2000-04-19April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors was held on April 19, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241,
County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris (arrived
at 7:15 p.m.), Mr. Charles S. Martin; Mr. Walter F. Perkins; and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney,
Mr. Larry Davis; Chief of Planning and Community Development, Mr. David Benish; and Senior Deputy
Clerk, Laurel Bentley.
Agenda Item No. 1. The Chairman, Mr. Martin, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. Rob Bell asked the Board to return the windfall from the 2000/2001 revenue adjustment to
County residents.
Mr. Tom Loach asked the Board to consider renovating the old Crozet Elementary School into an
elementary school and/or library. (An unidentified man advised the Board that all schools are being wired
for computers.)
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Thomas offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve items 5.1 through 5.3, and
to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Dorrier.
None.
Ms. Humphris.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman abstained from voting on Item No. 5.3, due to a conflict of interest (statement
on file in the Clerk's office.)
Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Education, $6,219.10 (Form #99068).
At its meeting on November 23, 1998, the Albemarle County School Board accepted a grant from
the Virginia Board for People with Disabilities and the Virginia Department of Education in the amount of
$15,120.00 for the Program for Seamless Transition (POST). These funds were not fully expended in the
98-99 fiscal year, and there is a fund balance in the amount of $5,219.10. These grant funds will be used
to secure the competitive employment of nine Mildly Mentally Disabled (MIMD) high school students using
three part-time job coaches to work on specific areas of needs.
Western Albemarle High School received a donation from Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Dupont, in the
amount of $1,000.00. The funds will be used to support the Fine Arts Program at the school.
Staff recommends the Board approve the appropriations, totaling $6,219.10, as detailed on
Appropriation #99068.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99068
FUND: SCHOOL/PROGRAMS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SCHOOL DONATIONS AND PROGRAMS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE
1 313661102 138100
1 3136 61102 210000
DESCRIPTION
PT Wages-Teacher
FICA
AMOUNT
$4,819.10
400.00
1 2302 61101 601300
Inst/Rec Supplies
TOTAL
1,000.00
$6,219.10
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 3136 24000 240325 PoST Grant $5,219.10
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation 1,000.00
TOTAL $6,219.10
Item No. 5.2. SOCA Donation for Darden Towe Park Field Renovation.
On January 24, 2000, Soccer Organization of Charlottesville/Albemarle (SOCA) sent a proposal to
the City and County Parks and Recreation Departments to invest funds for an immediate upgrade of two
multipurpose fields at Darden Towe Park. The proposal was to convert the fields to championship quality
Bermuda grass fields with the work beginning by May 1,2000, with the hope that the fields could be ready
for play by September 2000. In addition, SOCA proposed to provide financial assistance to cover the
increased cost for the maintenance of the Bermuda grass fields. In return for this investment the original
SOCA proposal requested exclusive year round use of the two upgraded fields.
City and County staff could not support the original SOCA proposal for several reasons. The two
primary reasons were the issue of exclusive use of fields in a public park and the immediate and long-term
impact on current and future park users. The two organizations impacted the most were the Seminole
Lacrosse League and the Middle School Lacrosse Program. The Seminole Lacrosse League would be
displaced from the park during the construction period and beyond, if exclusive, or even priority use was
granted to SOCA for the two fields. The Middle School Lacrosse Program already had the fields reserved
for a major tournament scheduled for the park in June. That tournament would have to be moved if more
than one field was renovated.
After several meetings and many hours of discussion, SOCA and City/County staff has agreed on a
field renovation proposal. The key elements of that proposal are as follows:
SOCA will donate up to $18,000 for improvements to field #2 and a small undeveloped
adjacent space.
The County will supervise the construction that will begin on or about May 1 and must
begin by May 15 to take advantage of the donation by SOCA.
All maintenance of the improved fields will be the responsibility of the City and County.
The City and County will make every effort, within current budget constraints, to improve
the quality of field #4 for the fall of 2000, using existing grass types.
The Lacrosse programs will not be displaced from the park during construction.
SOCA makes this donation trusting that County staff will be fair in the allocation of field use
when field #2 is brought back into service.
On April 7, 2000, the Towe Park Committee met and reviewed the proposal presented by SOCA
and recommended by City and County staff. The Towe Park Committee unanimously recommends that
the City and County accept this donation from SOCA.
In the interest of time, County staff will proceed immediately on the project, using existing CIP
funding for athletic field development, with the recommendation that the donation from SOCA be
appropriated back to that code. It should be noted that if the Bermuda grass fields turn out to be a superior
playing surface, it is the intent of City and County staff to convert one field per season, as funding allows, at
Towe Park.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #99070 for an $18,000 donation by SOCA to the
Darden Towe Park.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99070
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATION FROM SOCA FOR BERMUDA GRASS ON PLAYING
FIELDS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE
1 9010 71000 950044
DESCRIPTION
FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$18,000.00
$18,000.00
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
REVENUE
CODE
2 9010 18100 181109
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
DONATION $18,000.00
TOTAL $18,000.00
Item No. 5.3. ZMA-99-16. Glenmore Associates Ltd Partnership (signs #60&61) (deferred from
April 12, 2000).
By the above shown vote, the Board approved ZMA-99-16 as proffered.
PROFFER FORM
Date: 4/5/00
ZMA# 79-016
Tax Map Parcel(s) # 79-34, 79-35A, 79-35, 79-32, 79-28, 93-62
38 Acresto be rezoned from RA to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the
property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed
that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a
reasonable relation to the rezoning requested.
The development of the Property will be limited to those uses allowed by right under
Section 19.3.1 (1), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle
County, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the Zoning Ordinance) as that Section is in
effect on April 16, 1997, with a residential development not to exceed 813 single family
units together with a site for a school, and a site for a fire house, either of which sites may
be used for other public use facilities, and development of a private country club and
recreational facilities, including, but not limited to, tennis, swimming, a golf course with
related club house, and equestrian center. To be excluded from use by right or special
use permit under the Zoning Ordinance are Section 19.3.1 (2) and (3); and Section 19.3.2
(1), (3), (5), (6) and (7).
Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift to Albemarle County or
its designee, subject to items of record affecting title, for a public school or other public use
facilities as the County may select a parcel of approximately 27.0 acres as shown on the
Application Plan for Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2, 1990,
together with an appropriate right of way, provided owner may require reasonable visual
screening/buffering of the 27 acres.
If the County does not request the referenced land by April 12,2010 or the parcel is no
longer necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be returned to
Glenmore Associates or its designee.
Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift to Albemarle County or
its designee, subject to items of record affecting title, for a fire department or other public
use facilities as the County may select a parcel of approximately 6.0 acres as shown on the
Application Plan for Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2, 1990,
together with an appropriate right of way, provided owner may require reasonable visual
screening/buffering of the six acres.
If the County does not request the referenced land by April 12,2010 or the parcel is no
longer necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be returned to
Glenmore Associates or its designee.
At the time of closing of the sale of each residential lot or the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for each residential lot, whichever first occurs, to contribute $1000.00 to an
escrow fund to be established by Albemarle County for (1) a school capital improvement
fund for use by Albemarle County to either expand the capacity of Stone Robinson
Elementary School or to construct a new school on the site described in paragraph 2 of
this proffer, or (2) the costs, including any awards to the owner of the mineral rights for the
property described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this proffer, or (3) other items in the Albemarle
County Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) related to this project (Glenmore) or to other
items not normally included in C.I.P. directly related to this project (Glenmore).
These funds shall be held by the County in an interest bearing account with an annual
accounting to the owner. All interest earned on the account shall be used for the same
purposes as the original $1000.00 contribution. It is requested that Frank A. Kessler or his
family be consulted in connection with naming of any facilities for which these funds are
used.
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
If the County does not use the established fund by April 12,2015, all funds in the escrow
account shall be returned to Glenmore Associates or its designee.
To provide water and sewer collection, distribution and treatment facilities at the owner's
expense for the residential lots in Glenmore and private club and to dedicate such facilities
to the Albemarle County Service Authority and/or the Rivanna Service Authority. These
facilities are to be built at no cost to the taxpayers of Albemarle County or to the customers
of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
To reserve along the boundary of the Property adjacent to the Rivanna River a 100 Foot
wide green belt. No buildings shall be constructed, or erected within the green belt without
the consent of Albemarle County and it shall be preserved in its natural state except for
building of pedestrian and riding trails and general beautification including but not limited to
the clearing of underbrush, removal of dead trees and shrubs, and cleanup of the river.
The owner may grant across the green belt utility easements, access easements to the
Rivanna River for residents of Glenmore and members and guests of the private country
club and may build riding trails or make similar use of the area.
At such time as the County of Albemarle decides to establish along the Rivanna River a
public area or park, the 100 foot wide green belt area, upon the request of Albemarle
County, will be conveyed by gift and dedicated to the County, provided the uses allowed for
utilities, accesses to the river, and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed of gift and
provided further that the green belt area will continue to be counted as open space for the
purposes of the Glenmore Master Plan and required density. The green belt may continue
to be maintained by the owner of the property, however in the absence of such
maintenance Albemarle County at its option may maintain the 100 foot wide green belt.
If the County does not request the referenced land by April 12,2010 or the parcel is no
longer necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be returned to
Glenmore Associates or its designee.
(a) Road A as shown on the Application Plan of Glenmore made by Clower Associates,
Inc. dated November 2, 1990 shall be built at time of residential lot development to VDOT
standards and placed in the State Secondary System from U.S. Route 250E to Point A as
shown on the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore.
(b) Upon request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to dedicate as right-of-way for public road
purposes (i) a strip of land not to exceed sixty (60) feet in width from Point A to Point B as
shown on the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore and (ii) an existing strip of land of
variable width owned by Glenmore Associates and known as Ashton Road, from the
terminus of Glenmore Way (SR 1054) through the entrance to the last private lot served by
this road.
(c) At the time of recordation of the final plat for Section S4, to contribute $70,000 to an
escrow fund to be established by Albemarle County for master planning, road design and
construction in the Village of Rivanna.
If the County does not request the referenced land by April 12,2010 or the parcel is no
longer necessary for the designated uses, the referenced land shall be returned to
Glenmore Associates or its designee.
If the County does not use the established fund by April 12,2010, all funds in the escrow
account shall be returned to Glenmore Associates or its designee.
(a) To construct within the existing right-of-way of U. S. Route 250E and if necessary
partially on the property currently owned by owner an ultimate entrance to serve Glenmore.
This shall be constructed at the time of initial residential lot development in Glenmore or at
a later date if approved by VDOT.
(b) To install upon the request of VDOT on U. S. Route 250E at the entrance to Glenmore
a traffic signal, provided the request from VDOT is made prior to completion of Glenmore
which for purposes of this paragraph shall be deemed to be the day the last residential lot
is sold to a third party purchaser or April 12,2010, whichever first occurs.
(c) At the time of closing of the sale of each residential lot henceforth or issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for each residential lot, whichever first occurs, to contribute $1,300
to an escrow fund established by Albemarle County for a capital improvement fund for use
by Albemarle County and VDOT for (1) for public right of way improvements on Richmond
Road (SR 250) between Louisa Road (SR 22) and Glenmore Way (SR 1054), or any other
transportation related improvement items in the Albemarle County Capital Improvement
Program and relating to the Village of Rivanna and the Route 250E corridor.
If the County does not use the established fund by April 12,2010, all funds in the escrow
account shall be returned to Glenmore Associates or its designee.
9. In the event that there shall not have been substantial performance of proffers contained in
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 within ten (10) years from the date of final approval of ZMA 90-
019, then the undersigned applicant agrees to waive his rights under Virginia Code Section
15.2-2303. Substantial performance shall include (1) donation of the land described in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of this proffer, if requested by Albemarle County, (2) payment of at
least $150,000.00 in cash pursuant to paragraph 4 of this proffer, and (3) construction and
dedication to the appropriate authorities of the public water and sewer facilities pursuant to
paragraph 5 of this proffer.
10.
Development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan dated November 2, 1990
and last revised April 12, 2000, and Glenmore Rezoning Application dated September 24,
1990 and amended April 12, 2000 including textual program of development as approved
under ZMA 99-016 and amended by prior rezoning actions.
11.
Maintenance of private roads and private drives serving two lots will be in accord with
Section 18-7 and Section 18-36 of the County's Subdivision Ordinance as it exists on April
16, 1997.
12.
At least one deputized security officer (special police officer) shall be employed for security
purposes.
13.
Vehicular access to Section 41 of Glenmore will be through the existing private road
network within Glenmore. Ashton Road may be used for emergency access. This proffer
does not affect Proffer 7 above.
14. These proffers are substituted in place of proffers dated February 11, 1998.
Item No. 5.4. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 22, March 7 and
March 21,2000, were received for information.
Item No. 5.5. Copy of letter dated March 24, 2000 from Mr. R. Daniel Carson, Jr., President -
Virginia/Tennessee, American Electric Power re: proposed power line in southwest Virginia (on file in the
Clerk's office), was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 5.a. ZTA-00-003. Transmission Lines. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend
Sec 3.0, Definitions, of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning) by adding a definition of "oil or
gas transmission line" (deferred from April 12, 2000). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
March 27 and April 3, 2000.)
(Note: Ms. Humphris arrived at 7:15 p.m.)
Mr. Martin noted that the Board had delayed the matter for one week to allow public comment, but
no one from the public had come forth with comments since that time.
Ms. Thomas offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an ordinance to amend
Sec 3.0, Definitions, of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning) by adding a definition of "oil or
gas transmission line". Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
None.
The ordinance is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 00-18(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1. Definitions.
Sec. 3.1 Definitions.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Transmission line, gas or oil: The term "gas or oil transmission line" means a pipeline that conveys gas
or oil for the primary purpose of supplying gas or oil to a system, rather than distributing gas or oil to
customers. Pipelines owned and operated by the City of Charlottesville extending from the Columbia
Gas Transmission System at the Buck Mountain Gate Station to the City of Charlottesville's Route 29
Substation are gas transmission lines. (Added 4-19-00)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-99-74. Townwood Mobile Home Park (signs #75&76). Public hearing on
a request to allow 19 add'l mobile home sites on approx 12.6 acs. Znd R-10. TM61 ,P8. Loc E side of East
Rio Rd, just N of the Rock Store. Jack Jouett Dist. (defer until May 17, 2000). (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 3 and 10, 2000.)
Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to defer SP-99-74, Townwood
Mobile Home Park, until May 17, 2000, when additional information would be provided by staff. Roll was
called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
None.
(Note: ZMA-99-18 and SP-99-75 were discussed at the same time.)
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-99-18. Charlottesville First Assembly of God (sign #79). Public hearing
on a request to rezone 1.496 acs from CO to R4 to allow church expansion to be in residential rather than
commercial zone. TM61 ,P153a. Loc on East Rio Rd (Rt 631) b/t CATEC & the railroad bridge on East Rio
Rd. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Institutional in Urban Neighborhood 2.) Rio Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Pro.qress on April 3 and 10, 2000.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk's office, and a permanent part
of the record. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to proffers dated March 29, 2000.
Because the rezoning and special use permit are linked by the proffer of a church use only, staff also
recommends that ZMA-9-12 not be approved unless SP-99-75 is also to be approved. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on April 4, 2000, unanimously recommended approval of the request subject to
proffers dated March 29, 2000. He added that the Planning Department has not yet received signed
proffers.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to defer ZMA-99-18, Charlottesville
First Assembly of God, until May 3, 2000. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-99-75. Charlottesville First Assembly of God (Sign #78). Public hearing on
a request to allow church expansion. Znd CO & R4. TM61 ,Ps153A&153A1. Contains 4.496 acs & is loc on
East Rio Rd (Rt 631) b/t CATEC & the railroad bridge on East Rio Rd. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 3 and 10, 2000.)
Mr. Benish said staff recommends approval of the request subject to conditions. The Planning
Commission, at its meeting on April 4, 2000, unanimously recommended approval of the request subject to
five conditions.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to defer SP-99-75, Charlottesville
First Assembly of God, until May 3, 2000. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-99-17. Stonegate @ Western Ridge (Sign #85). Public hearing on a
request to amend proffers for Stonegate at Western Ridge PRD to allow modification of front setback.
TM56E,Sec1 ,PA & TM56E,Sec3,Ps1,2,3,4,6,7&8. Loc on Stonegate Way at intersec of Park Ridge Dr &
Lake Tree Ln. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density & is
recommended for 3-6 du/ac in the Crozet Community.) White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on April 3 and 10, 2000.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office, and a permanent part
of the record. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to proffers not yet signed, with one
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
change to the proffers. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 7, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of the request subject to proffers not yet signed.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Mr. Sam Craig, the applicant, said he had no comments.
Mr. Tom Loach said the area's infrastructure should be kept in mind as decisions are made.
With no on else rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the hearing.
Mr. Davis said the proffers affect individual lots that have been sold. Therefore, each lot owner
must sign all proffers. He recommended the Board defer action until executed proffers have been
received, then place the item on the consent agenda.
Ms. Thomas offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer ZMA-99-17. Stonegate @
Western Ridge, until signed proffers are received. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend Albemarle County Code, Chapter
3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts (advertised in the Daily Pro.qress on April 3 and 10, 2000):
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Section 3-207, to review and continue the Batesville A/F District for another 10 years. The
District, which is contained w/in TMs70,71,84,85&85A, consists of 23 parcels & a total of
915.93 acs.
Section 3-211, to add 48.06 acs to the Chalk Mountain A/F District property. TM98,P11.
Loc across from intersec of Thackers Ln (Rt 804) & Monacan Trail Rd (Rt 29). The
property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan & is zoned as Rural Areas
District.
Section 3-222, to add 81.45 acs to the Moorman's River A/F District. TM41 ,Ps8,8B,8C&8D.
Loc b/t Browns Gap Turnpike (Rt 680) & Watts Branch. The property is designated as
Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan & is zoned as Rural Areas District.
Section 3-218, to review and continue the Jacob's Run A/F District & modify the time period
of the district from 6 years to 10 years. TMs18,19&31. Consists of 1,017.26 acs. The
District is generally loc along Earlysville Rd (Rt 743), Link Evans Ln (Rt 764), Markwood Rd
(Rt 664), Buck Mountain Rd (Rt 665), & Reas Ford Ln (Rt 660), near Earlysville. Properties
in the District are designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan & are zoned as
Rural Areas District.
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office, and a permanent part
of the record. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 21,2000, unanimously recommended
continuing the Batesville District with the withdrawal of the 50.12 acre parcel to allow the 10 acre
subdivision. The time period would be ten years. It unanimously recommended approval of the addition of
48.06 acres to the Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal (A/F) District. It unanimously recommended
approval of the addition of 81.45 acres to the Moorman's River A/F District. Finally, it unanimously
recommended tht the Jacob's Run A/F District be continued, and further recommended that the time period
for the district be modified from six years to ten years.
Ms. Thomas noted that Mr. D. C. San wrote the Board to say that he could not get information from
staff regarding what it means to be in an agricultural/forestal district, and that he is pulling his land out for
that reason. She said that although staff is short-handed, it is important to "court" district owners to retain
the membership. Ms. Humphris said all the citizen had to do is to visit the Planning Office to receive
materials and obtain an explanation. Mr. Benish added that he had spoken to Mr. San on this matter before
he sent the letter.
Mr. Dorrier asked what is the difference between an A/F district and conservation easements.
Ms. Thomas replied that there are many differences. Mr. Benish noted that an A/F district is reviewed every
six to ten years, and that it does not require that property be permanently set aside. Mr. Perkins said A/F
districts guarantee land use taxation.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public
hearing.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt an ordinance to amend and
reordain Albemarle County Code, Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
The ordinance is as follows:
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
ORDINANCE NO. 00-3(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE,
OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of
Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 3-207, Batesville Agricultural
and Forestal District, Section 3-211, Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, Section 3-218, Jacob's
Run Agricultural and Forestal District, and Section 3-222, Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District,
as follows:
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 70, parcel 40A; tax map 71, parcels 23A, 23C, 23C1,24B, 24C, 24C1,26,
26A, 27A; tax map 84, parcel 35A; tax map 85, parcels 3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21,22B, 22C, 30D, 31; tax
map 85A, parcel 1. This district, created on May 2, 1990 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on
April 19, 2000, shall next be reviewed prior to May 2, 2010.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(s); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00)
Sec. 3-211 Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 97, parcels 21,21A, 21 B, 22; tax map 98, parcels 11, 12, 13, 14;
tax map 99, parcel 30. This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not more than 10 years and last
reviewed on October 6, 1999, shall next be reviewed prior to September 6, 2009.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(r); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00)
Sec. 3-218 Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 19, parcels 25, 25A; tax map 31, parcels 8, 16, 16B, 23 (part), 23D (part), 44C,
45, 45B, 45C. This district, created on January 6, 1988 for not more than 6 years, since amended to continue
for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 19, 2000, shall next be reviewed prior to January 6,2010.
(3-2-94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(i); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00)
Sec. 3-222 Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 34, 40, 40A, 42; tax map 28, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5,
6, 6A, 7, 7A, 7A1,7B, 8, 11, 12, 12A, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B, 30, 30A, 30B 32B, 32C, 32D, 34, 34A, 34B, 35,
35B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 7B, 8, 8B, 8E, 8H, 8J, 8K, 9, 10, 15C, 40B, 40C,
40D, 49C, 50, 54A, 61,62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67, 67C, 69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70G, 70H, 70H1,70K,
70L, 70M, 71,71A, 73B, 74A, 76, 77, 78, 79, 79A1,79A2, 79B, 79C, 79D, 79D1,80, 84; tax map 30,
parcels 10, 10A, 12, 17A, 18E; tax map 41, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9E, 15, 17C, 18, 37D1,41,41C, 41H, 44,
50, 67, 67B, 68, 70, 72, 72B, 72C, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 8, 8A, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D, 25C, 25C1,
37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C, 40D, 40D1,40G, 40H, 40H2, 41,42B, 43, 43A, 44, 53 (part), 58; tax map 43,
parcels 1, 1 B, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, 3C, 3D, 4C, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B, 17, 18, 18A, 18C, 18E4, 18F, 18G, 18J, 191,
19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 21, 21A, 23A, 23D, 24, 25A, 25B, 25E, 30, 30A, 30B, 30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 32H,
33, 33D, 34, 41,42, 43, 44, 45, 45A, 45C, 45D, 58; tax map 44, parcels 1,2, 24, 25, 26, 26A, 26C, 27B,
27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31,31A, 31A1,31D, 31F, 31G, 32G, 32G1; tax map 59, parcels 30,
30C, 32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A. This district, created on December 17, 1986 for not more than ten years and
last reviewed on December 21, 1994, shall be next reviewed prior to December 21,2004.
(4-14-93; 12-21-94; 4-12-95; 8-9-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(g); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(4), 5-12-99;
Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00)
Agenda Item No. 10.a. Discussion: Revenue Adjustment for FY 2000/2001.
Mr. Tucker said that, based on the June collection of revenue for calendar year 2000 and the
potential $1.2 million in one-time revenue the County would receive in FY2000, staff prepared suggestions
for the usage and/or a future tax rate adjustment for the one-time June revenue collection.
Staff was asked to determine if a refund of the one-time split billing collection of $1.2 million dollars
could be made to the taxpayers this year. Unfortunately, there is no authority in the State Code to refund
money to taxpayers, nor is there any authority to adjust the calendar year tax rate that was set at the April
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
12, 2000 meeting. Originally, staff thought the tax rate could be adjusted for the second half of the year,
i.e., the December collection, but a 1996 State Code amendment prohibits changing the tax rate within a tax
year, once the land book has been finalized and implemented.
The only option available to the Board to return the $1.2 million to the taxpayers is to propose a
$0.01 cent tax reduction when setting the tax rate next April for calendar year 2001, on which the FY02
budget is based. This reduction to refund one-time money, however, would have an ongoing effect on the
budget and reduce available funds to address future capital needs, unless the tax increase was restored in
the following year. If the $0.02 tax increase intended to fund a capital reserve fund is reduced by $0.01 on
a continuing basis, the borrowing capacity for future bonded capital projects would be reduced from $20
million to approximately $10 million.
If the Board determines that returning the one-time monies is the best option, then the tax rate
could be set for one year at $ 0.75, which would reduce the annual tax burden on taxpayers by $1.2 million
dollars, based on calendar year 2000 assessment values. However, due to the same split-billing process
that created the $1.2 million dollar windfall in FY00, a reduction of the calendar year 2001 tax rate would
also reduce the June 2001 collection by approximately $645,000. Since the calendar year 2001 tax rate
impacts the FY01 June collection, due to split billing, the County would incur a projected shortfall for FY01.
However, the one-time revenue collection from this June's tax billing could be held in reserve to offset that
shortfall.
Staff intended to use the one-time June revenue collection to address capital needs facing the
County, although specific projects had not been identified pending the upcoming analysis and
recommendations from the financial consultants for our long-term capital financing plan. The County
adopted the FY01-FY05 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with $24 million dollars in unfunded projects,
$14.8 million for the School Division, and $8.7 million for general government. The $1.2 million could be
used to address some of those needs, either through one-time payments or by paying off principal and
reducing the debt service on either school or general government projects. By avoiding borrowing funds,
the County would save approximately $900,000 in interest payments over a 20-year bond period by using
the $1.2 million dollars for one-time funding.
The County is currently looking at the possibility of purchasing three different potential school sites,
and the $1.2 million one-time revenues could be used to purchase land for one of the future school sites.
Funds requested by the School Board to landbank land for a Southern Elementary School are not funded
in the FY01-FY05 CIP.
Staff recommends the Board direct the County Executive to set aside the $1.2 million in a reserve
fund to be held until next April, when the Board must consider the tax rate for the calendar year 2001 as
part of the FY02 budget process. The reserve funds would be used to offset the potential budget shortfall
in FY01, should the Board wish to consider a tax rate reduction at that time for calendar year 2001 and
budget year 2002.
Mr. Tucker added that the Board has previously been encouraged to use other one-time revenues
on non-recurring capital needs. Ms. Humphris said some citizens have supported this idea. Mr. Martin said
he had assumed the money would be collected in June and applied toward one-time expenses.
Ms. Humphris said the Board should have decided how the revenue would be spent before adjusting the tax
rate. Not refunding the money could save taxpayers $900,000 in interest payments over a 20-year bond
period, by using the money for one-time funding, but she wanted to hear from the public. She added that it
is impossible to know what will happen in the future economy, because too many things can change next
year's tax rate. For example, the meals tax was an attempt to stave off an increase in real estate tax.
Mr. Bowerman said the meals tax was a windfall that was received during the same period in which
it was voted on. If the Board had suggested a rate decrease, they would have looked at the budget and
discussed decreasing revenues, predicting a shortfall. No one on the Board thought there would be a
windfall in the current year. Because he did not realize the money would be collected this early, he did not
factor that into his decision on the tax rate increase.
Mr. Perkins said the money would have to be obtained one way or another, either by raising taxes
or increasing property rates. For years he has encouraged the Board to set aside money to save on interest
payments. No one else was willing to do this; instead it was suggested the County consider a bond issue.
The public should get this money back.
Mr. Dorrier said the County has enough money to pay everything already, and this windfall should
be returned to the public, either through a refund or adjustment. Since the public speaking at the public
hearing on the tax rate increase was split in their decision, if a mistake was made, the Board should correct
it by setting it aside. He asked how many real estate tickets are issued during each six-month period. Mr.
Tucker responded, "35,000 to 40,000." Mr. Dorrier then asked how much it would cost to mail refund
checks. Mr. Tucker reminded him that the Board cannot legally do this. Mr. Dorrier then suggested the
Board set the money aside and deal with it next year.
Ms. Thomas said Virginia local government is not logical. The budget year should be the same as
the tax year. The public was just as taken by surprise by this issue as the Board. She has received
telephone calls from citizens who say they cannot pay the tax increase this year. This was a mistake that
needs to be remedied. The County cannot send back the checks, but she does not want the money to
disappear into the General Fund. Whatever the Board does, everyone's tax bills are going to be higher, due
to the reassessment. She does not want to compound the situation by telling the public their tax bills will be
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
lower than expected, since most people's assessments will increase.
Mr. Martin suggested the Board provide the public an opportunity to address the issue.
Mr. Paul Wright said the County should return the money to the public, because he believes the
Board and staffwere aware of the effect on revenues. He said that on March 28, 2000, Mr. Tucker told the
Chamber of Commerce the tax increase would affect the current time period. He does not believe the
information in the executive summary, and said he received misinformation from staff. He suggested the
County issue a credit on each person's bill, or otherwise show proof that it cannot be done. If the Board was
simply uninformed by staff, it should admit the mistake and refund the money, asking staff to examine
creative alternatives.
Mr. Martin objected to being called devious or ignorant. He asked that the public provide
constructive suggestions and refrain from name-calling.
Mr. Harold Pilar said the County could easily write a refund check to each citizen, according to his
research. He added that there has been a dereliction of duty if the Board was not informed, but he knew
that at least two Board members knew the effect this would have on revenues. The situation has created a
lack of confidence in the Board. If there are some citizens who do not object to paying the tax, the County
should charge them, but not charge the people who cannot afford to pay it.
Mr. Martin said what he has heard so far is that Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Dorrier are in
agreement with one another. Ms. Humphris and he understood all along that the tax increase would go into
effect this July. Ms. Thomas said she wanted to vote with the majority, but would prefer issuing a credit, if at
all possible. Mr. Bowerman said there would be a problem next April when the two-cent increase makes a
windfall larger than this year's. The County should account for the exact dollar amount overcharged and
credit the citizens, or reduce the rate by two cents, at that time.
Ms. Thomas said a credit is preferable, since, if the Board cuts the tax rate next year, the credit will
be issued to new construction, not just the people who paid the increase this year.
Ms. Humphris said if the Board wishes to make a refund, she is happy to do that. The Board still
needs to address the potential savings of $900,000 in interest payments.
Mr. Davis said the Dillon Rule states that the Board does not have the authority to issue tax credits
to citizens. The Board can change the tax rate, but not at this time. A second-half-of-the-year tax rate
cannot be changed after the land book has been delivered, which has already occurred.
Mr. Martin said four Board members want to give the money back, if there is a way to do so. If the
Board holds back the money, it will do everything in its power to get our legislators to give the County one-
time authorization to issue a credit. Ms. Thomas said the Board should conduct a thorough discussion
instead of rushing things.
Mr. Bowerman said if the Board accounts for the exact amount of revenue collected, and makes a
decision to reduce the tax by that amount, there is still no way to guarantee an exact dollar match refund for
next year. However, the Board should be able to reach an agreeable situation. They could approach
legislators, but he said a refund might not be permitted. Mr. Perkins said the Dillon Rule has been used as
a crutch. He suggested the Board simply ignore the law and put a two-cent reduction on tax bills,
regardless of what the State Code says. Mr. Martin said he was inclined to agree. Mr. Davis said if the
Board knowingly does something that is illegal, it would amount to malfeasance in office, a removable
offense. He said he could not represent the Board, should they take such action. Ms. Humphris,
Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dorrier each said they could not participate in something illegal.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is still possible to stop the tax bills. Mr. Breeden, Director of Finance, said
sending out revised bills would delay collecting necessary revenue. The December bill, not the June bill, is
the one that should be addressed. Mr. Bowerman asked how the fund balance would be affected if tax bills
go out later. Mr. Tucker said if this is done, it should be done in December. However, if it were done in
June, the County would delay the collection date from June 5 to June 15, which would not negatively affect
the fund balance.
Ms. Thomas asked how long it would take to get an answer from the Attorney General on whether
the Board would be taken to court if it provided a tax credit. Mr. Dorrier suggested reducing the tax rate next
year to offset the $1.2 million. Mr. Bowerman said that would be delayed justice, but it demonstrates
accountability. Mr. Martin said even if the Board does things the legal way, reducing the tax rate might still
increase the tax rate again at a later date. Mr. Martin asked what would happen if the tax rate were left as it
is, but a campaign is conducted to let people know they could shortpay their bills. Mr. Bowerman said that
would just make the matter worse.
Mr. Perkins said the Board should ask the General Assembly why it has to set the tax rate by
April 15.
Mr. Martin opened the floor to more speakers.
Mr. Harold Pilar said if the tax bills have not yet been sent out, the County could simply include a
note saying it will send a refund check for "services rendered".
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public comment period.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board should make a rational decision to set the money aside and return it
to the public next year, perhaps through a reduction in the tax rate, as recommended by staff.
Mr. Martin said the Board should also approach legislators to request giving local government an escape
clause to use its common sense if a mistake has been made, as in this case.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would be worthwhile to ask the Attorney General if there is any way to issue
the credit. Mr. Davis said he has explored the matter at length, but he can ask the Attorney General for an
official opinion. Ms. Humphris said if the Board decides to do what Mr. Bowerman suggests, it should give
Mr. Davis the time to research exactly what the Board is requesting.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the County is locked into split billing. Mr. Bowerman replied, "Yes."
Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to direct the County Executive to
set aside (and continuously report on) the $1.2 million in a reserve fund to be held until next April, when the
Board must consider the tax rate for the calendar year 2001 in the FY02 budget process. The reserve
funds would be used to offset the potential budget shortfall in FY01, should the Board wish to consider a tax
rate reduction at that time for calendar year 2001 and budget year 2002. Roll was called and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
None
It was also the consensus of the Board to have the County Attorney obtain from the Attorney
General an interpretation of the law regarding issuing a credit to taxpayers. It was also the consensus of
the Board to approach the General Assembly to request flexibility when an error is made, and to request the
authority to issue credits for the $1.2 million this year.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board should move up the budget process to provide more time for
examination and discussion. Mr. Perkins said that would not eliminate the problem of having to anticipate
potential revenues from the state. Mr. Dorrier said he would also like to have legislators review the
April 15 tax-rate date.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: November 3 and November 18A, 1999; January 5,
February 2, February 9 and February 16, 2000.
None were read.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Davis presented a resolution for the Board's review, which reinstated the Board's decision of
September 16, 1998 denying 360 Communications Company's application for SP-98-03 to erect a 100-foot
tower on the ridgeline of Dudley Mountain, and denying 360 Communications' request for a site plan waiver
and a modification of Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10.3.1.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt the resolution reinstating
the Board's decision of September 16, 1998 denying 360 Communications Company's application for SP-
98-03 to erect a 100-foot tower on the ridgeline of Dudley Mountain, and denying 360 Communications'
request for a site plan waiver and a modification of Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10.3.1. Roll was called
and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
None.
The resolution is as follows:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on September 16, 1998, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (the "Board")
exercised its legislative authority and denied 360 Communications Company's ("360 Communications")
application for a special use permit ("SP 98-03") to erect a one-hundred foot tower on the ridgeline of
Dudley Mountain, and denied 360 Communications' request for a site plan waiver and a modification of
Zoning Ordinance § 4.10.3.1 (the "Board's decision"); and
WHEREAS, 360 Communications brought an action in the United States District Court alleging that
the Board's decision violated the Telecommunications Act; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 1999, the United States District Court adjudged that the Board's decision
violated the Telecommunications Act and ordered that the Board grant SP 98-03 and all other necessary
approvals within 45 days of May 19, 1999; and
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
WHEREAS, the Board complied with the United States District Court's order, under protest, in a
Resolution adopted June 16, 1999; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed
the decision of the United States District Court and held that the Board's decision did not violate the
Telecommunications Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Board's court-ordered approval of SP 98-03, the
site plan waiver and modification of Zoning Ordinance § 4.10.3.1 on June 16, 1999 is revoked.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board's decision of September 16, 1998 denying SP 98-03,
the site plan waiver, and the modification of Zoning Ordinance 4.10.3.1, is reinstated.
Mr. Davis submitted for the Board's approval two letters he had prepared at their direction, stating
the Board's opposition to the Route 29 western bypass. One provides a preliminary analysis to VDOT, and
was provided to the Board for information purposes. The second, addressed to the Department of the
Interior, and to be signed by the Chairman, reiterates the Board's position of opposition to the Route 29
bypass until there is an agreement between the County and the Federal Highway Department on 4-f issues.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Department of Interior has veto power, since it was her understanding that VDOT
ignores what they say. Mr. Davis said that might be an issue in a lawsuit in federal court.
Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve both letters for
signature. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris.
None.
The letters are as follows:
"Thank you for your response to Mr. Roberto Fonseca-Martinez dated January 13, 2000
regarding the 4(f) Evaluation for the Albemarle County School Complex, Route 29 Bypass,
Albemarle County, Virginia. We appreciate your position that the Department of Interior will
continue to oppose this project until there is a written agreement between the County and
the Federal Highway Department ("FHWA") addressing project alternatives, impacts and
mitigation to the School Complex.
Contrary to the response you received from Mr. Sundra, of the Federal Highway
Administration, dated March 7, 2000, there has been no attempt to address the many
issues raised by the County regarding the project. We take issue with many of the
statements set forth in the letter. However, most significantly there has been no effort by
FHWA officials to meet with County officials regarding the project since November, 1998.
Enclosed is a copy of an affidavit of the County Executive addressing misstatements of
facts by FHWA officials and a letter of the County Attorney providing the County's initial
response to the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. We would appreciate your continued
support of the County's efforts to address the many concerns that continue to exist in
regard to this project."
"The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has received the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation
(the "Evaluation") for the Route 29 Bypass in Albemarle County and is extremely
disappointed with its analysis and findings. Because the Evaluation process has been
nothing more than a pro forma exercise to support the Commonwealth Transportation
Board's prior selection of Alternative 10, the Board is not surprised that the Evaluation
reaches the predetermined result that Alternative 10 is the only prudent and feasible
alternative under Section 4(f). Although the Board will submit a more detailed response in
the coming weeks, it desires now to express its position that the Evaluation violates 49
U.S.C. § 303 and 23 C.F.R. § 771.135.
The Board regrets that the Evaluation failed to consider a range of meaningful alternatives
to Alternative 10. Instead, the Evaluation continues to rely on the alternatives considered
and rejected in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, even though its analysis and
recommendation of Alternative 10 were based on the mistaken premise that Alternative 10
did not affect Section 4(f) property. In order for the Evaluation to be meaningful and satisfy
the rigorous requirements of Section 4(f), it was incumbent for a reasonable range of new
alternatives to be considered and evaluated. Otherwise, the Secretary is precluded from
engaging in a meaningful and lawful exercise of his authority under Sections 4(0(1) and
4(0(2).
The Board is disturbed with the bias permeating the Evaluation in favor of Alternative 10.
Most obviously, the actual and constructive use of the County School properties, and the
environmental impacts, costs and community disruption, arising from an alignment over
Alternative 10 is greatly minimized or ignored. (Evaluation, 41-42) In contrast, the
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
environmental impacts, costs and community disruption caused by other alternatives are
discussed and form the basis for rejecting these alternatives. (Evaluation, 41-61) Indeed,
other alternatives having Section 4(f) property are rejected because of the constructive use
of the property, even though School Complex will be both actually and constructively used.
A fair, reasoned analysis that recognizes that preserving Section 4(f) property is the
paramount consideration, is missing from the Evaluation. Instead, the alternatives are
evaluated as though they are all on equal footing. Given the biased manner in which the
relevant facts have been presented in the Evaluation, the Secretary was prevented from
basing his decision on a consideration of the relevant factors.
The Board is also displeased that the Evaluation repeatedly blames County officials for not
identifying Section 4(f) property early in the process - presumably because they failed to
expressly say "Section 4(f)."(See, e.g., Evaluation, 4) It is obvious that the purported
"discovery" of the Section 4(f) property in 1998 has been problematic for VDOT,
particularly since the FEIS was approved in 1993, the Commonwealth Transportation
Board selected Alternative 10 in 1995 (the Commonwealth Transportation Board selected
Alternative 10 as the last phase of a three-phase project in 1990), and the Commonwealth
Transportation Board approved the major design features for Alternative 10 in 1997. The
requirements of Section 4(f) are not lessened or excused because Section 4(f) property
was "discovered" within Alternative 10 after these other actions were taken. In fact, County
officials began warning VDOT and its environmental consultants as early as 1989 that
proposed alternatives would impact school property, pose environmental and safety
concerns, and take recreational areas from school sites. (See, e.g., Evaluation, Appendix
B, letters from N. Andrew Overstreet, Albemarle County School Division Superintendent, to
VDOT and Sverdrup Corporation, dated July 5, 1989; letter from F.R. Bowie, Chairman,
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, to John C. Milliken, Commonwealth
Transportation Board, dated December 18, 1991 .) In fact, VDOT's own staff warned that
impacts from Alternative 10 to County school properties would require Section 4(f)
evaluation. (Letter from Loretta Cummings, Environmental Specialist, VDOT, to Earl
Robb, Environmental Engineer, VDOT, dated July 7, 1993; letter from Loretta Cummings,
Environmental Specialist, VDOT, to Patsy Napier, Project Manager, VDOT, dated
November 16, 1994)
Yet, despite these early warnings that the Alternative 10 alignment was either taking or in
very close proximity to several Albemarle County Schools, and the very obvious fact that
these schools' playgrounds, ball fields and other features would either be actually or
constructively used, the specter of Section 4(f) was not raised by VDOT until 1998. The
failure to identify these properties as Section 4(f) property lies with VDOT and its
consultants. They failed to comply with their mandate to approach County officials in a
timely manner to ascertain whether the Route 29 Bypass alignments would impact
possible Section 4(f) property and to exchange meaningful information related to social,
economic and environmental issues with the County at the inception of the project. (See,
23 C.F.R. § 771.111 (a), (h)(2); 23 C.F.R. § 771.135).
Finally, the Evaluation states that 65% percent of the final design has been completed and
80% of the necessary right-of-way has been acquired for Alternative 10. (Evaluation, 10)
Regrettably, this statement alone confirms the Board's fear that this Evaluation has been
nothing more than a post hoc rationalization for the selection of Alternative 10 ten years
ago."
Ms. Thomas said the Southern Environmental Law Center's (SELC) attorney has asked whether
the Board plans to join its efforts pertaining to roads into the wilderness areas. Mr. Martin said he has
spoken with Mr. Perkins and Mr. Tucker on the issue, and that Mr. Tucker is preparing something for the
Board to review. Mr. Perkins said this is not necessarily something the entire Board should support, but
individuals certainly could. There are some aspects he does not agree with, and there are no national
forests in the County. He also questioned where the SELC's figures came from.
Mr. Davis said at last night's Future Water Supply public meeting meeting, Mr. John F. Marshall,
Chair of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, commented on the decision-making process.
Mr. Marshall agreed that his statement will state that the County will have an equal say in choosing
alternatives, in recognition of the fact that the County has the legal authority to approve or disapprove any
facility under the Comprehensive Plan consistency review. It is likely this will be brought to the Board, and
Mr. Davis will assist with the language, which will hopefully be included in the statement.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
April 19, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date
Initials