F. MARTIN, SR;
and ENCORE INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; Grantors, and THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantee;
WI TNES SETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of ONE MILLION
EIGHTY-SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY-NINE and 60/100 DOLLARS,
($1,087,649.60) cash in hand paid, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN,
-SELL and CONVEY WITH GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE
unto the said County of Albemarle, Virginia, the following described
property to-wit:
Ail that certain tract or parcel of land situated in
Albemarle County, Virginia, containing 24.969 acres, more
or less, fronting on the west side of Berkmar Drive and on
the east side of State. Route 659, as shown on plat prepared
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc., Architects-Engi-
neers-Planners, dated August 29, 1990, and to be recorded
with and as a part of this deed.
294
The derivation of title to the aforesaid property by the
Grantors herein is as follows:
A portion of the property conveyed to William W.
Stevenson, Trustee for 659 Land Trust, by deed of
Fredson T. Bowers and Nancy Hale Bowers, dated August
5, 1987, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 954,
page 296.
A portion of the property conveyed to William W.
Stevenson by deed of Alice G. Churchman, a widow,
Charles S. Becks and Carrie M. Becks, husband and
wife, and Eliza Ann Franklin and William Franklin, her
husband, dated December 15, 1969, and recorded in the
aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 468, page 108.
A portion of the property conveyed to William W.
Stevenson and Alton F. Martin by deed of Walter L.
Richards, a widower, dated October 15, 1969, and
recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book
467, page 620. By will probated January 26, 1989, and
recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Will Book
68, page 484, Alton F. Martin devised his interest in
the property to the Trustees of a Trust Agreement
dated September 30, 1983, and appointed Lessie M.
Martin and Alton F. Martin, Jr. as initial Trustees.
Alton F. Martin, Jr., qualified as sole Executor under
the said Will, and he executes this deed in his
capacity as Executor under the said Will and as
Trustee of the trust established therein.
Property conveyed to Encore Investors Limited Part-
nership by deed of Charles M. Rotgin, Jr. and David B.
Garland, Trustees for the Commonwealth Land Trust,
dated March 15, 1984, and recorded in the aforesaid
Clerk's Office in Deed Book 794, page 213.
The General Warranty and English Covenants of Title of each
grantor herein, are limited to the parcel or parcels owned by each
respective grantor on the date of this conveyance.
This conveyance is made subject to any and all easements, re-
strictions, reservations and conditions contained in duly recorded
instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to
the above-described property which have not expired by a time limita-
tion contained therein or otherwise have become ineffective; however,
the same are not hereby reimposed.
This conveyance is exempt from taxation pursuant to Virginia Code
Section 58.1-811-A.3.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: May 16 and September 5, 1990.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes for May 16, 1990, and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for September 5, 1990, Pages 1 - 11.
Mrs. Humphris noted one typographical correction.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve
the minutes as read and corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
295
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7a.
Report on.
COUNTY CROSSOVER
PRIORITY NO.
4 33
- 32
5 26
6 21
9 41
10 42
Highway Matters: Route 29 North Crossover Closings,
Mr. Cilimberg said the Virginia Department of Transportation indicates by
letter dated September 25, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, that $40,000 is
available in "stop gap safety" funds toward work on closing various crossovers
on Route 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt's letter recommends the use of these funds
on five crossovers and for the construction of a deceleration lane at another
crossover. Mr. Cilimberg said staff reviewed Mr. Roosevelt's proposal and
recommends that the Board support the proposed combination of closures and
improvements as the most beneficial for the dollars available.
Mr. Roosevelt said the "stop gap safety funds" are an allocation given to
each District for safety improvements. He said the District Administrator has
agreed to use this money for crossover closings, provided that the locality
supports the recommendation. Mr. Roosevelt said the work will be done over
the winter and completed before the first of July, 1991.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, and seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
support staff's recommendation for use of the $40,000 as proposed in Mr.
Roosevelt's letter dated September 25, 1990, as follows:
COST
LOCATION NOTES ESTIMATE
South of Industrial Close-need left turn lane
Park at #32 sbl for increased
At Airport Acres
Entrance
Near Holly
Memorial Gardens
North of Rt. 643 Close
Between Rt. 763
and Rt. 641 Close
Between Rt. 763
and Rt. 641 Close
left turn $ 5,000
Build left turn lane on
sbl 15,000
Close
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
$40,000
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bain said he has now read the letter and has no questions about Item
5.2 after all. Regarding Item 5.3, Re: Accidents at the Intersection of
Routes 240/250 at Brownsville and Request for Traffic Signal at Said Intersec-
tion, Mr. Bain asked the status of the request.
Mr. Roosevelt said he has received all of the accident data from Chief
Miller and from Captain Morris regarding the request for a traffic light at
the intersection of Routes 250 and 240 near Crozet. He is forwarding the
information to the Highway Traffic Engineer and will report the results of his
analysis at the November 14 meeting.
Mrs. Humphris asked regarding the Projects Under Design list, if "Route
601 at Route 250 West to the Route 29 Bypass", refers to Old Ivy Road. Mr.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
29~
Roosevelt said it does. She asked about a reference to turn lanes between
Barracks Road and Hydraulic Road on the Projects Under Construction listing.
Mr. Roosevelt said that project is under construction now at the intersection
of Barracks Road and Georgetown Road.
Mr. Bowerman asked what caused the delay in the improvements being done
on Rio Road. Mr. Roosevelt said there was a problem in moving utilities near
the Northside Baptist Church in the beginning of the project which delayed
construction. He said the anticipated completion date is now May, 1991,
instead of October, 1990, because the paving work cannot be done when the
weather is too cold.
Mr. Roosevelt noted that there are major changes in the quarterly report
on Projects Under Design which reflect VDoT's response to the State's budget
shortfalls. He said about 40 percent of the projects in the current fiscal
year have been delayed for advertisement by three to four months.
Mr. Bain asked if construction on Route 708 near the Southern Regional
Park will take place in the same year it is advertised. Mr. Roosevelt said it
is to be advertised for March, 1992. Construction should begin in May or
early June and would take about six months. He said the schedule is very
close on this project. Mr. Roosevelt noted that these dates may change
because a public hearing has not been held on this project.
Mr. Way reported that a citizen has complained about excessive speeding
on Route 734. This is a narrow, gravel road with no speed limit posted. He
said traffic has increased because of construction going on nearby. This
citizen is concerned about the safety of children who walk on that road to
meet the bus when big trucks are driving 55 miles per hour. He asked how such
a situation can be solved, particularly during this construction time. Part
of the problem is that police cannot arrest anyone because there is no posted
speed.
Mr. St. John said the County can establish speed limits on public roads
under certain circumstances.
Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT cannot post the road at an abnormally low speed
to accommodate this request. He said he will talk with the Traffic Engineer
and request a maximum safe speed sign, which would give the police something
to work with. While there may be a heavy volume of traffic at this time, the
road carries almost no traffic otherwise. Even with the increase in traffic,
a speed limit sign is not warranted according to YDoT standards.
Mr. St. John said it is reckless driving when a person drives at a speed
which is faster than the conditions of the road warrant, and has nothing to do
with the speed limit. A lesser offense in that category is improper driving.
Mr. St. John said any citizen has the right to get a warrant for the driver in
such a case. He said there is a remedy already in existence for this citizen.
Mr. Bowie asked that the County Executive report on the Board's options
regarding control of speed. Mr. Way added that he feels the appearance of a
police car several times would have a positive effect.
Mr. Way asked that the Board consider again the road conditions in the
Woolen Mills area. Winter is coming on, and there is no resolution about the
potholes and icing conditions. Mr. Bowie requested a staff report for the
November 14 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Transportation Pledge Bonds.
Mr. Agnor said this came up in July as an informational item on the
Consent Agenda. The Board requested that it be placed on a subsequent agenda
for discussion. In the interim, an "Advisory to the Media" memorandum, a
letter from the Governor of Virginia, and pamphlets prepared by the Virginia
Society of Certified Public Accountants have been distributed to the Board.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
295
Mr. Agnor said the question has been raised as to whether the local taxes that
can be used to pay the pledge bond debt excludes real estate taxes only. The
pamphlet says that real estate taxes are exempted. Mr. Agnor said staff
believes that statement is incorrect and that both real estate and personal
property taxes are not usable for paying back the debt service on these pledge
bonds. Mr. Agnor said approximately $16.3 million of pledge bonds could be
issued by Albemarle County based on an average of local revenues for the past
three years.
Mr. St. John said he is reluctant to question a document published by the
Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants. However, he feels that the
pamphlet contains deceptive statements. He referred to the "Pros and Cons" on
the back page of the pamphlet and noted that a reason to vote against pledge
bonds is the fact that the credit of the local government is not pledged.
That statement leads the reader to believe that the pledge bonds are revenue
bonds. That means that the County does not have to levy a tax on its citizens
to pay the bonds if the gas or sales tax is not sufficient to pay for the
bonds. Mr. St. John pointed out that such a conclusion is absolutely untrue
and that the credit of the local government would be pledged with these
transportation bonds. The County would have to guarantee payment, even it it
meant levying a tax on its citizens to pay back the bonds. He said if the
pamphlet is correct, then owners of real estate are exempted from having to
pay for the transportation pledge bonds with real estate taxes. He contends
that the local government would be making a pledge that it would levy any tax
on other citizens necessary to pay these bonds. He further pointed out that
this pledge bond matter requires a constitutional amendment for the very fact
that the credit of local government would be pledged. He said there are
statements in the letter from the Office of the Governor to the same effect.
Mr. St. John said there are many others in the Commonwealth of Virginia who
recognize that this media campaign is deceptive.
Mr. Bain said he feels the purpose of these pledge bonds is to build more
roads to get more people into Virginia. The question is how many people do we
want in Virginia. For this reason alone, Mr. Bain said he will not support
the constitutional amendment.
Mr. Bowie said this document and the whole campaign is totally deceptive
in his opinion. He feels that every bit of the County's income would be
pledged for these bonds if this amendment passes. If the County pledges all
of its income for transportation pledge bonds, what money will pay for schools
and run the government? He said the County is told it can use its sales taxes
and business license taxes, and it will have no effect on real estate taxes.
He strongly disagrees and said that the County would immediately have to raise
property taxes to run the government if this amendment passes. He added that
there is no provision for local governments to have additional income, while
the State can levy gas taxes, etc. Mr. Bowie pointed out that he feels the
real danger at the local level is the State's response to subsequent requests
for road improvements. Mr. Bowie feels the answer will be, "Fix it yourself"
if the local governments are given the authority to issue pledge bonds. He
feels that the Board must oppose this amendment and suggested that the Board
write every Board of Supervisors in the Commonwealth and solicit their support
in opposition as well.
Mr. Way agreed that now is the time to take action. Mr. Bain said this
is a way of getting away from the "pay as you go" policy of building roads,
and is really proposed as a solution for the mass transit problems facing
Northern Virginia.
Mrs. Humphris said there are many reasons to oppose this "pie in the sky',
proposal. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris authorizing the Chairman
to draft a letter to other local governments expressing opposition and asking
for support in public opposition before the November 6 election. Mr. Bowerman
seconded the motion and suggested that the thrust of Mr. Bowie's comments be
included in the letter. Mr. Bowie added thatthe County Attorney's opinion
regarding the misrepresentation of the pamphlet should be included as well.
Mro Bain said it should be clarified in the letter that this position refers
to localities only. Mr. Perkins feels that it is important that the citizens
of Albemarle understand the Board's position. He said the media should pick
up on this item and make it visible to the public.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
298
Mr. St. John noted that if the majority of voters statewide pass this
amendment, then Albemarle County will have this option, even though the local
vote may be in opposition. Mrs. Humphris said that is why the Board's resolu-
tion of opposition must be sent to other counties.
Mr. Way suggested that a media conference be organized to publicize the
Board's position. Mr. Bowie agreed and suggested that a media conference be
held on Friday, October 12.
Mrs. Humphris added to her motion that the Chairman organize a media
conference as soon as possible to make the Board's position public. Mr.
Bowerman agreed to the addition to the motion. Mr. Bowie asked that the
County Attorney be present to answer questions regarding constitutionality.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The resolution adopted by the Board is set out in its entirety below:)
WHEREAS, a statewide campaign in support of a referendum on a
Constitutional Amendment to allow Transportation Pledge Bonds has been
launched by the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the County Attorney for Albemarle County, Virginia, has
found campaign statements that the pledge bonds do "not involve the
full faith and credit of the government" to be misleading; and
WHEREAS, local transportation pledge bonds will be repaid from
local revenue currently used to fund education, law enforcement and
other local services; and
WHEREAS, the only replacement for these non-property tax revenues
is the raising of property taxes; and
WHEREAS, there is a lack of confidence in the State to fully
respond to subsequent requests from localities for transportation
improvements, if such an amendment is passed; and
WHEREAS, by the State's own figures, going from "pay as you go
to pledge bonds will increase the cost of road projects by 46.8
percent; and
WHEREAS, this campaign represents another effort by the State to
shift the burden of costs to localities;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does unanimously state its opposition to
the Pledge Bond Referendum (Proposed Constitutional Amendment 3, local
debt for transportation purposes) on the November 6, 1990, ballot and
urges all its citizens to vote "no" on November 6.
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Use Value Taxation.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:09 A.M.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Use value taxation is endorsed in the Comprehensive Plan as a method
to help relieve pressures that might cause rural land conversion and
to encourage preservation of land for agriculture, forestry, horticul-
ture and open space. A major concern is whether the program is
successful in preserving agricultural land use.
Over the past several months, a committee has met to discuss alterna-
tives to the current use value taxation system in an effort to address
the following concerns:
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
29c~
The inconsistency of the use value program with the Comprehensive
Plan because it allows use value taxation on properties in Growth
Areas; and
The 1988 amendments to the use value state law which create the
potential for many additional properties to qualify for use value
taxation under the open space category.
The committee targeted the following two alternatives for detailed
discussion:
Alternative A. Retain use value taxation for only the open space
category (use value taxation for agricultural, forestal and
horticultural uses could continue only on properties enrolled in
agricultural/forestal districts); or
Alternative B. Retain use value taxation for only the agricul-
tural, forestal and horticultural categories - eliminate use
value taxation for open space uses.
Alternative A (open space only) was recommended by the Department of
Planning and Community Development staff as being the most consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. The 1988 amendments to the state en-
abling legislation for use value taxation extend the definition of
'real estate devoted to open space use' to include real estate 'for
the public interest and consistent with the local land use plan...'
In addition, the requirement was added that such real estate must be
either:
1. Within an agricultural/forestal district;
2. Subject to a recorded easement held by a public body; or
Subject to a recorded commitment of between four and ten years
entered into by the landowner with the local governing body.
The net effect of a use value taxation program for 'open space only'
would be to tie the program more closely to the County land use plan.
It would encourage the preservation of all rural properties and would
eliminate use value in Growth Areas except where open space is desig-
nated by the County.
The committee had two major concerns with Alternative ~:
It would require all interested property owner~ to sign up for
one of the three options in order to continu~ to receive use
value taxation. Many landowners would probably be opposed to
making a four to ten year commitment on their properties, which
could result in a 'backlash' effect of increased subdivision in
the Rural Areas. Property owners in Growth Areas would no longer
qualify for use value, unless their property was designated as
open space in the Comprehensive Plan.
It could result in a rash of new applications for use value
taxation under the open space category. Theoretically, all Rural
Areas properties of five acres or greater could easily qualify
through enrollment in an agricultural/forestal district.
Alternative B (eliminate open space) was favored by the Director of
Finance because it most closely approximated from a fiscal standpoint
the current use value situation. Although the County ordinance
currently includes all four categories of use value., County residents
have not used the open space category, as amended in 1988. If the
County maintains the status quo of all four categories, then the
amount of use value tax deferrals could increase as the open space
category is fully utilized.
The Planning staff's major concern with Alternative B was that it is
contrary to Comprehensive Plan objectives:
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
30
The Plan endorses use value assessment in general as a means to
preserve rural land uses.
The Plan recognizes the benefit in preserving all rural proper-
ties, not just active farms. Development on adjacent properties
can cause direct and indirect effects which are detrimental to
the continuation of agricultural/forestal activities. In addi-
tion, the Rural Areas serve many purposes such as protection of
watersheds, and the preservation of natural, scenic and historic
resources and open space. Preserving the Rural Areas also
results in less costly service delivery needs.
The Plan encourages development in the Growth Areas, while
Alternative B would continue to permit use value taxation on
undeveloped Growth Area properties.
The Plan encourages the maintenance of open space in the Growth
Areas for historic/scenic resources, wetlands, etc., which may
not be eligible for use value taxation if the open space category
is eliminated.
After much discussion, the committee agreed upon the following compro-
mise which would be recommended to the Board of Supervisors:
The County should maintain all four categories of use value
taxation, but should raise the minimum acreage requirement of the
open space category from five to 20 acres in the Rural Areas.
The County should seek legislation to allow for the elimination
of use value taxation in areas of the County designated for
growth in the Comprehensive Plan.
This compromise will allow maximum opportunity for preserving the
Rural Areas in a way that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and the current zoning of the Rural Areas. (Raising the minimum open
space acreage requirement above 20 acres would be inconsistent with
the current 21-acre minimum parcel size which was originally intended
to accommodate a dwelling on one acre, with 20 acres remaining to
satisfy the use value requirement.)"
Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board accepts staff's recommendation, the
minimum acreage requirement for the open space category would be raised from
five acres, which is allowed by State law, to 20 acres in rural areas only.
He said the Board could also attempt to introduce legislation at the General
Assembly.
Mr. Tucker said staff is preparing a list of prospective legislative
items before the Board attends the Virginia Association of Counties meeting
and can add this item to the list.
Mr. Bain asked what impact staff's recommendation will have on revenues.
Mr. Cilimberg said increasing the acreage from five to 20 acres and allowing
the open space would mean a loss in revenue of approximately $236,000
annually.
Mr. Perkins asked how the open space category is changed. Mr. Cilimberg
said the category is broadened to allow all types of properties intended for
open space benefit to a locality, such as inactive field areas. He added as
comparison that if the County retains the five acre minimum allowed by the
State, the potential enrollment would mean a revenue loss of approximately
$900,000 per year. Increasing the acreage to 20 means the net loss is much
lower.
Mr. Bain said he is concerned that this will mandate development of open
space land in the urban area because the owners cannot afford to keep the land
any longer. Mr. Bowie said he is not sure he wants to force development even
in a growth area.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
30
Mr. Tucker said staff is concerned about that as well. He said there are
active farms in growth areas. The question is whether the County wants to
encourage a farming operation to change.
Mr. Bowie said he cannot support the second recommendation at this time.
Mr. Bowerman asked what effect choosing Alternative A and raising the
open space acreage requirement from five to 20 acres would have on revenue and
the preservation of rural land. Mr. Cilimberg said increasing to 20 acres
would accomplish about the same thing as recommendation #1 in terms of poten-
tial affect in the rural area. However, it would not allow property which is
not currently in an agricultural/forestal district to continue to receive use
value taxation unless a contract is signed with the County to qualify under
open space. He said there is the potential of taking away from property
owners the use value taxation.
Mr. Agnor said this alternative would change the entire land use program
and force owners to put property into an agricultural/forestal district, sign
a contract with the County or subdivide their property.
Mr. Bain asked about the possibility of phasing in changes in the growth
areas through legislation. Mr. Tucker said staff discussed the possibility of
rezoning active farm areas in the growth areas to rural area zoning. That
property would then qualify for the open space category. Mr. Bain said he
does not want to make a hardship on landowners who are farming in urban areas.
Mr. Bowie agreed.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels the Board needs more information on recom-
mendation #2 and asked if staff could present some options.
Mr. Bain then offered a motion to advertise Recommendation #1 for public
hearing on November 28. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Bain suggest-
ed that simple explanatory language be used to avoid misconceptions about land
use taxation.
Mr. Bowie said the Board can issue a media release on such items. He
said there are several items in today's meeting for which media releases might
be appropriate. There was no objection by Board members.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Report: Beautification Committee.
Mr. Bowie said the Board is delighted to have a former member of the
Board, Mrs. Patricia Cooke, present in her role as Chairman of the Beautifica-
tion Committee.
Mrs. Cooke said she speaks for everyone in the community when she ex-
presses gratefulness to the County for the present state the County Office
Building is in today. She feels the intent of the Beautification Committee is
to protect, preserve and enhance the character and integrity of the County
Office Building without interfering with the needs and services of the County.
Mrs. Cooke feels that the Beautification Committee should have three addition-
al citizens appointed and she welcomes suggestions from the Board of Supervi-
sors.
Mrs. Cooke said she expects the Committee to present a master plan of
what the County Office Building is to look like, taking into consideration the
architectural design. She said the master plan will be supported by donations
and memorials from the private sector. Mrs. Cooke said she has no intention
of asking the Board for financial support. She said she is present today to
address the Board's concern about the landscaping plan for the front of the
building. She said the Committee met with the original architect for the
landscape design, and he is present today to address the Board.
(Mr. St. John returned at 10:38 A.M.)
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
302
Before asking the architect to speak, Mrs. Cooke noted that she received
an inquiry from a citizen today about whether the County uses ChemLawn and the
possible environmental effects if ChemLawn is used.
Mr. Mike Van Yahres, landscape architect, said the front yard was de-
signed with the idea of creating a park-like setting for citizens to enjoy.
He said it was recognized that as the trees grew, they would block certain
angles of view. Currently, the building and the portico can be seen from each
side and directly in the center, or about 90 degrees of view. He said the
view cannot be seen from 45 degrees in each direction. He said the change in
seasons was considered in the landscape design, taking into account the fact
that the leaves will be off the trees for approximately one-half the year.
Mr. Van Yahres said the trees were planted extremely close together for the
purpose of forcing them to grow taller faster and because the donor wanted to
emulate an urban European forest. Shade was also an important factor in the
design of the yard. Mr. Van Yahres said the key point is that the plantings
are in a phase of growth that can be compared to the awkward stage of adoles-
cence. They are offensive from some points of view, being too tall to see
over but not enough to see under them. He feels it is important to consider
that the landscape is evolving and in time there will be a radically different
situation. Mr. Van Yahres distributed sketches to the Board indicating the
current view, the view in the year 2000 and again in the year 2030. Mr. Van
Yahres said the tall slim trees are obtained through a combination of trimming
the lower limbs and of nature shading the bottom limbs. He advised that
topping the trees would compound the problem.
Mrs. Cooke asked what height these trees will become. Mr. Van Yahres
said in a woodland condition, the trees could be 100 feet tall. These trees,
however, because they are planted close together, may grow to the height of
the other oak trees in the yard.
Mr. Bowie said the question is whether it is possible to change the
landscape and how it can be improved. Mr. Van Yahres said the answer is a
combination of patience and a program of elevating the tree limbs. He said
the problem will not be solved immediately.
Mr. Way suggested that the Committee appointments be made, either by
Board suggestions or by Mrs. Cooke. He is confident that the Committee will
_.ask the appropriate questions and report back to the Board with a recommen-
dation. Mr. Bain agreed and said the solution is probably not an immediate
one.
Mr. Perkins volunteered to act as a consultant on pruning methods to the
Committee. Mrs. Cooke said the Committee is delighted to have that help.
The Board recessed at 10:58 A.M. and reconvened at 11:14 A.M. without Mr.
St. John present.
Agenda Item No. 10. Status Report: Southside Transfer Station Project.
Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Way had requested a status report on the closure
plan for the Keene Landfill and the construction of the Southside Transfer
Station at Keene. He said the closure plan required by the State is scheduled
for submission to the State in November. Approval of the plan is anticipated
by May, 1991, with closure to occur by August, 1991.
Regarding the Southside Transfer Station, a State permit is expected to
be issued by the State Water Control Board any day now. Once the State permit
is received, bidding and construction are expected to take approximately four
months.
Mr. Agnor said it may be appropriate for the Board to re-examine the use
of transfer stations as a method of waste disposal before constructing the
first one. There are now significant costs and licensing procedures applica-
ble to such facilities, which were not applicable when transfer stations were
originally discussed by the Board. He pointed out that the establishment of
tipping fees may complicate the operation of a transfer station.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
30
Mr. Agnor referred to his memorandum to the Board dated August 6, 1990,
regarding the advantages and disadvantages for the County versus the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority operating transfer stations. He said staff's recommen-
dation is that operation of the transfer station is an appropriate function of
the Authority as a logical extension of their management responsibility. The
County initially considered the transfer station as a caretaker operation. It
now appears that recycling managers with responsibility for allocating costs,
collecting fees and accounting for funds are required. Mr. Agnor said the
operation is more complicated than originally thought. He reminded the Board
that the Southside Transfer Station is supposed to be a model station om which
others would be based.
Mr. Agnor said the cost to construct the transfer station is in the range
of one-half million dollars, which is already budgeted in the Capital Improve-
ments Program. The annual operating cost is approximately $50,000 per sta-
tion.
Mr. Bowie said the agreement with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
states that once the transfer station is built, the Authority has responsibil-
ity for operating it. He thought that there would be no operating cost for
!
the County in that case. Mr. Agnor said that is the intent of the users fee.
Mr. Bain asked about the capital cost estimates for the Keene Landfill of
$1,777,000 for FY 91-92 and $2,500,000 for FY 92-93 found in Mr. Richard
Moring's memorandum of September 25, 1990. Mr. Agnor said those are estimates
of the cost to meet the State's regulatory requirements for closing the Keene
Landfill. Mr. Agnor said the FY 92-93 figure represents the closing of 25
acres at a cost of $100,000 per acre. He said wells must be installed and
monitored and drainage systems installed to meet State regulations as well.
The costs are phased to allow the County the flexibility of capping five acres
in the hopes that only five acres is necessary. However, it is possible that
another 20 acres will have to be capped the following year. He said the
County is waiting for the State's approval of the closure plan.
(Mr. St. John returned at 11:23 A.M.)
Mr. Moring, County Engineer, said the regulations and the interpretation
of them are being developed in the State's Department of Waste Management. It
has been determined at other sites that only those areas in service on Decem-
ber, 1988, must be closed. For Albemarle County, that is five acres. Howev-
er, if there is leachate intrusion in the groundwater, both a leachate manage-
ment system and a groundwater monitoring system is required. That means that
the next step is to cap the remaining 20 acres. Mr. Bain said he feels an
incremental approach is best, provided it is a safe one.
Mr. Perkins asked what is involved in the capping process. Mr. Moring
said $100,000 per acre is a conservative number. It involves putting two feet
of dirt over the waste, a layer of synthetic fill next, with another two feet
of dirt and a vegetative cover on top.
Mr. Bowie said now that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has been
established, the Board must decide whether to pursue the idea of several
transfer stations around the County. More specifically, does the Board wish
to continue with the Southside Transfer Station project.
Mr. Bain asked if there are private haulers who are willing to serve
rural areas, specifically the Scottsville area. Mr. Moring said the haulers
say they can provide services to the rural areas. He said there seems to be a
proliferation of independent haulers using pick-up or one-ton trucks.
Mr. Way said at the present time the Keene Landfill is closed with the
exception of the green boxes at the entrance. He said those boxes are defi-
nitely being used, and that indicates that individuals are not using private
haulers. Mr. Way said it currently costs about $4000 per month for heavy
equipment to empty the green boxes and clean the area. Mr. Morning said a
front-end loader comes to the site four mornings per week and moves the
materials for removal to the Ivy Landfill.
Mr. Bain said when the transfer station contract is let, there will still
be a period of six months before the station is operational. By that time
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
Authority will have established tipping fees and, hopefully, haulers will be
offering pick-up services to these residents. He said he is not willing to go
ahead with a transfer station without some assurance that the rural areas are
being served by private haulers.
Mr. Agnor said the residents of Southern Albemarle will have to adjust to
a drastically different operation by having to separate waste and pay for
disposal. Mr. Way said these residents have become accustomed to the conve-
nience of the Keene Landfill. On the other hand, why should they have the
convenience when other rural areas do not.
Mr. Bain said the residents do not realize that they will be paying
whether they carry their waste to the transfer station or if a private hauler
picks it up. Mr. Bowie said even when the residents of the Keene area thought
that use of the transfer station was free and that it was to bH well run and
well managed, there was almost unanimous opposition at the public hearing~ He
feels the issue for the Board is whether to pursue a policy of establishing
transfer stations. He personally is not inclined to continue that policy. If
the Board agrees, then he feels the Southern Transfer Station should not
proceed.
Mrs. Humphris said it may be that the residents will not use this facili-
ty because of the charge. She does not feel that the transfer station is
justified at this time.
Mr. Way agreed and asked that the Board allow the green boxes to remain,
realizing that there is a cost of about $50,000 per year. Mr. Bowie said he
can support that until the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority is operational.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels the County needs to do something serious about
penalizing citizens who abuse the waste disposal system. He said there will
be major problems in rural areas unless the Board gives the message that the
County means business about trash removal and clean up.
Mr. Bain suggested that a town meeting in Scottsville might be helpful.
Private haulers could be present, and staff could explain the County's waste
disposal system.
Mrs. Humphris said the transfer station policy can be delayed while Mr.
Bowerman's and Mr. Bain's suggestions are explored by staff. She said the
Board needs to know what it is empowered to do with regard to enforcement
and/or enactment of laws prohibiting illegal dumping. She agrees that town
meetings should be held for informational purposes in all the rural areas of
the County.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain that the County not go forward with the
Southside Transfer Station contract, assuming State approval is received, for
at least a period of six months. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Way asked if the Board is sympathetic to allowing the green boxes to
remain in operation.
Mr. Bain amended his motion to add that the green boxes will remain in
operation with the method of clean up that is currently being used for the
same six-month period. Mr. Bain said he would like to have a staff report
within 90 days concerning alternatives to the transfer station. Mrs. Humphris
agreed to the amended motion as the seconder°
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Establish Procedure For Naming the Southern Regional
Park.
Mr. Agnor said staff recommends that public suggestions be solicited
through advertisement in the newspaper for 30 days. Those suggestions would
be reviewed by a committee consisting of Board members from the Samuel Miller
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 305
(Page 15)
and Scottsville Districts, the Deputy County Executive and the Director of
Parks and Recreation. The top three suggestions would be presented to the
Board and a public hearing held to consider them.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bain to implement
the procedure recommended by staff. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Report: Robert Stephens' Locator System compared to
E-911.
Mr. Agnor said that staff reviewed with Mr. Stephens the locator system
which he developed and discussed the importance of locator compatibility and
preciseness. Consequently, Mr. Stephens has a better understanding of the
need for the Egll system and stated that if he had received this explanation
originally, he would not have come before the Board.
There was no further discussion of this item, and no action was taken.
Agenda Item No. 14. Updated Revenue Projections for 1990-91.
Mr. Agnor said staff Completed an early analysis of local revenue projec-
tions in the General Fund for the current fiscal year, and determined that
there may be a $261,000 shortfall of local revenues. This represents a 0.46
percent variance in the $56.4 million anticipated this year from local revenue
sources. Mr. Agnor reported that State revenue adjustments in the General
Fund will result in a total reduction of $474,000. The combined total of
local and state revenue reductions may be approximately $735,000, or a 1.2
percent loss. He said these figures do not include state revenue reductions
in the School Fund, which are estimated to be $466,930 or 2.3 percent of the
state revenues to the School Fund. Projections into FY 91-92 are not avail-
able from the state, although it is generally expected that reductions will be
greater next year.
Mr. Agnor said the annual appropriation ordinance requires that the
County Executive notify all departments and agencies of any anticipated
revenue shortfalls and that shortfalls be distributed on the ratio of the
revised revenue estimates to the approved revenues found in the annual budget.
Therefore, if revenues are estimated to be 1.2 percent short, all allocations
to departments and agencies are reduced by 1.2 percent. He said that each
department head has been notified that such reductions in their allocation is
possible. They will be informed on a monthly basis as to changes in the
revenue projections. By mid-year, department heads will be given a more
reliable estimate of their budget allocations.
Mr. Bain asked that the Board be notified on a monthly basis of changes
in revenue projections as well. Other members of the Board concurred.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriation: Pay/Classification Survey and Drug
Screening Program.
Mr. Agnor said the Board approved, at its May 22, 1990, meeting, the Pay
and Classification Study to be done in-house rather than by consultants. The
$67,095 to accomplish this study is being transferred from the General Fund
balance to the Personnel Department's budget. The appropriation is for an
additional employee, as well as one-time costs for computer software and
consultant services to install the software. He said the continuing cost is
approximately $32,000 per year, rather than the estimated $80,000 for an
outside consultant. Also, an appropriation is requested for $12,000 from the
General fund balance to cover the cost of the drug screening program approved
by the Board.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the outside consultant's fee of $80,000 was not
an annual charge. Therefore, the cost for the study in-house is still
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
comparable to having a consultant do it. Mr. Bain said he would like to
examine the efficiency of the in-house study after one year. Mr. Bowie
agreed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the
following resolution appropriating the funds as requested for the pay and
classification study and the drug screening program.
30~
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR
FUND
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
90/91
GENERAL/SCHOOL
PAY 7 CLASSIFICATION STUDY/DRUG SCREENING
PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1242062140115000
1242062140210000
1242062140231000
1242062140232000
1242062140221000
1242062140800700
1242062140312700
1242062140800710
1242062140601700
1242062140800200
1242062140311010
1100012030930002
1100093010930006
REVENUE
SALARY
FICA
HEALTH
DENTAL
YRS
ADP EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
DATA PROCESSING-SOFTWARE
SUPPLIES/PRINTING
FURNITURE
EMPLOYEE DRUG TESTING
TOTAL
TRANSFER-SCHOOL PERSONNEL
TRANS SCHOOL/GEN FUND BAL
TOTAL
$25,314.00
1,936.00
900.00
60.00
1,265.00
3,055.00
8,000.00
24,000.00
1,100.00
1,465.00
12~000.00
$79,095.00
16,610.00
62,485.00
$79,095.00
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100
2200051000510110
FUND BALANCE
TRANSFER-GENERAL FUND
$79,095.00
$79,095.00
Agenda Item No. 16a. Appointments: Housing Committee
Mr. Agnor said the Board made no decision with regard to the formation of
a housing committee when "short-term" committees were discussed at the August
8 meeting. Staff's proposal follows:
"The housing goal of the County's Comprehensive Plan establishes the
need to 'promote a variety of safe, sanitary and affordable housing
types for County residents of all income groups' The objective to
meet this goal is to 'assess housing needs and issues and identify
mechanisms to address market deficiencies'
Charge of Committee:
Address housing issues such as cost,
government regulation and its effect on
housing market, housing need groups, review
of existing and potential housing assistance
programs, and the role of public policy in
addressing these issues.
Committee's Product:
Housing strategy which would focus on
recommending housing policy action for
adoption which would promote safe, sanitary
and affordable housing for all County income
groups.
Committee
Representation:
Financial Institutions: Banks and Savings
and Loans.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
307
Private Development: Blue Ridge Home Build-
ers and/or Board of Realtors.
Housing/Con~nunity Agencies: Charlottesville
Housing Foundation, AHIP, MACAA.
Housing/Community Interest Groups: Albemarle
Housing Coalition, League of Women Voters,
and/or Citizens for Albemarle.
Board of Supervisors and/or Planning Commis-
sion Members.
Committee Size:
Seven to nine members.
Committee Term:
Approximately one year - September, 1990 to
August, 1991.
Committee Staffing:
Department of Planning and Community
Development and the County Housing Coordina-
tor at Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission."
Mr. Bain said he does not feel strongly that appointments to this commit-
tee need to be on a magisterial basis because of the short-term nature of the
committee.
The consensus of the Board was to proceed with the appointment of a
Housing Committee and to advertise for applicants.
Agenda Item No. 16b. Appointments: Rivanna Scenic River Advisory
Committee. A communication had been received from the Secretary of the
Commonwealth soliciting names for appointments to this committee. A list
showing the names of Garland W. Baskfield, Thomas D. Blue, Mrs. Henry McGehee,
Mrs. James B. Murray, B. F. D. Runk, Thomas B. Shiflett, Eleanor Talley and
Peggy Van Yahres was attached.
There were no recommendations made by Board members to the list of
possible appointees submitted.
Agenda Item No. 16c. Appointments: Other.
Mr. Bain said he would like to discuss the role of the Fiscal Resources
Committee at the November 14 meeting and whether or note the Board wants to
retain this committee.
Mr. Bowie said the University of Virginia should be notified that the
term of their appointee on the Albemarle County Planning Commission, Mr.
Werner Sensbach, expires on December 31, 1990, and asked if he should be
reappointed.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Edward Lowery, the joint appointee by the City and
the County to the Joint Airport Commission, is resigning. Mr. Agnor said he
will find out whether Mr. Lowery is resigning.
Mr. Agnor said the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has asked that three
appointments be made to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee by mid-November if
possible. The Board agreed to advertise for these appointees.
Agenda Item No. 18. Set public hearing date on a "False Alarm Ordi-
nance."
Mr. Agnor said staff has prepared a draft ordinance to be considered for
public hearing. He said the purpose of the ordinance is to encourage alarm
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
30~
users and alarm businesses to maintain proper use of alarm systems to limit
unnecessary responses to false alarms. He said the number of false alarm
calls is excessive and is creating an inefficient use of the County's law
enforcement resources. For example, in 1989, the Police Department responded
to 2067 false alarms. In 1990, there have been 1020 false alarms in six
months. Mr. Agnor said staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing
to amend the County Code by adding a new Chapter 2.2, and repealing existing
provisions. Mr. Agnor said the County Code currently requires registration of
alarm systems. This amendment would provide for a limit of two false alarms
in a 12-month period. More frequent occurrences from the same location would
require reimbursement to the County for the cost of a response.
Mr. Bain asked if the penalty section of the ordinance reflects state
law. Mr. St. John said it does. He said this ordinance makes what is already
a state law punishable under County ordinances. He said the distinction is
made between a criminal offense for intentional violations and accidental
alarms. Mr. St. John said this ordinance is very similar to the City's
ordinance on false alarms.
Mr. Bain offered a motion to schedule a public hearing on November 14 to
consider amending the County Code by adding a new Chapter 2.2., "False
Alarms", and to repeal Sections 13-1.1 through 13-1.4. Mr. Bowerman seconded
the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Police Department: Annual Report.
Chief John Miller highlighted major accomplishments of the Police Depart-
ment this year. He said for the first time an Annual Report for Fiscal Year
1989/90 was prepared and copies distributed to Board members. Chief Miller
noted that the Police Department was reorganized with a change in the rank
structure. Second, a missions statement was created using input from all of
the officers. He said this statement has been issued to the officers and will
be made available to the public as well.
Another accomplishment was the first workload allocation study. He said
a beat/sector system was devised through this study. The beat/sector system
met the Department's goals of an efficient distribution of patrol resources
throughout the County, to reduce the response time for emergency calls, and to
begin a community policing philosophy. He said officers are being assigned to
the same beats and when the workload is light, they are instructed to get out
of their cars and meet the people. The Department has received positive
feedback already to these actions.
Chief Miller said the Department began a new written directive system
this year for procedures and policies for officers. He said this system is to
ensure that Albemarle County's policies and procedures meet accreditation
standards throughout the police profession. He said the process may take as
long as two years, but it has been started with the most critical policies and
procedures, such as constitutional rights, operation of emergency vehicles and
arrests.
Another accomplishment was the joint effort by the County, the City and
the University to form a regional narcotics unit. He said the cases initiated
by this unit resulted in the formation of a Federal Task Force in this area.
Chief Miller said a volunteer program was established a few months ago.
Citizens are working with the Police Department in tactical analysis, in the
records section, and in the administrative office. He said the volunteer
program will be expanded, and he will provide an evaluation to the Board after
the first of the year.
Chief Miller reported that the radio system was upgraded this year.
State grant funding made possible a radio system with an additional repeater
to provide better communication throughout the County, as well as replacing
the car radios with new portable radios.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
30S
Chief Miller feels that having officers go into the community, the
citizen involvement and the overall improvement in the image of the Police
Department are the highlights of this past year's accomplishments. He noted
that the involvement of Albemarle County citizens in helping to solve the
recent arson case, for example, has been fantastic. He also noted his appre-
ciation for the commitment of the officers in the Police Department under the
normal pressures they face, the heavy workload and the pressures of adjusting
to a new Chief.
Chief Miller handed out a summary of Crime Statistics between July and
September, 1990, (copy on file) and concluded with the announcement that there
has been a 14 percent decrease in crime over the past fiscal year. He said
the first three months after June 30 indicate another 14 percent decrease in
crime. Chief Miller said there has also been a six percent decrease in calls
for service.
Mr. Bowie noted that the crime rate decreased for crimes such as robbery,
assault and larceny. He said this is a superb report, and it reflects on
every officer in the Department in his personal opinion. He could not be more
pleased with the report.
Mr. Bain asked about the workload for the personnel in the investigative
services division. Chief Miller said taking one investigator and putting him
back on patrol had an effect on this division. He said the use of overtime
has not improved as much as he had hoped. He said these officers average
about 22 cases each. The problem is that one case, such as the recent arson
case, can throw the workload out of control.
Mr. Perkins said alcohol-related accidents are shown as 11 percent, while
the national figure is given at 50 percent. He asked the reason for the low
percentage in Albemarle. Chief Miller said the 11 percent reflects instances
in which the officer can legally verify through tests, etc., that the accident
was alcohol-related. He said officers have to be careful that such a state-
ment can be supported by scientific proof.
The Board members agreed that the report is excellent and that the Board
appreciates the effort of the entire Department in this community.
Agenda Item No. 20. Lunch in Police Department while Viewing a Demon-
stration of the Law Enforcement Training Network (LETN).
At 12:30 P.M., the Board recessed to the Police Department for lunch and
to view a demonstration of the Law Enforcement Training Network.
Agenda Item No. 21. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 1:20 P.M., in Room 11, motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by
Mr. Way to adjourn into Executive Session in accordance with Section
2.1-344.A.4 of the Virginia Code for the purpose of discussing specific
personnel.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 22. Certify Executive Session.
At 3:10 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session in Rooms 5/6.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris certifying the
executive session as follows:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES:
Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Perkins and Mr. way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None
Agenda Item No. 23. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission.
Planning Commission members present were Mrs. Ellen I. Anderson, Mrs.
Jacquelyn Huckle, Messrs. Keith Rittenhouse, Walter F. Johnson and Harry
Wilkerson (arrived at 3:17 P.M.). Also present was Mr. ¥. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 23a: Discussion: Fiscal Impact, Proffered Zoning and
Vesting (Sunset Clause).
Mr. Bowie said there are some issues of concern to both the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. It may be that the items to be
discussed will not be resolved today, but the idea is to informally share
ideas.
Mr. Bowie said that Mr. Tim Lindstrom, who was present at the General
Assembly session when the proffered zoning legislation was discussed, is
present to explain the Sunset Clause aspect of proffered zoning.
Mr. Lindstrom said the proffered zoning legislation was amended last year
to allow localities like Albemarle to accept proffers which they could not
accept previously, such as real property, cash and construction of public
improvements. He explained that Northern Virginia changed some of the uses
allowed in a particular zone, and the development community went to the
General Assembly and presented a number of bills designed to protect zoning
from future change. The only one of these bills passed last year was one that
amended Section 15.1-491 of the Virginia Code dealing with proffers. The
language specifically says that if a developer proffers the dedication of
substantial real property or the payment of substantial cash or the construc-
tion of public improvements, or proffers the construction of substantial
public improvements, and those proffers are accepted, then the locality cannot
change the zoning text, the zoning map, or any conditions applicable to that
property in the future, unless the property owner consents. The one caveat is
when there is a change in circumstances substantially affecting the public's
health, safety or welfare. That places the burden on the locality to make the
zoning change, and that is not an easy burden. The legislation says that if
the proffer is not required solely because of the development, then vesting
occurs. For example, if the developer offered a turn lane and improvements,
and he could show that even one car not visiting his development would benefit
from that intersection, then this section of the Code is applicable. If one
iota of benefit derives to the public at large and is not directly related to
the project in question, the vesting section is.triggered.
October 10, 1990 (Hegular Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not happy with the law, but it represents a
compromise which is better than the prior effort. He said the concern is that
it is impossible to win the battle of the word, "solely". If a developer
makes proffers and they are accepted by the locality, there is no requirement
for performance of the proffer in the legislation. Because of that, the
concern is that a developer may make a proffer and never perform the work.
Even if not one cent has been spent by the developer pursuant to the proffer,
the zoning is vested, and the land is tied up for an indefinite period. Mr.
Lindstrom said it was discussed at the committee level that localities cannot
live with that kind of situation, if they implement proffers. He said the
committee agreed that the local government could refuse to grant a rezoning,
unless the developer made a proffer of a time limit on the vesting. In other
words, once the locality accepts the proffer, the property is vested forever.
However, the locality can refuse to accept the proffer. In which case the
developer may agree that he will perform his proffer within one year or some
specified time, or forego his rights under Section 15.1-491. The locality can
accept that kind of proffer as a protection. If a time limit is not included
in the proffer, then the zoning is vested. He said Mro St. John pointed out
that it is not fair for a developer to perform the proffers and still have his
project terminated because he did not meet the sunset clause. Mr. Lindstrom
agreed, but said he is concerned about the period of time between approval of
the application and performance of the proffers. He feels there should be
some limit on how long the zoning remains before the applicant has to perform
the work.
(Mr. Wilkerson arrived at 3:17 P.M.)
Mr. Rittenhouse said the overriding question is whether the County wants
to designate an area in a specific zoning category forever. He has reserva-
tions about doing that because it presupposes that the Planning Commission
knows what the ultimate land use should be for every area of the County. He
said it implies that all potential changes surrounding an area have been taken
into account. He said the determination must be made as to whether the
proffer is worth a determination about the final use of a specific property.
Mr. Bowie said he feels the Planning Commission and the Board must know
whether a proffer is considered "substantial" in any rezoning application.
Mr. Lindstrom said one big problem with this legislation is that no one
knows and no one is willing to say what "substantial" means. He said it is up
to the courts to decide.
Mr. Bowie said until that question is resolved maybe no proffers should
be accepted unless a sunset clause is included. If the County accepts a
proffer, and the developer never builds anything, the rezoning still stands
forever. If a sunset clause is included and the developer does not meet the
time limit, the zoning reverts to what it was previously. He said no matter
how much cash is proffered or how great the improvements, maybe the County
should not accept proffers without a time limit.
Mr. Bain said the original concept of proffered zoning was changed by
this legislation which allows zoning rights to be vested.
Mr. Rittenhouse said even if there is a sunset clause and the developer
meets the requirements, he is concerned that a particular zoning category will
be established forever. He said that sounds like risky business to him. Mrs.
Humphris said that any designation that is given forever is risky.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked what happens if the developer meets the sunset
clause. Mr. Lindstrom said the zoning designation is set in any rezoning
substantial performance of a project is complete. That is not new in this
legislation. This legislation is different because there is no requirement
for the developer to do anything to have the zoning designation vested.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked what happens if the owner of a particular property
sells and the new owner wants to change the use and requests a rezoning. Mr.
Lindstrom said the prohibition is on changes initiated by the governing body.
The property owner or his successors are clearly allowed to initiate an
amendment.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
312
Mr. Agnor asked if a vested interest prohibits the County from initiating
a comprehensive rezoning effort. Mr. Cilimberg said a non-conforming use
could not be created by such rezoning.
Mr. Tucker said that staff can use the schedule for updating the Compre-
hensive Plan as a basis for determining a reasonable amount of time for the
sunset clause in reviewing zoning requests. That might be an equitable basis
for determining the time limits.
Mr. Agnor said he feels an effort should be made at the General Assembly
to allow impact fees and get away from proffered zoning. He said the Board
currently struggles with proffered conditions. Now that cash and construction
improvements may be proffered, the process becomes extremely delicate from the
prospective of being described as "selling zoning".
Mr. Cilimberg said the question is asked as to why the County cannot
accept proffers for subdivisions. As lots are created and building permits
issued, the County has no way of capturing any return. He said that poses a
dilemma for staff in terms of analyzing impacts and discussing proffers in
growth areas.
Mr. Rittenhouse said such a situation came up with the application
recently for Cathcart-Turner. Staff's analysis indicated a substantial
impact, but the developer felt there was no impact on the County and proffered
nothing. The Planning Commission was in a situation where they did not know
whether to reject the application, or even if the Commission had the latitude
to review the application in that context. He said his concern was that a
positive recommendation to the Board by the Planning Commission might indicate
that the Commission agreed that there was no fiscal impact when that was not
the case.
Mr. Way said the Board faced the same dilemma in the application, and
members of the Board were well aware of the Planning Commission's discussions
on this matter.
Mr. Bowie said he does not feel that developments need to be built
immediately just because they fit a 20-year Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board has to deal with these rezoning requests one
by one, recognizing the necessity for a sunset clause. On the other hand, the
County must pursue, through the Virginia Association of Counties and through
its elected representatives, legislation that would allow the assessment of
impact fees.
Mr. Bowie said the consensus seems to be that the County should pursue
legislative changes to allow impact fees and to limit the acceptance of
proffers to those which include a sunset clause, with staff reports regarding
the fiscal impact.
Mrs. Humphris said that members of the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors should not hesitate to ask every question that comes to mind sc
that nothing is overlooked in these complex applications. Mr. Bowie added
that as a result of this meeting, hopefully the Planning Commission minutes
and staff reports will answer many such questions.
Mrs. Andersen said it has come to the Planning Commission's attention
that it is difficult for staff to accurately assess fiscal impact. Therefore,
she asked the Board to keep in mind the constraints of limited staff and the
existing data base on the information presented to them. Mr. Bowie said he is
not as concerned about the actual dollar impact as he is the legal conse-
quences.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is currently performing a fiscal analysis for
requests involving projects in the CIP. Analysis is not being done on other
projects. He said staff is trying to come up with a reasonable way to analyze
the revenue side as well.
Mr. Rittenhouse said if the developer does not proffer anything, the
analysis becomes simply an exercise for staff. He said there is nothing that
can be done except to review the analysis in those cases. If the applicant
complies with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Zoning Ordinance, even
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
313
though it results in a fiscal impact, the Planning Commission's approach is
that nothing can be required. He asked if the Board agrees with the Commis-
sion's approach in those cases.
Mr. Bowie said because it's in the Comprehensive Plan does not mean that
a particular zoning request is in the best interest of the County. Whether
there is a proffer or not, the application does not have to be accepted and
the Planning Commission does not have to recommend approval. He said a
request can be turned down just because the Planning Commission does not think
it is in the best interest of the County.
Mrs. Huckle said a denial may motivate the applicant to come back with a
better offer. Mrs. Humphris said she distinctly heard a developer who was
addressing the Board last week make the statement that a financial proffer was
considered but the applicant did not quite know what it should be. She said
she felt strongly that if the Board had deferred or denied that request, a
cash proffer would have been forthcoming. However, in light of today's
information regarding vesting, it probably worked out for the best. She is
making the point, however, that Board members need to listen carefully to
these kinds of hints as to whether to defer or deny requests.
Mr. Johnson asked if an item must be included in the CIP before it can be
considered for impact. Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Community Development, said
the language in the Code says that cash proffers cannot be accepted except for
projects included in the CIP. Mr. Johnson said he does not believe that is
the case and would like a second opinion on that. He said this is a very
important point.
Mr. Bowie asked the County Attorney to respond to the Planning Commission
and the Board at a later meeting on this question.
Agenda Item No. 23c. Discussion: Request that Staff Reports Include
Statement as to Total Impact of all Developments in the Area Which have been
Approved/Are Still in the Approval Process but Which have Not Yet been
Developed.
Mr. Bowie said he understands there is a problem of keeping track of
prior approvals. Mr. Tucker said staff has no way of knowing when an approved
development is going to get underway. It may never be built even though
approvals have been given. Therefore, the Board may make a decision on a
rezoning based on prior approvals which may not be relevant. The question is
whether that is a fair basis on which to decide a rezoning request. He said
staff has an idea of the build-out, but there is no guarantee. He agreed that
it is important for the Board to have access to this information.
Mrs. Humphris said having the information, although it may not be totally
accurate, is important. She said mistakes can be made either way, but the
worst mistakes will be made without complete information.
Mr. Cilimberg asked how far the Board wishes that analysis to go. He
said school districts cover a wide geographical area and are subject to
change. Roads may cover a lot of territory with regard to the number of
developments involved. He said staff will need guidance in that area.
Mr. Bain said the analysis can be done by neighborhoods in the Comprehen-
sive Plan as one alternative. A development on the border of two neighbor-
hoods would, of course, require information from both. Mr. Tucker said it is
usually anticipated through the CIP what is needed to serve developments
proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that would also give a time
period as well. Mr. Bain said he realizes this is a burden on staff in terms
of preparing reports.
(Mr. St. John arrived at 3:55 P.M.)
Mrs. Humphris asked if this is a major undertaking. Mr. Cilimberg said
staff can get prior approvals from the computer information system and the
zoning map. The problem is the time it takes to research these items for new
applications. At the present time, staff is at its workload limit, and there
is a concern that staff is not able to do sufficient research before the
application comes before the Commission or the Board.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
314
Mr. Tucker suggested that several recent approvals be analyzed on the
Computer Information System and see what type of information is available.
Mr. Bowie noted that the stage of development is not material. The Board is
simply interested in what has been approved and what is the potential for
impact.
Agenda Item No. 23b. Scheduling Cycle: Planning Commission/Board of
Supervisors, Hearing of Zoning Requests.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if it is appropriate for staff to stop their
research in order to meet a developer's schedule. Mr. Cilimberg said staff
wants to do thorough research without having to extend the process. Mr. Bain
pointed out that the law does not allow the process to be extended but so far.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the more analysis that is required, the more staff
time is involved and the potential for overtime increases.
Mr. Bain asked the time frame for staff after an application is submit-
ted. Mr. Cilimberg gave theexample that a rezoning request submitted on
September 24 is reviewed by the Board of Supervisors no later than December 5.
Mr. Bain said possibly the policy needs to be changed so that staff is not
pushed that much.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was a concern expressed by the LURC committee
addressing the need to speed up the process. Mr. Bain said the developers are
complaining about the site development plan process rather than rezoning. He
said he is not concerned about meeting a developer's schedule. If there is a
legitimate need for additional research time, then a change in policy may be
needed.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff can look at the amount of time involved by
simply analyzing a few recent applications and determining whether the sched-
ule needs to be adjusted for next year, if more staff is not going to be
available.
Mr. Bain said developers complain about the number of regulations and the
delays caused by them, not about staff delay.
Mr. Bowie said he asked the Clerk to research the timing for approval of
a mobile home application. He said it took three to four months to get
approval. There was an objection from neighbors causing a delay, advertise-
ment is required twice in the newspaper for the Planning Commission hearing
and twice for the Board of Supervisors and a public hearing must be scheduled.
Then it takes another week to write a letter notifying the applicant of
approval. He said it can take up to five months on a major application. He
feels that one cause of the delay is the State law requiring advertisement.
Mr. Rittenhouse said when the Commission is hearing items at 11:00 P.M.
and later, it is not fair to the applicant, the Commission or to the County.
However, if items are deferred, a backlog begins to accumulate. Adherence to
a pre-determined schedule reduces the efficiency of the work of the Planning
Commission at times.
Mr. Tucker said another approach is to limit the number of applications
accepted per month or per advertising period. That way a smaller number of
applications is dealt with at each meeting instead of whatever comes in before
the meeting.
Mr. Bowie said the Clerk published a memorandum recently~stating the
Board's goal of not having more than seven petitions on one agenda and with a
goal of hearing no new items after 11:00 P.M. He said the Planning Commission
can establish the same type of goals.
Mr. Bowie said there is also the problem of citizens who have been
waiting for hours to speak to an item that is then deferred. Mrs. Humphris
said that is the price of good citizenship. Mr. Bowie said he does not feel
the Board should make it any harder on citizens.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is working on a new fee schedule for all zoning
submittals. Possibly at the same time, staff can consider a change in the
policy for scheduling applications.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
315
Mr. Keeler said there are factors that increase the length of time
between the submittal and the public hearing. Proffer analysis, background
information regarding approvals in the surrounding area and the length of time
it takes state agencies to make reviews all add to the time delay.
Mr. Bowie asked that the distinction be made between applications for an
apartment complex and an individual who simply wants a mobile home approved.
In his opinion, simple applications should not be held up because they are
being heard in chronological order.
Agenda Item No. 23d. Planning Department Work Program and Priorities.
Mr. Bowie said the Board received the Planning Department's work program
and priorities listing after this agenda was published. He said if Board
members have questions, they can ask them.
Agenda Item No. 23e. Overall direction to the Planning Commission from
the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bowie asked if Planning Commission members have specific items they
want to address.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if an analysis made by staff indicating that a
development is within the Comprehensive Plan guidelines but will cause over-
crowding in a school, for example, is a valid reason in the Board's view for a
recommendation for denial. Mr. Rittenhouse said he is concerned about the
pace of development as well as development meeting the Comprehensive Plan
guidelines. Mr. Bowie said he feels that it is an appropriate reason for
denial.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like decisions made based on the Comprehen-
sive Plan, but using discretion. She said if something is based on the
Comprehensive Plan but is premature, then it is not appropriate now.
Mr. Johnson said he understands that the lack of infrastructure can be a
reason for turning down a proposal. He wonders if a reason that is not
directly related to public health or safety can be legally supported as a
reason for denying a proposal. Mr. St. John said the short answer is yes, but
he suggests that a particular thought process be followed in reaching that
answer. He said the Comprehensive Plan is one of the most important criteria
in determining whether to grant or deny a rezoning request° He said the court
test for a rezoning is whether or not denial is unreasonable to the extent
that it is not "fairly debatable". He said the "fairly debatable" test is the
one applied to determine whether the courts will uphold denial of a rezoning.
If the question is "fairly debatable", then it is one for the legislative body
of the County. If the court determines that it is unreasonable and not fairly
debatable, then the court will reverse the denial. He said the court will
look at criteria other than just the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John said
based on his experience, in this County since 1977, the number one priority
has been given to the Comprehensive Plan in considering rezoning requests.
There are other criteria such as fiscal impact. The new proffer statute has
enhanced the importance of the fiscal impact criteria in his opinion. He said
if the Board's attitude is that applicants can offer proffers or not as they
wish, and the fiscal impact is not considered, there is no incentive for a
proffer to be made. He said the incentive may be in the approval sense or in
the marketing sense. The County has a case pending currently, and the case
being argued is that this tract is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for high
density. For that reason alone, the argument is that the Board of Supervisors
was obliged to grant the. rezoning. Mr. St. John said that is the same as
saying that once something is shown in the Comprehensive Plan, it amounts to a
vested right to have the rezoning approved. He said what the Board is free to
do and what it must do is consider criteria such as fiscal impact and others.
However, there is no legal ruling as to what priority is given to which
criteria. The Board must establish those priorities. If the fiscal impact is
undesirable to the County in a given situation, but the Comprehensive Plan
says the application is appropriate, the Board must decide which takes precer
dence. He said there are two ways of setting priorities. There can be a
pre-set listing established by the Board in the order of importance. The
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
Comprehensive Plan would be the number one item. Second to that would be the
fiscal impact, and that order could be the Board's policy. What is happening
now is that the Board makes these decisions on a case-by-case basis° Further-
more, each individual Board and Commission member is voting his individual
priority. Mr. St. John said he feels that the fiscal impact and the timing of
the development can be considered. He said the Board has a problem currently
in considering fiscal impact because the process of establishing fiscal impact
is nebulous, and the Board does not know who to believe. He said that is a
weakness in the use of the fiscal impact criteria. That does not mean the
criteria is not to be used, but that the Board is to be aware that there are
flaws in the use of that criteria.
Mr. St. John said presumably the health, safety and welfare aspect has
already been considered for anything included in the Comprehensive Plan. He
advised the Board to consider criteria which are less nebulous than those. If
the Board ever denies a request based on health, safety and welfare, he
suggested that specific findings be cited. Mr. St. John said in his role as
the defender of the Board's decisions, he prefers that it have pre-set priori-
ties. The priorities are then set out in advance of everymeeting and every-
one knows ahead of time what the Board's priorities are. That precludes
having to poll the members and search the minutes to determine the rationale
in defense of the Board's decision. He said when the Board reverses its
priorities from day to day, that is a pattern of arbitrary and capricious
decisions.
Mr. Bowie said he does not necessarily agree because the third priority
on the list may be the most important consideration in a given application.
Mr. St. John said he agrees with that. Mr. Bain said the point Mr. Sto John
is making is that the Board must specify its reasoning in a given case. Mr.
St. John said he is thinking of a policy by which all the citizens would know
that the Comprehensive Plan is the foremost criteria, and in a given case the
burden is on the applicant to articulate reasons why something else is the
foremost priority.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels that the Comprehensive Plan is the main
priority, and up until now that has been his overriding concern. However, he
realizes that there is a financial impact for every application which must be
taken into consideration as well. Rezoning in the urban area or in the Cale
Elementary School area will result in over-capacity in the new urban area
elementary school and the Cale School. He said the question can be asked why
should an application be approved. What in addition to compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan makes an application appropriate? In the case of the Route
20 North project, it was presented on the basis of providing low and moderate
income housing. That is a public benefit to be derived from the application.
What Mr. Bowerman is considering is a more careful view of rezoning requests
in terms of what else they offer in addition to compliance with the Comprehen-
sive Plan. There must be a net result of something more than simply creating
a need for additional infrastructure which will in turn cost the community
money. He said it is becoming more difficult in light of fiscal restraints
and the needs of the community for him to simply approve additional apartments
and houses because they are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bain said he feels that the question is, "if not there, then where?"
He said the Board is going to be faced with the problem of development going
to rural areas because the population is coming to Albemarle. He feels it is
a tough question to weigh, but it will come up on each of these applications.
Mr. Perkins agreed and said that people are not coming to this area to
live because apartments are available. They move here for jobs, and they will
find a house somewhere. Unfortunately, it will probably be in the rural
areas. He looks at the Comprehensive Plan as a guideline, but recognizes that
it is not a perfect document. In his opinion there are areas in the Compre-
hensive Plan, such as the Bargamin tract in Crozet, which were mistakenly
recommended for a particular zoning. In some cases, the recommendation in the
Comprehensive Plan is not what the community wants, and he thinks that is a
mistake.
Mr. Johnson said there has been much consideration during Board meetings
of these various criteria. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission is not
aware of the Board's thinking. He asked if the Commission can receive copies
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
317
of the Board's minutes. Mr. Johnson said it would be helpful to know the
Board's thinking, especially in cases where the Planning Commission's recom-
mendation is overturned. Mr. Bowie said once the minutes are approved, he
sees no reason why the Planning Commission cannot receive a copy.
Mrs. Huckle asked if the Board receives copies of Planning Commission
minutes in cases where there is little leeway between the Planning Commission
hearing and the Board's hearing. Mr. Bowie said they are normally received in
plenty of time.
Mr. Bowerman said from his ten years of experience on the Planning
Commission, his advice to the Commissioners is not to measure themselves by
whether or not the Board agrees with the Planning Commission. He said inde-
pendent thinking in terms of the Commission's evaluation of the information
presented is valuable.
Mrs. Andersen said she is curious about the impetus for the overlay
district ordinance. She said it was returned to the Planning Commission, and
she wonders what was driving the ordinance to the extent that it was prepared
without guidelines and studies being done first. Mr. Bowie said the entrance
corridor legislation is not five days late; it is five years late. He said
there are several other ordinances being pushed just as hard which are in the
process. He said he would not comment on the impetus except to say that the
Board wanted to implement the legislation.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board's push was not at the expense of putting
together a good document. He said the Board had the impression from the
Planning Commission's minutes that the Board wanted the ordinance whether or
not it was sloppy. He said that is not what the Board wanted, and that is why
it was returned for a work session. He said the Board realized that there was
a mis-communication between the two Boards°
Mrs. Anderson said she had the impression when the document was returned
that the Planning Commission needed to change it~ Mro Bowerman said the Plan-
ning Commission did not have the benefit of comments from the Piedmont Envi-
ronmental Council and members of the development community when the first
recommendation was made. The Commission did not hold a work session because
they were trying to move the ordinance along to the Board. He said the Board
felt that a work session should be held and did not mean to communicate a
sense of urgency that required a document at any cost.
Mr. Bowie said he was ready to accept the document until the public
hearing was held and additional information came to light°
Mrs. Huckle raised the question of the County's control over what proper-
ty owners do with property which abuts the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. She
handed out some pictures and asked if the Board has given any thought to
addressing the situation shown.
(Mr. Bain left at 4:50 P.M.)
Mr. Bowie said staff is developing County regulations subsequent to the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Mrs. Huckle asked if these regulations apply
to the Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. Tucker said the regulations will apply county-wide. He said the
draft has been completed by the Watershed Management Official, is being
reviewed by the Water Resources Committee and next goes to the Commission and
the Board. Although this is a County Code amendment, he feels the Commission
may want to review the draft and make comments.
Mro Johnson said with respect to the Comprehensive Plan in the Develop-
ment Environment Growth Management Section, preservation of agricultural and
forestal activities is identified as the highest priority. He said he feels
this is a determining factor in at least one-half of the matters which come
before the Planning Commission. He feels it would be difficult to find a
single agricultural or forestal activity which has anywhere near an acceptable
return on investment. Yet, staff gives agricultural and forestal activities
prime consideration because of the priority in the Comprehensive Plan. He
asked the Board to consider whether an adjustment to the Comprehensive Plan
might be appropriate in the future.
October 10, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 3~211~8
(Page 28)
Mr. Rittenhouse said much of the discussion today is dealing with devel-
opment pressures. He feels that more work should be done on policy in that
regard. He said the discussion has assumed a desire to protect the rural
areas from development and the thought was presented that if development is
not approved in growth areas, then additional growth will head to the rural
areas. He said it is a discouraging scenario to have to ignore the impact of
growth in order to avoid growth in the rural areas. He said he is uncomfort-
able with agreeing to a rezoning request which he feels is premature because
the infrastructure is not in place simply to avoid the same growth in the
rural areas through by-right development.
Mro Rittenhouse thanked the Board for meeting with the Planning Commis-
sion and allowing the opportunity for open discussion. He feels that the
exchange of ideas is profitable, and he would like to see it happen on a
regular basis.
Mr. Bowie said that he looks at the Comprehensive Plan as what the County
will accept should the ultimate in growth and development occur. He does not
view the Comprehensive Plan as containing everything that the County prefers.
At the same time, there are some things in the Comprehensive Plan that the
County does want to happen, such as growth in and around the town of
Scottsville. He concluded by saying that he feels that the meeting was
productive and agreed that regular meetings should be held.
The consensus was to plan another meeting after the General Assembly
meets next year.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board Members.
Mr. Cilimberg said when the Entrance Corridor Overlay District was
forwarded to the Commission, it contained a list of 18 roads. When the
ordinance was retyped for the Board's review, two roads were inadvertently
left off the list. The County Attorney advises that another public hearing
must be advertised to consider including the two roads which were omitted.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to
re-advertise for a public hearing on November 14, 1990, to consider two
additional roads in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the two roads are. Mr. Cilimberg said the roads
are Avon Street, Route 742, and Barracks Road, Route 654.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
Mr. St. John reported that the County now owns the land for the new urban
elementary school site.
Mr. Tucker reported that the 1990 tax bills will be mailed on Friday,
October 12.
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn to another date prior to next regular
meeting.
At 5:00 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, motion
was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn to October 16,
1990, at 2:00 P.M. in the Fourth Floor Conference Room°
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. }tumphris, Mr° Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.