1987-01-14January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
(Paqe 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
January 14, 1987, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 97, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 9:03 A.M. by the
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs.
Cooke, to accept the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item 4.1. Letter from Highway Department dated December 17, 1986, re:
Route 250 West/Route 677, was received as information.
Intersection at
"Reference is made to the Board of Supervisors' request for a study of the
Route 250./677 intersection.
Upon receipt of your request at the November Board meeting, I requested the
Traffic Engineer to review the accident data and speeds through this area.
His office also made an on site review. The review of reported accidents
between January 1, 1984, and September 30, 1986, showed that seven accidents
had occurred at that intersection. Two of these accidents involved hitting
an animal and vision obscured due to a foreign substance in the air. These
accidents could have occurred at any location and were not due to the
proximity of the intersection. This means that five accidents over a two
year nine month period have occurred at this location. This is certainly
not an accident-prone location and in our opinion does not warrant special
traffic control.
The speed study at this location indicated an 85th percentile speed of 58
mph. Fifty percent of the traffic was exceeding 54 mph with 38% of the
traffic exceeding the 55 mph limit. When speeds and percentages are in this
range, it is clear to us that reduction of the speed limit without massive
enforcement will have no effect upon the speed of the traffic. The result
in fact may be more dangerous in that a small percentage will obey the
reduced speed limit. This mix of high and low speeds would increase the
potential for accidents.
A review of the area by the Traffic Engineer's Office indicates that the
advance warning signs from the east are properly located. His office would
recommend that additional warning signs be posted on the eastbound lane of
250 in advance of Route 677. These signs will be installed soon if they
have not already been placed. Beyond this we see no feasible or necessary
action by the Department.
If you wish to discuss this matter further, please advise."
Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. Timothy Kolly, who brought this matter to the Board's
attention, has received a copy of the letter and does not think it is an adequate response.
He spoke with Mr. Kolly the previous evening and Mr. Kolly intends to take his appeal further
in the Highway Department.
Item 4.2. Copy of Traffic Counts of the SeCondary Highways taken between July and
October, 1986, for Albemarle County, was received as information.
Item 4.3.
information.
Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for December 16, 1986 was received as
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: May 1 and May 8, 1985, and September 15, 1986.
Mrs. Cooke read the minutes of May 8, 1985, Pages 1-6 (Item 6b) and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Henley read the minutes of May 8, 1985, Pages 6 (Item 6b) - 11 (Item 13a) and found
them to be in order.
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
lPaqe 2 )
Mrs. Cooke offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the minutes as read.
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Roll
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters. Virginia Power:
tric line underground crossing of Greenbrier Drive.
Request for easement for elec-
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office, dated January 8, 1987,
and letter dated December 11, 1986 from Mr. Dave Moran, Service Representatiwe, Virginia
Power, respectively.
"Virginia Power has requested the County to grant an easement for a proposed
electric line under Greenbrier Drive between Westfield Road and Pepsi Place.
The easement request is to the County since this portion of Greenbrier Drive
has not been taken into the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion system as yet.
The County currently holds a bond for the completion of Greenbrier Drive,
posted by Branchlands Corporation, who is using the road for access to its
development. It is staff opinion that prior to granting an easement,
Virginia Power should communicate with Branchlands Corporation concerning
their need and provide surety, to the County, that the patching of
Greenbrier Drive by Virginia Power, after installation of the electric line,
does not preclude acceptance of the roadway by Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation. It is our understanding that the road surface
at this location now meets Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion standards for acceptance."
"Enclosed is an easement for a proposed electric line underground crossing
of Greenbrier Drive between Westfield Road and Pepsi Place.
This crossing would be part of a line tie of the Seminole
Square/Pepsi/Brookmill area to an overhead line on Westfield Road, thus
providing these businesses with a "loop" system and greatly enhancing their
service reliability.
We vainly attempted to push Westfield Road some time ago, and the State
granted us permission to cut that road. We would like the same approval
from you to cut and patch Greenbrier Drive.
If all is in order, please sign the easement and have it notarized.
we'll need your initials on the plat pages.
Also,
Please call me at 972-6801 if you have any questions."
Mr. Agnor said a letter was received from Virginia Power, dated January 12, 1987,
indicating that they had communicated with Branchlands, had received permission from the
State Highway Department to cut Westfield Road, and will repair any cuts to the satisfaction
of the State.
Mr. Fisher asked Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Highway Department, if he had any
comments. Mr. Roosevelt said he personally is not aware of the details on this item. His
assistant, Jeff Echols, handles most of the permit requests received in the office. He
thinks the Board should be aware that Greenbrier, east of the intersection on Westfield, is
not in the State system and the Department does not have the authority to give Virginia Power
permission to open cut the area. If Virginia Power follows normal procedures on cutting
paved roads, he does not see where there will be any problem with the Highway Department
accepting the road in the future. He does think Virginia Power should receive permission
from the subdivider that currently has responsibility for that section of road before doing
the work. virginia Land has the bond for that road and permission should be received from
them. If the Board gives Virginia Power permission to open cut the road, one of the require-
ments should be that they contact Virginia Land. Mr. Fisher asked if the Highway Department
will inspect the road after the cut has been repaired. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway
Department will inspect the road at the time it is requested to be taken into the State
system, but not after the cut has been made. The road is the County's responsibility for
construction and County personnel have the responsibility of inspection. Mr. Agnor said that
is also his understanding and any repairs that are needed are made by the person who posted
the bond. Mr. Fisher asked if there is a need to reconsider the amount of the bond. Mr.
Agnor responded no. Virginia Power is aware of the required State procedures for inspection.
Mr. Agnor said he recommends that the Board grant the easement request.
Mrs. Cooke offered motion to authorize the Chairman to execute an agreement (copy on
file) between the County of Albemarle and Virginia Electric Power Company (Plat No. 81860220)
granting an easement for the proposed electric line underneath Greenbrier Drive between
Westfield Road and Pepsi Place. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6b. Appeal: Red Acres Subdivision.
The applicants were not present, therefore, the Chairman requested that the item be
taken up later.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bowie said he appreciates receiving the 1986 Secondary Highway System traffic counts
for Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher asked if a similar count is made for the primary and
interstate roads. Mr. Roosevelt replied yes, a booklet is published yearly of state-wide
routes. He has a copy in his office and he will send the Board a copy of the counts for
Albemarle County, if it so desired. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see the information.
Mr. Fisher said he, Mr. Lindstrom and two other persons met with Commissioner Ray
Pethtel and his staff in Richmond last Friday to discuss the planning for primary roads in
this area. One of the major goals was to get the Highway Department to give a thorough
examination of the expressway concept and to defer work on the Route 29 section of the
project long enough to see whether or not an expressway is a feasible alternative. The
Department has cancelled the public information hearing that was scheduled for later this
month to allow time for the evaluation. The Commissioner instructed his staff "to review it
with an eye towards making it work".
On the question of examining other routes for a Route 29 bypass and so forth, the idea
was to get as many of the local issues examined by the Highway Department in its study as it
will commit to doing. The Highway Department has agreed to let one observer from the
community represent the City, the County and the University, selected by the three entities,
to sit in on the interviews of the various consultants that will be doing the study for the
Highway Department. The representative will be allowed to make a recommendation on the
consultant, review the request for proposal and comment on it before it goes out to firms for
proposals on how the study will be undertaken.
The four people who went to the meeting are trying to collectively write a letter to
Commissioner Pethtel setting out their understanding of the meeting. When the letter is
completed, it will be shared with everyone.
Mr. Bowie asked if the computer model being developed locally in conjunction with the
State, will be used as part of the overall study. Mr. Fisher said the computer model was
discussed. He did not feel that any of the people who attended the meeting were that cogni-
zant of all of the details of how the model could be used. He feels that there is no way to
know what assumptions are going into those kinds of analysis.
Mr. Agnor commented that Mr. Tucker is in Richmond this morning to represent the County
concerning the allocation of funds for the primary and interstate system and reinforcing
statements made at the meeting with Commissioner Pethtel on Friday.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Appeal: Red Acres Preliminary Subdivision Plat.
Parcels 27A, 27B, 28, 18B and 28C on Route 677.)
(Tax Map 59A,
This matter was appealed to the Board in a letter dated December 4, 1986, from Mr. John
B. Rogan, Oakencroft Farms:
"I wish to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission relative to its
approval of the Red Acres Subdivision which was made November 25, 1986 on
its first and preliminary plat review.
It is my intention to have in your hands by December 12th a more formal
letter stating my position and reasons for this appeal. If this time frame
is not appropriate or convenient, please notify me; and do please let me
know when I might be expected to appear before the Planning Commission or
the Board of Supervisors."
The following memorandum from Mr. Agnor, dated January 9, 1987, was received:
"The attached appeal from Mr. John Rogan was filed in a timely manner
written within the ten-day allotted time for appeals, and was scheduled on
the Board's agenda in a similar manner. The appeal indicated that informa-
tion on the reason for the appeal would be forwarded by December 12. In
order to prepare the staff report for the Board's agenda, Planning Staff
requested the promised information from Mr. Rogan, who referred the request
to his attorney, Mr. Perkins. Mr. Perkins has not provided the needed
information, and responded to staff's request by indicating he may or may
not give the information to them.
In light of that response, and the delay being imposed upon the property
owner involved, staff recommends denial of the appeal for lack of informa-
tion as to its basis, and dismissal of the item from the Board's agenda."
The following letter from Mr. William A. Perkins, Jr., Of Counsel, dated January 7,
1987, was received:
"This office represents John B. and Felicia Rogan. They are the owners of
approximately 250 acres which adjoin the proposed Red Acres Subdivision.
Mr. and Mrs. Rogan have appealed the action of the Planning Commission in
164
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 4~
approving this subdivision. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Rogan. we request
that the supervisors reverse the action of the Planning Commission and deny
approval of the proposed subdivision. This action by the supervisors is
requested upon the grounds which may be generally stated as 'hazard to
public safety' and the fact that the proposed subdivision does not meet the
requirements of the Albemarle County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
The subdivision will create a hazard to public safety in that: Ballard Road
is now 'non-tolerable'. The proposed development will generate an addi-
tional burden on Ballard Road. Ballard Road now has three one-lane bridges,
an 8-ton capacity railroad overpass, a 90 degree curve and a travel width of
15 feet. The additional burden on this non-tolerable road may be the
proverbial "straw that breaks the camel's back". This additional traffic
may be the direct cause of the death or severe injury of one or more citi-
zens of Albemarle County or visitors to our fair county. Approval of this
proposed subdivision may well create a hazard to public safety. The Highway
Department is of record "this section of Route 677 is currently a non-
tolerable road. The Department does not support a special use permit which
would create additional traffic." Based upon the condition of Ballard Road.
it would appear that further subdivision of land using Ballard Road as its
primary source of accessibility should, in the interest of public safety,
health and welfare, be denied.
The proposed subdivision does not conform to the zoning and subdivision
ordinances of Albemarle County. Examination of the preliminary plat and
history of prior subdivisions reveals that tax parcel 28 containing 65.86
acres has zero division rights and parcel 27B has five division rights. The
proposed subdivision evidences an intent to use all five of the division
rights applicable to parcel 27B; however, three of the parcels so divided
will depend for access upon a road situate totally within the bounds of
parcel 28. This appears to be a clear circumvention of the intent of the
ordinances and the previous interpretation thereof by the Board. It is our
understanding that based upon prior interpretation by the board of the
zoning and subdivision ordinances, it is necessary that each lot in an RA
district must consist of at least 2 acres and must meet all requirements of
the zoning ordinance without consideration of any areas to be added to those
lots from adjacent parcels of land. In other words, they must 'stand
alone'. It is further my understanding that requirements for a subdivision
lot in an RA district not only require those lots to be 2 acres or more. but
also require there must be a building site on the lot and it must have road
frontage. Proposed lots in parcel 27B have no road frontage in parcel 27B.
their only road frontage is in parcel 28. The proposed lots do not 'stand
alone'.
For the reasons stated herein and those that will be presented ore tenus
before the Board on January 19th. it is requested that the action of the
Planning Commission in approving the preliminary site plan be reversed and
that the request for approval of this subdivision be denied."
Mr. Fisher said this subdivision plat was approved by the Planning Commission on
November 25, 1986, and an appeal was noted within the ten day period following the Planning
Commission's approval. He noted that the appellant did not furnish a letter, outlining the
appeal, until Monday of this week.
Mr. Horne said there was not adequate time to prepare a staff report on the appeal, so
he presented the following staff report on the preliminary plat submitted to the Planning
Commission:
"Proposal: To divide 231 acres into 16 lots: six (6) lots are a minimum of
21 acres each, and ten lots range from 7.0 to 12.4 acres. The lots are to
be served, by new public roads.
Zoning: RA, Rural Areas.
Location: On the east side of Route 677 (Ballard Road), approximately 1.5
miles south of Route 676, north of Route 250 West. Tax Map 59, Parcels 27A,
27B, 28, 28B and 28C.
Summary and Recommendations:
This property is directly adjacent to the SP-86-67 Nettie M. Jones (Ballard
Ridge) request. The proposals have two parcels in common (parcels 27A and
28), but are consistent with one another. Approval or denial of one
proposal does not necessarily effect an action on the other proposal. If
this Red Acres subdivision is approved and the Ballard Ridge special use
permit is denied, the residues of parcels 27A and 28 will be a combined 50
acre lot.
As a result of this plat, all development rights will be used; therefore no
lots may be further divided without a special use permit. The ten new lots
under 21 acres are utilizing the five development rights from parcel 27A and
five from parcel 27B.
Based on the topography submitted, each proposed lot contains a building
site as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. In accordance with the County
Engineer's comments, the building sites~ will be certified once field-run
topography is complete. A soil study has not yet been completed, therefore
the Health Department cannot yet approve septic sites.
165
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
The County Engineer has given preliminary approval to road plans. The plat
proposes a 50 foot wide private access easement extending from the end of a
cul-de-sac to adjacent parcel 18D. This parcel will consist of ~206 acres
with all five development rights. While no development of parcel 18D is
presently proposed, these proposed roads must be designed for the ultimate
development.
The plat proposes a pond of approximately 0.5 acre, to be part of five lots.
A 25 foot access easement and pond/dam maintenance agreements will be
provided.
In accordance with the Highway Department recommendation, a right turn lane
will be installed to serve the one new entrance for this subdivision. This
lane will be a full width turn for +175 back to the existing entrance. Some
clearing and trimming of vegetation is necessary in the highway right-of-way
and across this property frontage.
The final plat will be heard by the Commission. This subdivision plat will
meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and staff recommends
approval subject to the following:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
public road and drainage plans and turn lane in accordance with
letter of October 9, 1986;
County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and
computations;
c. County Engineer approval o~ dam design;
de
Issuance of an erosion control permit;
/
County Engineer approval o~ certified building sites;
f. Health Department approval of two septic sites on each lot;
County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for the 50 foot
easement and pond/dam."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its November 25, 1986, meeting, approved the
Red Acres Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions as recommended by the staff, with an
additional condition as follows: "(h) County Attorney approval of note on plat providing
maintenance and/or installation of vegetative screening consistent with Section 32.8 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to the reasonable satisfaction of Planning staff in area to
the north and west of the proposed entrance roads between Ballard Road and creek on parcel
27B-3." The condition was in response to considerable concern by one of the property owners
of the impact traffic on the road would have on. the her horses. Since there is considerable
vegetation in the area, most likely the gaps in the vegetation will be filled in.
Mr. Lindstrom said, for clarification, that the one parcel does not have any development
rights; the utilization of development rights from the other parcel necessitates extension of
the division into the parcel with no rights to get road frontage. Mr. Horne said that is
correct and is a standard procedure which has been used for a number of subdivisions. It has
been verified that there are bona fide two-acre lots on the original parcel (a requirement of
the ordinance) and then portions of another parcel are utilized to add acreage. The road
frontage will be on the parcel where the development rights are taken from. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if any of the other applications where this procedure has been applied have been
reviewed by this Board. Mr. Horne replied no. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be a mainte-
nance agreement to require replacement of the dam in the event that it's washed out. Mr.
Horne said yes; the agreement is subject to approval by the County Attorney.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. William Perkins, representing the appellant, said a
subdivision is not a matter of right. There are provisions in the ordinance whereby the
Board can deny any subdivision if the subdivision constitutes a nuisance or danger to public
health, safety and general welfare. This subdivision as proposed, in his opinion, does not
comply with the Zoning Ordinance, nor does it comply with opinions previously given by the
Deputy County Attorney relative to "kernel lots" insofar as subdivisions are concerned.
The Zoning Ordinance allows a person five division rights as a matter of "right" for
each parcel of land. In this case, the one parcel has five division rights but is relying on
the adjoining parcels and a parcel that has no division rights whatsoever for road frontage.
The original plan submitted to the County indicated building sites on the nondivisible
portions of land. The Planning Commission informed the applicant that the building sites
must be shown on the track of land that has the division rights. The Commission's decision
was made on the basis of an opinion by the Deputy County Attorney to the effect that where a
property owner desires to rely on division as a matter of right, the division must be able to
stand alone vis-a-vis the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Perkins then
summarized the requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance for a building site. He said it
is obvious the lot cannot stand alone and is totally dependent upon the adjoining tract of
land to meet the requirements for road frontage as set forth in the Ordinance. For those
reasons he feels that the subdivision should be denied.
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
_(Paqe 6~
Mr. Perkins said he is not aware of any other subdivision which has done this and which
set a precedent such as this will if approved. This precedent would be a circumvention of
the ordinance, contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and contrary to the intent
of the Ordinance itself. In addition, Ballard Road constitutes a danger to public safety,
the Highway Department has reported that Ballard Road is nontolerable, which means that the
road should not be suffered or endured. To add an additional burden on this road would
essentially be a travesty upon the citizens of that area and placing in great danger the
health and welfare of the citizens. In summary, approval of this subdivision would add an
increased burden on Ballard Road and would set the stage for creation of additional lots/
divisions on the adjoining parcel which also has five division rights. Mr. Perkins stated
that Mr. Rogan, the owner of property listed as Tax Map 59, Parcels 32 and 32A, is present
and wishes to speak. In addition Mrs. Chandler, the owner of property at Parcel 30B, is
present to speak.
Mr. Rogan said he and his wife owns 250 acres which is surrounded on two sides by
property owned by the applicants. For almost 40 years he has owned this property and devel-
oped it into an agricultural show place for cattle which haS been recognized as one of the
top herds. He has also developed a vineyard which has won state and international awards.
This property has now been put into an agricultural/forestal district. He feels that this
subdivision is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and greatly diverts from the Plan. There
have been problems with water in the area and if the subdivision is allowed, the applicants
will eventually have to request aid from the Albemarle County Service Authority. This
subdivision would take out of agricultural/forestal use some highly productive land. In
addition, over 50 percent of the land is within a one mile radius of property in an agricul-
tural/forestal district.
Mr. Rogan said, at the Planning Commission meeting, there was mention about the impact
of development on rural areas and the direct effects of vandalism on crops and equipment,
destruction of livestock, the desire to regulate farm routine activity by residents in the
development and the high price of land which makes it difficult for existing farmers to
expand and new farmers to relocate. This property is not in close proximity to any proposed
growth areas. Consideration should be given to the probable effect of the proposed develop-
ment on the Capital Improvements Program in regard to an increased provision of services.
Other factors that should be taken into consideration are: the response time of the Crozet
Fire Department, school enrollment in an area where Murray Elementary and Meriwether Lewis
Elementary schools are already overcrowded, and the effect on Ballard Road. If the Board
Should deny this request, there may be time to prepare a more acceptable bid to purchase the
land from Mrs. Edgerton so that it would not be subdivided. Lastly, there is no assurance
that the proposed subdivision will be built as planned.
Next to address the Board, Mrs. Cindy Chandler said she is the neighbor. She owns
horses and as a business person with a farm, she is concerned about the effects of a subdivi-
sion in the area. She is concerned that the residents of the subdivision will later come to
the Board and request new ordinances, noise ordinances, etc., which would have an effect on
how her business is conducted. Baliard Road is nontolerable and a hazardous to drive.
Expansion is planned for Candlewyck Subdivision in the near future and this in itself will
create additional traffic. She therefore asks the Board to deny the subdivision request.
Mr. Ethan Miller, representing the owner of the property, listed as P. J. Land Trust and
Third Haven Heights, Inc., addressed the Board. Mrs. Patricia Edgerton is present as the
beneficial owner of P. J. Land Trust and Mrs. Nettie Marie Jones is owner of Third Haven
Heights. For the record and from a procedural point, the Ordinance allows an aggrieved party
ten days to appeal a decision, but does not state that the aggrieved party must give the
reasons for the appeal within that time limit. In response to some concerns expressed, he
feels it is ironic that a person in Mr. Rogan's position is concerned with this subdivision
considering that he is responsible for a subdivision of more than 100 lots, a hotel, a sports
club, office buildings, etc. The difference he perceives being that this property is located
next to Mr. Rogan's home and his projects located elsewhere. Mr. Rogan finished the remarks
with the statement that if time allowed he would like to negotiate purchase of the property,
although from his letter dated December 31 1986, to Dr. and Mrs. Milton T. Edgerton, Jr., Mr.
Rogan states: "If you would be at all interested in disposing of the land for less than your
anticipated return, which I think is greatly exaggerated particularly because I understand
you will not be allowed to place some of the residences where you had originally planned, I
will still try to come up with some kind of offer, provided I can obtain an easement from
Ballard Road and provided that for the future, I would be allowed to have the same number of
building rights that the land now carries." It is interesting to receive this letter from a
person who does not want the land developed, yet insists on having an easement to Ballard
Road and building rights. It is his contention that if Mr. Rogan owned the land, he would at
some time request the same use.
With regard to concerns raised by Mr. Perkins on the issue of noncompliance with the
Ordinance, the definition of subdivision states that the sale or exchange of land between
adjoining landowners is not a subdivision as long as the land so sold or exchanged is added
to and becomes part of an existing adjacent parcel. The ordinance clearly allows the owner
of one parcel to add land from an adjoining parcel. The applicants have attempted to be
sensitive to the topography. Although the Highway Department has determined Ballard Road to
be nontolerable, most of the roads in Albemarle County are nontolerable. There is no
evidence to indicate that this road is more treacherous than any other county road. The
Board has a duty to the applicants to examine a less restrictive alternative than outright
denial of the subdivision. In conclusion, the Planning Commission unanimously passed this
subdivision request because it met all the requirements of the ordinance and he therefore
requests that the Board deny the appeal and let the decision of the Planning Commission
remain.
There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said it is his opinion that the Board is to judge the subdivision on its
merits and not based on the motivations of current owners or prospective owners. He has not
seen this type of subdivision request before. It appears to him that without the additional
167
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
(Page 7)
land, there is no access and the lot cannot stand alone. He believes that transfer of
development rights is going further than the intent of the subdivision ordinance for lots
that must stand alone. He does not think this subdivision plat conforms in that regard.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Fisher and said he feels that this request pushes the use
of the by-right division concept past the limits intended by the ordinance. He recalls that
this provision was added to allow farmers and people with economic needs the flexibility
under a restrictive ordinance in the rural areas to utilize some of their land to either
generate cash flow or provide family lots over and above those allowed by the State
ordinance. Since adoption of this provision, the five lots by-right provision has been used
most often for commercial development purposes. This is beyond the original intent. He has
not addressed this type of issue before and does not think he can support it, because it is
beyond what he believes to be the intent and provisions of the ordinance. If the lots could
stand on their own, that would make a difference. He feels that the Board needs to stand by
the ordinance and if the ordinance needs to be changed, then that change should take place at
the public hearing level and not by allowing this to happen without examining the ordinance.
He is a little bit confused as to exactly what action should be taken if the appellants
positions is to be upheld. Mr. Horne said the Board would be taking action to deny the
preliminary subdivision plat, but prior to that action, Mr. St. John may wish to address some
of the legal issues.
Mr. Way said if this type of division has taken place in the past, in his opinion it is
appropriate. Mr. Way asked if it is within the intent of the ordinance to be able to do
this. Mr. St. John said in his opinion there are two issues involved. The first issue
concerns what is a matter of right. Subdivision is allowed as a matter of right in certain
cases, and if a subdivision application conforms to existing laws it is entitled to approval
as a matter of right, and the approving authority has no discretion and must approve the
application as a matter of law. The question today is whether this subdivision conforms to
the Zoning Ordinance. He does not see anyway in which this can be deemed as not being in
conformance with the subdivision ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance is silent as to whether
this particular situation is legal or illegal. Also under Virginia law, every ambiguity in a
Zoning Ordinance is to be resolved in favor of the applicant, or the owner of the land, and
not in favor of an objecting adjacent party or through a concern of the Planning Commission
or Board of Supervisors. Therefore, if this issue is the result of an ambiguity in the
Zoning Ordinance, it must be resolved in favor the applicant. That is, in his opinion, where
the Board is. Ballard Road is another issue. The Board cannot sustain a denial of this plat
on the basis that the traffic would constituent a clear and present danger to the public.
The situation on the road may be very inconvenient, but that does not mean it is dangerous,
nor does the Board have evidence of that. This plat is entitled to approval as a matter of
right under the law. If the Board wants to change this provision, the proper channel would
be through a change in the ordinance.
Mr. Fisher said he still does not think this plat conforms to the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance. If there is no access to a state road, the road should be on the property
being developed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the width of the lots at the boundary line between Tax Map 59,
Parcel 28 and Tax Map 59, Parcel 27B. Mr. Horne replied the widths are 400 feet, 400 feet,
380 feet and 240 feet. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the subdivision were drawn so that the lots
fronted on the road of the parcel generating the development rights, or Whether that could be
done if the road were actually on that parcel. He is not sure if the parcel with the five
lots by-right could be developed if the road was on that Parcel. Mr. Fisher said he believes
that if the road were on the parcel itself, there would not be as many development rights.
More development rights are being granted by allowing the road to be built somewhere else.
Mr. St. John said that may be true, but the ordinance is silent as to that situation.
Mr. Perkins again addressed the Board and said he does not feel there is any ambiguity
whatsoever in the ordinance. The ordinance clearly states that if a lot is to be divided
by-right, it must have a building site of a minimum of two acres, road frontage of 250 feet,
and another parcel of land cannot be used to get the 250 feet frontage.
Mr. Ethan Miller again addressed the Board and said he agrees with Mr. St. John. This
is not further subdivision of Parcel 28 nor a transfer of division rights, but a division of
Parcel 27B with the addition of acreage from Parcel 28. The Zoning Ordinance does not state
that this is not permissible.
Mr. Fisher said again he does not think a parcel should be subdivided when it has no
division rights, nor should a road be built on a parcel with no development rights, and then
use that road to fully develop an adjacent parcel which has development rights. Both of
those things are clearly done in this subdivision plat and he does not/t9 s~pport it.
lntena
Mr. Bowie said his only problem with the petition is the way in which the appeal was
handled. He also is not sure if the issue is not whether the subdivision will be built, but
who builds it.
Mr. Lindstrom said there is a stated requirement of minimum road frontage and it is
clear that there is no frontage on the parcel generating the development rights. He is clear
on the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and does not feel this plat complies. He then offered
motion to deny the subdivision plat for the reasons stated.
Mr. Fisher said he feels if this plat is approved, it will be a method used by many
other people in the County who are in the process of developing property in the rural areas.
He thinks this request should be denied to prevent setting a precedent. Mr. Bowie said there
is a joint meeting with the Planning Commission this afternoon and if there is an ambiguity
in the ordinance, that is the time to make a change.
Mr. Henley said he also agrees the five lots should be able to stand alone, but he does
not have a problem with adding acreage as long as another lot is not being created and if it
168
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
makes for a better road.
with the request.
Until the Board makes a change in the ordinance, he has no problem
There being no further discussion, the Chair ruled that the motion died for lack of a
second, and hearing no further motion, the action of the Planning Commission stands.
Mr. Lindstrom said hearing no second to the motion or another motion is an indication to
him that the Board believes there is an ambiguity here that is so substantial that it cannot
act on this proposal. He thinks the Board should ask the staff to present it with an amend-
ment to the ordinance that clarifies the ambiguity and makes it clear that the things that
are necessary to comply with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances are all things that can be
accommodated on the lot that is the generator of the development.
Mr. Bowie said he has no objection to asking staff for that information, but is not sure
it will change his vote on this particular issue.
Mr. Horne said given that the staff has not had ample time to respond to the issue, he
feels that a staff report should be presented to the Board on why the staff chose this
interpretation and the practical effects of the interpretation. The staff would like an
opportunity to point out what would happen if a change is made. Mr. Fisher asked that the
information be presented next month.
There being no further discussion, the matter was closed.
left the meeting at 10:49 P.M.)
(Mr. St. John and Mr. Henley
Agenda Item No. 6c. To relocate a public right-of-way (stub road) off the north side of
Montvue Drive cul-de-sac, by a shift of twenty feet to the east from Lot Al3 onto Lot Cl.
Tax Map 60, Parcel 77; Tax Map 60B, Section 2A, Parcel 13 and Section 2C, Parcel 1.
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report.
"Request: To relocate a public right-of-way (stub road) off the north side
of Montvue Drive cul'de-sac, by a shift of 20 feet to the east.
Zoning: Ail adjacent parcels are zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Location: In Montvue Subdivision off the north side of Route 654 (Barracks
Road), +0.5 mile east of Colthurst. Tax Map 60, Parcel 77, and Tax Map 60B,
Section 2A, Parcel 13, and Section 2C, Parcel 1. Jack Jouett Magisterial
District.
Staff Comment:
Montvue Subdivision was approved in October, 1956 and recorded November 5,
1956. All streets were dedicated to public use and have been privately
maintained. A 50 foot right-of-way was shown between lots $1 and 13,
extending to an adjacent parcel not within Montvue.
This right-of-way presently serves part of the circular driveway for lot 13,
and a driveway to a house under construction on Mr. Robinson's parcel 77.
The entrance of the right-of-way onto Montvue Drive will not be changed as a
result of this request. The owners of parcel 77, Lots 1 and 13 request this
20 foot shift for the following reasons:
The residence on lot 13 is close to the existing right-of-way (+40
feet).
2. The shrubbery and driveway for lot 13 are within the right-of-way.
A road in the proposed right-of-way will result in less grading than in
the existing right-of-way.
In regards to these reasons, staff offers the following:
1. Statements $1 and 2 are valid justification for this request.
0
Based on a field visit, staff does not agree with statement $3. In
fact, there appears to be little difference of grade in the existing
versus proposed locations.
Therefore, based on the existing development of lot 13, staff recommends
approval of the right-of-way shift."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 9, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval of the Montvue right-of-way relocation, with no conditions.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter dated November 18, 1986, from the
County Attorney, addressed to Amelia Patterson, Department of Planning and Community
Development:
"Responding to your letter of November 10, 1986, regarding Montvue reloca-
tion of public right-of-way, you ask which provision of the subdivision
ordinance authorizes approval of a restricted street.
What is being requested here is not the creation of a new restricted street,
but merely the relocation of an existing one. I believe the Board of
Supervisors has the power to abandon the existing dedicated street and
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
(Paqe 9)
accept a new dedication at the new location, under its general statutory
powers respecting abandonment and acceptance of dedication."
Mr. Dan Robinson, the applicant, addressed the Board. The distance from Mr. Corbette
King's house to the present right-of-way is 42 feet. Approval of this will move the road
even further from Mr. King's home. Although the Planning Commission does not agree that this
would be less land-disturbing, it is his opinion, after having lived there and traveled this
road constantly, that this will cause less land-disturbance by improving the road to his
property. It is his intent to bring the stub road up to the standards of the other roads in
the subdivision. He is presently building a home adjacent to the subdivision which is what
the right-of-way will serve. There is presently a dedicated 50 foot right-of-way. Mr. Sam
Parker is also present and he is the landowner affected most, because he is giving up the 20
feet for the new road. Mr. Parker commented that he is in support of this request.
Mr. Roosevelt commented that the roads are private and the Highway Department has
nothing to do with them under any circumstance. (Mr. Henley returned to the meeting at 10:55
A.M.)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, that the request for the
relocation of the right-of-way and the abandonment of the existing right-of-way allowing it
to be relocated as shown on the plat attached (Plat showing Revised Lot 13, Block A, and Lot
1, Block C, Montvue, drawn by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, Lt.) be approved in conformance
with Mr. St. John's letter of November 18, 1986, addressed to Mrs. Amelia M. Patterson,
Planner (a copy of which is set out above). Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Norman Gillum: Petition re: Sidewalk to Crozet ~ibrary.
(Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 10:51 A.M.) Mr. Norman Gillum said he is present repre-
senting over 300 citizens who use the Crozet Library. He presented the following petition
(on file) representing the concern of those citizens:
"We, the undersigned, citizens of the Community of Crozet, and Albemarle
County, Virginia, do hereby petition the Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors to act on our behalf by requesting to the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation immediately to correct an extremely serious
threat to pedestrian safety which exists in our community, to wit: Due to
the absence of any sidewalk along the south and east margin of Virginia
Primary Highway 240, near its intersection with State Route 810 at the C&O
Railroad underpass on Main Street in Crozet, pedestrians traveling to and
from the Crozet branch of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library are re-
quired to walk out on the vehicular thoroughfare around a blind corner,
directly in the path of and with no opportunity to escape from oncoming
traffic, it is imperative that a sidewalk be constructed along Route 240
between the C&O underpass and the library, in order to remove this imminent
peril to pedestrians using the library's facilities. Please express the
urgency of our concern to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation, so that this hazard can be corrected before the occurrence of a
pedestrian fatality."
(Mr. St. John returned at 11:00 A.M.) Mr. Gillum said one of the reasons for the
sidewalk request is that the C&O Railroad is removing the crossing from the Crozet Square
parking lot and it is almost impossible for someone to walk across the railroad tracks. The
entrance to the library parking lot is dangerous and if someone parks his car in front of the
Fruit Growers Coop, which is directly across from the library, then that person must cross
Route 240 which has more traffic than any other highway in Crozet. The sidewalk requested to
be built is 100 feet long and three feet wide. It is estimated that the cost would be
approximately $5,000. (Mr. Bowie returned at 11:01 A.M.) He has spoken to Mr. Echols of the
Highway Department about the sidewalk, but has not yet received a response. The sidewalk is
badly needed and long overdue. If the Highway Department will not build it, then he feels
the County should.
Mr. Roosevelt said he has not spoken with anyone concerning this matter, but would be
glad to take a look at the situation and give the Board a report. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr.
Roosevelt present a report at the February 11 meeting. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Roosevelt to get
in touch with Mr. Agnor if the Highway Department cannot do anything, so that the staff can
come up with an idea.
Agenda Item No. 8.
Family Care Center.
Monticello Area Community Action Agency - Presentation re:
Crisis
Mr. Fisher commented that this item was on the agenda in December and at that time the
Board requested more succinct information.
Mr. Kenneth Ackerman, Executive Director, MACAA, said the Board has before it MACAA's
proposal for a Crisis Family Care Center (copy on file). He would like to bring the Board
up-to-date on MACAA's budget information, the anticipated funding from other sources and
potential need from local sources. There are two elements to this proposal: (1) the startup
aspect (getting into the facility), and (2) the operational funding. MACAA will have to
decide whether to purchase or lease a dwelling. After doing checking around, it appears that
the purchase price of a dwelling will be from $180,000 to $200,000, which includes renova-
tions. To be included in operational costs is the financing of the facility. The budget for
operational costs is approximately $116,000 which is in line with funding for projects of
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 10 k
this type. MACAA presently has $18,000 committed in funding from other sources for the
project. It is anticipated that one-half of the operational budget will be funded from other
sources with the balance coming from local funding. He proposes that for the first year the
City and County pay equal shares and then in future years the payment be based on the number
of clients actually served. There is the possibility that no local funding will be needed as
MACAA is soliciting aid from HUD, the State General Assembly, some private sources, churches,
local professional associations, and through fund-raising activities. The goal of this
program is to take people living in substandard conditions, most of whom are unemployed and
with incomes of less than $400 per month, and put those persons in a transitional situation,
work with them for a set period of time to get the person into an unsubsidized home and a
job. He then introduced Ms. Michelle Saka, Housing Coordinator for MACAA, who is present to
answer any questions.
Mr. Way said he feels this request should come through the regular budget process and
funding will depend on what monies are available. Although he is not sure he will support
the program, he feels that an important part of the program is the attempt it makes to get
people to become independent. The program seems to be a comprehensive approach that hope-
fully will help the people to maintain themselves in a better fashion. Mr. Bowie said he
agrees with Mr. Way's comments. He finds it encouraging that MACAA is attempting to get
funding from other sources. Ms. Saka commented that the State has indicated that it plans to
make an effort to concentrate on rural areas that have been unable to qompete with larger
areas with homeless problems. Mr. Ackerman said a problem of going through the regular
budget process is that MACAA will not know the total funding needs at that time.
Mrs. Cooke asked what "Employabitity Skills Training" encompasses. Ms. Saka said that
once an individual is motivated toward something of interest, the program will attempt to use
that interest to enhance the individual's skills and make that person marketable. The
individual will take part in MACAA's training program. Mrs. Cooke asked about the two week
competency base program. Mr. Ackerman said that employability skills start with an assess-
ment of the individual's aptitudes and interests. After the assessment, the program goes
into the competency part which is identifying the types of jobs that are available that meet
the assessment results. Mrs. Cooke asked what will happen based on the success or failure of
the program. Mr. Ackerman said hopefully the individual is placed in a working environment,
with a 30, 60 and 90 day followup. The plan identifies a sector of the clients that do not
succeed and a 100 percent success rate is not expected. Based on past experience, MACAA has
placed 60 to 70 percent of adults from its training program into unsubsidized jobs. It is
anticipated that three-quarters of these participants are successful. The program is a very
intense individualized program and is long term.
Mr. Fisher asked if the definition of self-sufficiency for these individuals includes
surviving off of funds from Social Services for Aid to Dependent Children. Mrs. Saka replied
no. The program is not considered successful if the client still depends on subsidized rents
or payments. Mr. Ackerman said there is a percentage of welfare recipients in the job
training programs and the standard in this area is approximately 30 percent. Mrs. Cooke
asked how many persons on welfare, assisted by the job training, are now off of welfare. Mr.
Ackerman said he does not have that figure with him. Mr. Bowie said it would be helpful when
going through the budget process to have as much of that information as possible. Mrs. Cooke
said it would also be interesting to look at how many of the welfare recipients continue
through the program in order to upgrade their skills and once those skills are upgraded will
in fact enter the job market. Ms. Saka commented that the minimum wage will often cause an
individual to revert back to welfare because the individual cannot afford health insurance
and day care payments. Mr. Fisher said he more clearly understands the proposal and looks
forward to hearing more during budget review.
Agenda Item No. 9. Set Public Hearing Date to amend Article III of the Parks & Recrea-
tion Ordinance re: Water Supply Reservoirs Utilized by the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated January 8, 1987:
"Chapter 14 of the County Code is devoted to regulations of Parks and
Recreation operation. Article III of that chapter regulates recreational
uses of water supply reservoirs utilized by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority (RWSA), namely Sugar Hollow, Ragged Mountain, South Fork Rivanna,
Beaver Creek, and Totier Creek. RWSA is requesting revisions to the current
ordinance, as follows:
1. Prohibit discharging of firearms;
e
Prohibit camping at all times (current codes prohibits overnight
camping only);
Transfer responsibility of issuance of fishing and parking permits at
Ragged Mountain Reservoir from the City Public Works Department to
RWSA;
Correct existing language under "permitted uses" of boating with
noncombustible engines to noncombustion engines;
Strengthen the language of the existing code prohibiting canoeing and
boating in the Sugar Hollow Reservoir to state that all boats are
prohibited;
Add two new sections that (1) require posting by RWSA of the hours the
reservoirs are available for public use, and (2) prohibit fires at all
times except any required for watershed management.
The need for these revisions has occurred as enforcement of the code has
been administered over the past several years, and as complaints from
l?i
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
(~i)
adjacent property owners and users have been dealt with. RWSA contacted
users and fishing organizations, held hearings on the proposed revisions,
and had no public opposition.
Attached (on file) is a copy of the ordinance incorporating these revisions.
It is recommended that you authorize a public hearing be advertised for
February 11 to consider revising the County Code."
Mr. Way offered motion to set a public hearing to amend Article III of the Parks and
Recreation Ordinance for February 11, 1987. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10.
Equipment.
Request Authorization to Purchase Police Department Data Processing
(Mrs. Cooke left the meeting at 11:25 A.M.) Mr. Agnor said when the Police Department
was first created, two things were needed, a new information system for filing and recording
activities of the department, and a study of the County's Data Processing Department.
Mr. Agnor said since the Police Department was first created in 1984, there has been a
need for an information system for filing and recording activities of that department. Chief
Frank Johnstone is requesting $52,000 for lease of both hardware and software for this
purpose. The in-house Automatic Needs Assessment Committee has reviewed this request and
found that the software costs alone for putting this operation on the computer mainframe is
far in excess of this figure. It would also create a need to run the Data Processing Depart-
ment 24-hours a day, 365 days a year; this is not possible at this time. The equipment that
is recommended for this purpose is to stand alone, but is compatible with the mainframe.
(Mrs. Cooke returned to the meeting at 11:31 A.M.)
Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Ray Jones has analyzed the request and concluded that instead of
leasing the equipment as requested by Chief Johnstone, it would be cheaper to purchase the
equipment at this time for a cost of approximately $61,000. The finance director and Mr.
Jones examined this from the standpoint of interest currently being earned on the General
Fund balance, and concluded that this purchase could save approximately $8,000 over financing
the purchase over a number of years.
Mr. Agnor said the request is that the staff be authorized to proceed with the automa-
tion of the Police Department with the purchase of IBM hardware and software at a cost of
$52,485, and that those funds be used from the General Fund balance rather than extending the
payment over several years with a lease.
Mr. Fisher asked about additional costs. Chief Johnstone said this equipment will not
require the hiring of additional staff. The equipment will just help them improve their
productivity. If the equipment is purchased, maintenance will cost about $1,300 a year.
Mr. Bowie asked if the system is to be operated with clerical staff already employed, if
that will occur after the several years of back-logged information is computerized? Chief
Johnstone said he has some salary funds in his budget that may not be expended in the current
fiscal year, and he has talked with executive staff about hiring part-time people on a
temporary basis to get the back-logged information entered.
Mr. Fisher asked how many terminals are included in this system. Chief Johnstone said
three will be purchased, and there is already a unit in the office that can be used as a
point of inquiry, making a total of four.
Mr. Agnor said he would like to mention that the 911 Dispatch Center is now manually
operated, but is beginning to build up a huge manual recording system. The 911 Management
Board is looking at automating that information, and this system has been checked to be sure
it will be compatible with the 911 system; when a call comes into 911, it may be automati-
cally transferred into the Police Department's record system. The City and the University
already have automated systems.
At this point, Mr. Bowie moved approval of the request. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Way. Mr. Fisher said he has some concern about purchasing a system, since he sees no advan-
tage to purchase over lease. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much difference it makes that the
County is not a taxable entity in making this type of decision? Mr. Bowie said he would like
the staff to consider the dollar advantage to the County of leasing, but to proceed with this
request and do whatever is in the best financial interests of the county.
The Chairman said there is a motion and second on the floor to authorize the appropria-
tion as requested; if there is no further discussion the roll would be called. The motion
then carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. lla. Appropriation: Improvements to Circuit Courtroom.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated January 7, 1987:
"Staff has been dealing with the acoustical problem at the Courthouse since
mid-summer. The services of architects, consultants, and engineers were
obtained to seek a solution to the problem. In addition to the costs
January 14, 19Q~ ~ .... 1=~
~, ~-~ .... Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
incurred for these professionals, certain permanent and temporary improve-
ments were made by Bill Sullivan, Director of Staff Services, based upon
recommendations of professionals, such as plastic storm windows, temporarily
hanging 4 x 8 panels and additional insulation over the two small rooms in
the northeast corner of the main courtroom.
On January 6, 1987, I received an estimate from Johnson, Craven and Gibson
as follows:
For providing and installing acoustical wall treatment as recommended
by the consultant, $19,750.
For removing existing ceiling in main courtroom and replacing it with
drywall and acoustical tile finish, removing grills and lights, replac-
ing lights and necessary painting, $40,000.
Attached is a listing broken down into cost-to-date and future costs to
complete the project. Staff is of the opinion that the acoustical wall
treatment as recommended by the consultant could be accomplished during the
two weeks vacation for the Judge in February. However, if you chose to
replace the ceiling, the entire project would take six to eight weeks. This
would probably require some type of temporary arrangements for court.
Staff recommends approval of an appropriation to Code 9000-600097, Court
Square Building, in the amount of $82,980 if you chose to replace the
ceiling or $42,980 if you only wish to solve the acoustical problem. The
appropriation is to be made from Capital Improvement Fund Balance with
authority granted to the Director of Finance to make the proper line item
distribution. It is important for the action to be taken at your
January 14, 1987, meeting in order that the acoustical problem can be
addressed during the Judge~s vacation in February.
COURTHOUSE ACOUSTICAL RENOVATIONS
I. Costs Incurred To Date:
II.
A)
Professional Consultants and Architects:
Joul Loving - (asbestos evaluation)
Hankins and Anderson (acoustical evaluation)
Johnson, Craven and Gibson (architects)
Sub-total
B)
Installation of Plastic Storm Windows
Temporary Panels and Insulation
Sub-total
Estimates of Future Project Cost:
$ 1,000
3,650
7,500
$10,330
750
$12,150
$11,080
III.
A) Acoustical Wall Treatment $19,750
B) Replacement of Ceiling 40,000
Sub-total
Total Appropriations Needed
$59,750
A) Excluding Ceiling Costs $42,980
B) Including Ceiling Costs $82,980
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this is the last building project that includes asbestos removal.
Mr. Agnor said to his knowledge, yes. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the entire project should
be done. He then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following resolution
appropriating $82,980 for acoustical renovations for the Circuit Courtroom:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $82,980 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the
CIP Undesignated Fund Balance and transferred to Acoustical Renovations
for Circuit Courtroom,
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded votes:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. llb. Appropriation: Scottsville Gymnasium Floor.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated January 7, 1987:
"As requested by Rev. Way, staff has looked into the costs of floor cover-
ings for the gym at the Scottsville Community Center. This was requested to
protect the gymnasium flooring when other events or activities were being
held in the gym.
The total cost of the covering is $3250; which is a heavy-duty vinyl cover-
ing which can be rolled out to protect the surface. Should the Board agree
to this protective measure, staff would recommend that the covering be
purchased out of the Board of Supervisors' contingency account."
173
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Bowie asked the expected life of the vinyl covering. Mr. Agnor said it depends on
the usage. Mrs. Cooke asked the type of activities that can take place on the covering. Mr.
Way said some of the activities that are presently taking place are the setting up and
removal of chairs for dramatic performances, contests, exhibits, etc. Mrs. Cooke commented
that a covering of this type would eliminate such activities as dances. Mr. Henley asked
what type of floor problems are encountered at the other schools. Mr. Way said that most of
the school gymnasiums used for those purposes do not have wood floors as this gym does. This
is probably the last time something can be done to protect this floor. If another
problem arises, the Board will be .faced with replacing the floor in its entirety. Mr. Fisher
asked if there will be any additional labor costs. Mr. Agnor replied no.
Mr. Way offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolution,
transferring $3,250 for gymnasium floor covering at the Scottsville Community Center:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $3,250 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
Board of Supervisors' Contingency and transferred to floor covering for
gym at $cottsville School and coded to 1-1000-71000-700200, Parks &
Recreation Furniture & Fixtures.
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(Note: At 12:00 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch. The Board reconvened at 1:05 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 12.
Bowie.
Analysis of Albemarle County Real Property Tax Rate - Report by Mr.
Mr. Bowie presented the following report entitled: "Analysis of Revenues, Expenditures,
Fund Balances and Real Estate Tax Rates, Albemarle County, Virginia, Fiscal Years Ending
June 30, 1982 - 1986," to the Board:
I. Introduction.
For the past three years, I, and other members of the Board, have struggled with
the problem of makin§ a meaningful impact on the county's budget process.
Annually we have held work sessions on the budget, each session often several
hours lon§. In the end, however, we were able to influence the outcome by plus
or minus less than $100,000 -- in a budget in excess of $50 million.
This study is an attempt to analyze County revenues and expenses over the past
five years, and compare those revenues and expenses as they relate to the effect
on our major source of local revenue, the real property tax.
The figures presented in this report come primarily from two sources: 1) the
Albemarle County adopted budgets for the years 1982 to 1986: and 2) the official
Audits of Albemarle County for the same years. These documents were of course
presented to the Board and approved by the Boards sitting at the time. Addition-
ally, official memoranda and reports, which from time to time have been before
the Board, are also cited. Where a specific memo is used, it is referenced in
the body of the study, otherwise expense and revenue figures come from the budget
or audit, as applicable.
In preparing this study I have worked closely with the County Executive, the
Deputy Executive for Administration, and the Director of Finance. At this point,
I would like to thank all staff involved for their cooperation, patience and
response to continual requests for information.
II. Real Estate Assessment.
Virginia State Law requires that the real property assessment be based on "fair
market value." Since 1976, Albemarle County has reassessed all real prpperty on a
biennial basis. These reassessments were completed in 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984,
and 1986. The newly assessed "fair market value" becomes the basis for taxation
as of January 1 of the next year. For example: the assessment completed in 1986
becomes the assessed value as of January 1, 1987.. The last tax assessment
notices were mailed to county residents during the last week in December, 1986.
It is this tax assessment against which the second part of the equation - the TAX
RATE is applied.
For this analysis, we will consider both the cumulative effect of the tax reas-
sessments and the tax rate during the period 1980 to 1986.
A. Reassessments:
Since 1980, there have been three reassessments, taking effect on January 1
of 1981, 1983, and 1985. A fourth reassessment has just been completed and
effects the tax value of property as of January 1, 1987. The amount of the
four reassessment increases as it affects property on the rolls two years
earlier (new construction not included) is shown below:
i74
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
January 1 Percent Increase
1981 22.18
1983 13.30
1985 12.80
1987 11.42
(Source: Director of Finance memos of January 21, 1981;
December 27, 1982; December 18, 1984; December 19, 1986;
all on file in Finance Department.)
Cumulatively the four reassessments have increased the assessed value of the
average home in Albemarle County by 73.98% in just seven years. Converted
to dollars, we see that a home assessed at $60,000 in 1980 is now valued at
$104,320.
Year Percent Increase Assessed Value
1980 Base $ 60,000
1981 22.18 73,260
1983 13.30 83,004
1985 12.80 93,628
1987 11.42 104,320
Inflation:
Part of this increase is due to the effect of inflation during the same
period. The chart below shows the effect of inflation on this same $60,000
home during the same period.
Year
Percent Inflation
Inflation Value
1980 Base $ 60,000
1981 11.0 66,600
1982 5.0 69,930
1983 2.9 71,958
1984 4.2 74,980
1985 3.2 77,380
1986 1.7 78,695
(Source: U.S. Dol., Bureau of Labor Statistics. From Tayloe
Murphy Institute, October, 1986.)
In summary, inflation has caused the average $60,000 home in Albemarle
County to increase in value by 31.1% or $18,695 while the reassessment
process has increased the value by $44,320 or 73.98%. This is a true
increase in tax base of 42.88%.
The difference between the growth in assessed value and the increase due to
inflation is shown graphically:
Assessment
Inflation
(z)
80
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
Year
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
Fair Market Value:
As stated earlier, property assessment is based on fair market value as
required by state law. In the interest of good management, this seems
proper. It is important that government know the value of property within
its borders in order to make proper decisions (one of these decisions being
appropriate tax rate) and to assess the "financial health" of the community.
To the individual homeowner it is of interest perhaps, but of no real value
unless they plan to sell the home. If the property is the home place, or if
the residents plan to live in the home for several years, it only means that
taxes are going up while the income with which to pay those taxes may not
be. Even in jobs protected from inflation, real property taxes have been
going up at a greater rate than income.
175
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
(Page 15)
III. Tax Rate:
The second factor to be considered is the tax rate, or the dollar rate applied
against the assessed value of property to determine the individual tax burden.
In Albemarle County, the rate is applied against each $100 of assessed value.
Since 1980, the tax rate in Albemarle County has been:
FY 79-80 through FY 81-82
FY 82-83 through FY 85-86
$0.67 per $100
$0.77 per $100
(Source: Audit of FY 84-85, Schedule 6, Page 44.)
By applying the tax rate to the assessed values, we see the history of taxes on
the average home in Albemarle County assessed at $60,000 in 1980.
Year Assessed Value
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
$ 60,000
73 260
73 260
83 004
83 004
93 628
93 628
104,320
Tax Rate Tax Total(s)
$ 0.67 $402
0.67 491
0.67 491
0.77 639
0.77 639
0.77 721
0.77 721 $ 4,104
0.77 803 $ 4~907
The taxes paid on the average home increased by 79% from 1980 to 1986. With the
increase in value reported in the Finance Director's memo of December 19, 1986,
taxes paid on this property in 1987 will be $803, a 100% increase in taxes since
1980.
A. Increased Rate:
For FY 82-83, the Board of Supervisors increased the tax rate from
$0.67/$100 to $0.77/$100. The reason was to offset the anticipated costs of
the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City of Charlottesville, In fact, at
the time, it appeared that additional increases of $0.10 per year would be
needed just to meet this need. The balance of this study will examine the
county's revenues, expenses and fund balances for the past five years to
attempt to determine whether this tax rate is still justified.
IV. County Revenues and Expenses:
Each year the Board develops and enacts a budget for the coming fiscal year.
This budget is based on estimated revenues and expenses. After the year is over,
actual revenues and expenses are determined by the audit process. If we realized
a net "gain" on our operations, fund balances increase. Should there be an
operating "loss", fund balances decrease. What are our experiences for the past
five years?
A. Revenues:
The memo from the Director of Finance and Deputy Director of Finance dated
October 1, 1986, reported the variance in estimated and actual revenues
through 1985. Adding 1986 from the now completed audit gives the following
results:
Revenues Budget vs. Actual
Budget
Actual
Differences
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
$34,726,243 $38,671,866
35,738,061 39~405,860
+$ 1,011,818 +$ 733,994
$41,384,846
44,413~244
+$ 3,028,398
$44,947,237
47~029,112
+$ 2,081,875
$50,858,815
53~006~950
+$ 2,148,135
We have consistently received greater revenues than anticipated. The
five-year total is $8,993,220.
B. Expenses:
Comparing the estimated expenses as contained in the approved budgets for
the five years with the audited results for the same years shows:
Budget
Actual
Differences
Expenses - Budget vs. Actual
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
$33,004,364 $37,098,191 $39,005,566 $43,097,266 $48,679,585
32~053,183 36,534,983 38~161.988 42,410,608 47~699~118
-$ 951,463 -$ 563,208 -$ 843,578 -$ 686,658 -$ 980,467
For the five years, we have consistently spent less than appropriated, a
total of $4,025,374. The total apparent gain is $13,018,594. It is appro-
priate to ask "where is the money?" As stated earlier, if this were a true
gain, the money would be in the County's fund balances.
V. Fund Balances 1982 to 1986:
The audit reports for Albemarle County give the following fund balances for the
years ending June 30, 1982 through 1986:
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
___~e 16)
1982
1983
1984
1985
General $7,313,393
School (1,094,838)
Capital 1,346,115
General $7,706,640
School (1,473,207)
Capital 4,829,608
General $10,708,778
School 285,054
Capital 3,776,546
General $13,091,435
School 272,378
Capital 1,855,049
$ 7,564,670
$11,063,041
$14,770,378
$15,218,862
1986
General $15,597,035
School 409,604
Capital 3,498,395
$19,505,034
In the five years covered, the fund balances have increased from $7,564,670 to
$19,505,034, an increase of $11,940,364. How does this relate to the surpluses
shown in Section IV above?
Total surpluses from revenues and expenses
Increase in Fund Balances
Difference
$13,018,594
11,940,364
$ 1,078,230
In the fund balances shown above, note that in 1982 there was a deficit in the
School Fund of $1,094,838. This deficit was liquidated in 1984 by a transfer
from the General Fund. We paid prior year expenses (before 1982) with current
funds thereby reducing current operating results.
Deficit paid for School Fund
Difference in Fund Balances
Balance
$ 1,094,838
$ 1~078,230
$ 16,608
This $16,608 can be attributed to numerous minor accounting adjustments over the
five-year period. In other words, all of the "surplus" funds generated by
revenues exceeding expectations, and savings in expenditures, for the entire
five-year period are still sitting in the three fund balances.
A. General ~nd Balance:
The General Fund balance provides the operating reserve for the County. It
is this fund that provides the working capital from June to December each
year when costs are constant, but revenues are at their lowest. For this
analysis, the other two funds are not considered for the following reasons:
School Fund: In the period being studied, the deficit
in the School Fund distorts the true effect of the fund.
~dditionally, considering the size of the school budget,
the change in the fund (4/10 of 1%) is not significant.
Capital Fund: While there is a balance in the Capital Fund,
this balance is to meet the needs of projects already approved
and in many cases underway but not yet paid for.
Changes in the General Fund 1982 to 1986:
Value of $0.0I
Year Fund Balance Change On Tax Base Break Even Rate
1982 $ 7,313,393 $ Base $ Base $ Base
1983 7,706,640 + 393,247 135,374 0.74
1984 10,708,778 + 3,002,138 149,367 0.57
1985 13,091,435 + 2,382,547 170,365 0.63
1986 15,597,035 + 2,505,600 193,140 0.64
The net change to the Capital Fund is "after the fact," that is, it reflects
the situation at years' end after transfers to Capital or School funds were
made during the year, and is, therefore, a true surplus from operations. As
shown in the right-hand column above, the increase in the tax rate to $0.77
was not required. In fact, the $0.67 rate previously in effect would have
met all our operating needs and still provided an annual increase to our
General Fund operating reserves, or fund balance.
This is not an attempt to "second guess" the actions of the Board at the
time the increase was approved. However, we now have five years of con-
sistent financial data to clearly show that the $0.77 is not needed to meet
operating requirements now or for the immediate future.
B. Changes in Present Fund Balances:
This past year, this Board took certain actions which changed the fund
balances shown in Section V above.
177
January 1~4, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
.P~e 17)
-General Fund: Reappropriate $338,424 to FY 86-87.
Transfer $6 million to Capital Improvements account.
-School Fund: Reappropriate $5,025 to FY 86-87.
-Capital Fund: Reappropriate $676,138 to FY 86-87.
With these changes, the present status of the funds is:
General Fund balance is $9,258,611.
School Fund balance is $404,579.
Capital Improvements Fund balance is $9,498,395.
C. Snfficiency of Fund Balances:
After analyzing cash flow information for the past five years, and after
discussions with the County Executive, Deputy County Executive for Admini
stration, and the Director of Finance, the following is the status of the
fund balances:
General Fund: To meet the cash flow needs of the County from
July to December each year, a balance of about $8 million is
needed. As shown above, the current fund balance is $9,258,611.
In his memo of November 3, 1986, the County Executive reports
that based on the first quarter of 86-87, we can expect a sur-
plus for the year of $0.75 million. His memo, however, consi-
ders only an analysis of local revenues and does not consider
other revenues or savings in operations. Considering our five-
year history, we can assume that the surplus will exceed the
projected amount, and that the General Fund balance will exceed
$10 million by year's end -- more than $2 million above safe
reserve needs.
School Fund: The School Fund actually requires no balance since
operating cash needs are met from the General Fund Balance. The
County could realize greater investment income, and still cover
school costs if these funds were in the General Fund.
Capital Fund: This fund currently has a balance of $9,498,395.
Also, it appears that at least an additional $2 million will be
available from the General Fund, as discussed above. Our oper-
ating budget carries $1 million annually for this fund and even
at a tax rate well below the present $0.77, we should still
generate a surplus. Other funding sources, such as Literary
Fund loans, Federal and State grants, etc., are available and
planned. The Capital Fund seems sufficient for the next two or
three years.
¥I. Effect of Lowering TaxRate:
What would happen if the Real Property tax rate were lowered from the present
$0.77 to $0.68? Using our average home, valued at $60,000 in 1980 (See Section
III) --
1986 value $93,628 @ $0.77/$100 = $721
1987 value $104,320 @ $0.68/$100 = $709
We would in fact only offset the increase caused by the reassessment effective
January 1, 1987. The average homeowner would realize only a minor decrease in
taxes. Even with this decrease in tax rate, income from real property would
increase in 1987 over 1986 due to new construction. According to the memo of the
Director of Finance dated December 19, 1986, all sources of local revenue
personal property, machinery and tools, business licenses, etc., will also
increase in 1987. Increases should be far more than needed to meet the costs of
the anticipated two percent inflationary increase.
Findings and Conclusions:
A. A $0.77/$100 real property tax rate is in excess of our needs.
Since 1982, a tax rate of $0.67/$100 would have met all our operating needs,
and still provided for a reasonable annual surplus.
The entire amount of the unanticipated revenues and savings in expenditures
over the past five years (with the exception of the $1 million paid for the
School Fund) is in fact still in our fund balance accounts.
The fund balances on hand are sufficient to meet present needs and those
anticipated in the foreseeable future.
The adjusted School Fund balance of $404,597 is not required by the School
Fund and would better serve the County's needs if recaptured into the
General Fund.
A real property tax rate of $0.68/$100 would meet our 87-88 operating needs,
and provide sufficient funds for the Capital Improvement Fund. Even with
this reduction, virtually all sources of local income (including real
property) will increase in 1987.
178
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
( Pa eg.~_!_l 8) ·
That this type review, considering revenue and expense performance and
effect on fund balances would provide a tool for the Board to have a mean-
ingful input into the budget process by giving the County Executive a target
tax rate to be used in developing the budget.
VIII. Recommendations:
That the Board set a goal of lowering the real property tax rate to
$0.68/$100 for 1987.
B. That the 87-88 budget be developed on this rate.
That the $404,579 balance in the School Fund be recaptured into the General
Fund.
That this review be updated next year to determine if further tax rate
reductions are possible.
That this type review be conducted annually to determine a tax rate which
would be used as initial budget guidance from the Board to the County
Executive."
Mr. Bowie said recommendation "C" of the report should be changed as follows:
Board consider recapturing the $404,579 balance in the School Fund."
"That the
Mr. Way commented that the Capital Fund is committed to a number of projects,
particularly for the School Division, and asked if all of those needs can be met if some of
the p~ojects go over budget, with a reduction in the tax rate. Mr. Bowie responded yes. The
68 cents is more than break even and will provide a surplus. With regard to specific
projects, he thinks that the Board should look at priorities for all projects and decide
which ones are the most important. This report recognizes that the 77 cents tax rate is not
a break even rate and the 68 cents is break even. Mr. Bowie said his recommendation is that
this report be the initial guidance point. If there is a program that cannot be funded
within this guidance, the County Executive can so state, and the Board has the option to
decide if the program is worth an increase over the 68 cents. He does not feel the tax rate
should be set at a rate where every program can be included.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the report is put together well and focuses on bits and
pieces of information that have been floating around for a while. He feels that the Board is
fortunate to have enough funds in the CIP to cover the costs of the projects, but wonders if
the tax rate should be increased to cover the necessary funding of the CIP in the future.
There are not extra, unnecessary projects in the CIP.
Mr. Bowie said he does not support increasing the tax rate or letting it remain nine
cents higher than necessary for three more years just in case the need may arise. At this
point there is a surplus and there are funds available to fund everything in the CIP. One of
the key recommendations of the report is for an annual review. The Board has been faced with
the problem of receiving all of the necessary information at one time. The increase in the
Fund Balance has provided $1.3 million on the revenue side. As indicated in his memorandum,
there was another $900,000 in savings on operations which netted $2.3 million in total fund
balances for 1986.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to know how the Board would determine what could be
included in the budget with a 77 cents tax rate that could not be included with a 68 cents
tax rate. He would like to know what a 68 cents tax rate would do to the State-mandated
teacher pay program. He has no objection to setting a goal if he knows what the consequences
will be.
Mr. Bowie said this change is not recommended at this time because it is not the appro-
priate time of the year. The tax rate should be set at adoption of the budget. The proposed
68 cents tax rate is a goal, but would have funded everything done in the last five years
and still left a surplus. He feels that this is good budget guidance.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the report is well written and takes into account the operat-
ing side of the budget, but the report completely ignores the capital side. Broadus Wood
School was renovated using surpluses in the operating budget, the Courthouse was completed
with surplus funds, and there are other school projects underway because of surplus funds.
Many of the projects get into the capital budget at approximately one-half of what it ends up
costing. The staff is in a revenue projection mode in December trying to project funds for
the next 18 months and one of the biggest errors they can make is under funding. The whole
emphasis on the staff has been to be conservative, but to have enough in the budget for
operations so that there is no need to come back to the Board for additional appropriations
during the year. The Board encourages not spending all of the appropriated funds. He does
not believe the staff assumes that the tax is a fixed rate. They have taken all budget
requests and attempted to decide which are genuine needs. He does not feel that the
recommended budget presented to the Board each year is just a wish list. Until there is some
type of analysis available on the capital projects which are already "in the mill", it is
difficult for him to set a fixed tax rate and require that the budget process be constrained
to that rate.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor for comments with regard to developing a budget. Mr. Agnor
said the budget is complex. Revenues have to be continually scrutinized in terms of how they
are estimated. There is more focus put on new revenues then on unexpended monies. The staff
does not condone spending all money in a budget simply because it has been appropriated.
The savings and expenditures are not something the staff looks at when recommending a tax
rate, but as a necessary management policy. For example, the School Division had a $1
million shortfall resulting from an underestimation of revenues and overexpenditure of
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
_(Paqe 19)
178
appropriations. Revenues have been examined for next year and a memorandum transmitted to
the department heads. The memorandum states that in 1983 there was a huge jump in revenues
with most of it coming from personal property. The Board adjusted the personal property rate
by 12 percent over the two next years. In looking at the revenue projections for next year,
there is no question in his mind that pressure is now building for some kind of scrutiny of
the rate on real property. The recommended tax decrease is only taking into account revenues
and not savings or expenditures. In addition, this proposed decrease does not take into
account the Teacher Career Incentive Program for pay raises which comprises almost half of
the School budget. The decrease does not recognize the continuing need for expansion of
existing operations due to the population increase or the aging population. Lastly, con-
sideration must be given to the opening of the two new parks and the opening of the new
Meriwether Lewis School. The Capital Program does not list all of the projects that will be
coming up in the future, only projects for a five-year period. It is difficult to manage
finances that far in the future. He agrees with a lot of the report, there are capital funds
available for projects in the present CIP, but he is not totally convinced that this much of
a decrease is warranted. The CIP has been an important element of the Comprehensive Plan and
is going to become even more important because the Planning Commission is looking at the
provision of utility funding and road funding.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has no objection to looking at this proposal, but would like to
know how much the School Administration's proposal will cost, how much the ten percent
increase for teacher's salaries will cost, and how much is necessary to insure that the
Capital budget will meet the needs of present and future projects. He is uneasy about
cutting the tax rate to 68 cents.
Mr. Way said he agrees with all of the comments that have been made and can see a real
advantage to setting some guideline. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board can go through the
budget process estimating a higher tax rate, it can always be lowered at a later time. If
this decrease had been made two years ago, the fund balance would not be available today.
All of the money in the CIP has been earmarked and is ready to be spent on needed public
projects. Mr. Henley said he thinks the way to pay for projects is at the time they are
ready to begin. If money is sitting there available, other charges will be approved that may
not be needed. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 2:06 P.M.) Mr. Fisher said he feels the
staff has and will continue to build conservative estimates in fear of coming up short on
operating funds. Mr. Bowie said the 68 cents is for guidance and is not a mandate.
Mr. Agnor said two years ago, he suggested that the Board set budget guidelines, which
it attempted to do and which proved to be a difficult task. Last Fall he asked the same
thing, and the Board responded that it did not want to do so. The staff then proceeded to
develop its own projections. If the Board is considering setting budget guidelines, he would
request that it be started next year because the staff is deep into the process now and would
find it difficult to start with another guideline and present the Board with a budget within
six weeks.
Mr. Bowie said he fully recognizes what Mr. Agnor is saying, but he does not want to
wait until next year and would like to go ahead. He then offered motion to accept the
recommendations in his report as follows:
ae
That the Board set a goal of lowering the real property tax rate to
$0.68/$100 for 1987.
B. That the 87-88 budget be developed on this rate as guidance.
Ce
That the Board consider recapturing the $404,579 balance in the School
Fund.
That this review be updated next year to determine if further tax rate
reductions are possible.
That this type review be conducted annually to determine a tax rate
which would be used as initial budget guidance from the Board to the
County Executive.
Mr. Bowie said he does not think the 72 cents goal of the County Executive should
influence the 68 cents goal of the Board. A report is to be returned to the Board on
recommendations "A" and "C". Mr. Henley said he is not sure he is going to vote for the
proposal for teacher salaries. Mr. Way said this type of process allows the Board the
opportunity to make that kind of a decision consciously. Mr. Way then seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the budget will be presented if this motion passes. Mr. Fisher
said the budget would have to be balanced using the revenue from a tax rate of 68 cents. Mr.
Agnor said he will attempt to balance the budget using that rate, but thinks it will be
extremely difficult. If this rate is for guidance, the staff will try to come close to
balancing the budget with the revenue from that rate. Mr. Bowie asked if the budget could be
set out to indicate which projects are possible using the 72 cents rate and which are
possible at the 68 cents rate. Mr. Fisher he would rather have Mr. Agnor use his judgment in
reviewing the budget requests, and then make a recommendation for a tax rate to fund those
requests.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not object to having information presented in this way, but
by voting for this he is not in anyway saying he will support a tax rate of 68 cents. He is
concerned about the impact on capital improvements and would hope that along with the
requested information, he be given some information on the capital fund. Mr. Way said he
also agrees with Mr. Lindstrom. He in no way ties himself, by seconding the motion, to a tax
rate of 68 cents.
180
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 20)
Mr. Fisher said he is not going to support the motion. If this motion passes, he feels
it informs the taxpayers that this is the proposal, and the more arbitrary the Board becomes
in setting goals, the more people are cut out of the recommended budget. That is not the way
he wants to conduct the budget process.
Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr. Bowie had not said that everything could have been funded last
year with the 68 cents rate. Mr. Bowie said yes. Mrs. Cooke asked what would then be cut
out of the next budget by funding it at 68 cents. Mr. Bowie said, at this point, noting
would be cut because the Board has already transferred the surplus into the Capital Fund.
Actually, last year, 64 cents would have funded the budget. Mr. Fisher said there are two
school projects in the Capital Improvements Plan now that he feels will come in at a higher
estimate, and they would have to be deferred a year, or something else would have to be done,
if the money were not in the Capital Fund. One million dollars a year will not cover the
projects which must be done. Mr. Henley said there are two capital projects underway now
that might not be underway, without those funds. At least, under Mr. Bowie's proposal, the
Board gets to decide which is the most important thing that is needed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the School Board needs to make its decisions based upon
what it thinks are the best educational programs to be brought to the Board for review. Mr.
Henley said he has confidence in Mr. Agnor, and if he can convince Mr. Henley that retaining
the present rate will not put $2 million per year in the Capital Fund, then he will support
it.
Mrs. Cooke said the budget process for the coming year is far along and she does not
want to vote for anything that is going to upset that process. She also agrees with Mr.
Fisher. Mrs. Cooke then asked Mr. Bowie to restate his motion, which he did. Mr. Bowie said
this is not asking the staff to redo the budget. Mrs. Cooke asked why the goal must include
a specific figure, why does the Board not just set a goal of lowering the tax rate. Mr.
Henley said he supports the 68 cents figure considering that it would have been significant
for the past five years. Mr. Henley said he is not sure he is going to vote for the proposal
for teacher salary increases. Mr. Way said this type of process allows the Board the
opportunity to make that kind of decision consciously.
Mr. Bowie said he still thinks that Item A is for guidance, and if the recommendation is
for a 72 cents r~teTs~, that can be accepted if the difference is justified. There being no
further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom (Mr. Lindstrom prefaced his vote by saying he is
voting aye to obtain information only.) and Way.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 13. Information: Community Development Block Grant Process.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office dated January 7, 1987:
"The planning staff has developed a list of potential projects for your
consideration regarding a CDBG application for this current funding cycle.
As in the past, the maximum funding available to a locality is $700,000
which may be allocated as a local grant or a combination of local and a
regional grant. Two years ago, you will recall, we were successful in
obtaining a combination local and regional grant for housing rehabilitation
for Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. .Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program has again requested that the County sponsor an application on their
behalf.
In addition to Albemarle Housing Improvement Program's request, the staff
has identified four other potential projects for your consideration:
Conversion of Old Scottsville School to Apartments
Crozet Community Improvements
Solid Waste Transfer Facility
Farmer's Market
Should the Board wish to solicit public input to this process, staff would
recommend that this be accomplished at either your February 4th or llth
meeting. This should then give staff adequate time to prepare the applica-
tion to meet an April 3, 1987 deadline."
There being no discussion, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to set a public hearing for
February 11, 1987 on potential projects and to sponsor an application for a Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. Mr. Way
seconded the motion and said he feels a project more beneficial to the southern area of the
County is extension of water and sewer lines into the Scottsville Shopping Center. Mr. Agnor
said he will have the staff look at that project, but this application is geared to low and
moderate income citizens and benefiting more than 50 percent of the people, not benefiting a
commercial area. Roll was then called and the motion was carried with the following vote
recorded:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointment: Gypsy Moth Committee.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office dated January 8, 1987:
181
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
(Paqe 21)
"This past summer, a report was made to you concerning the gypsy moth
infestation problem in Virginia, and recommended, among several items, that
the County:
Initiate a cooperative approach to the problem with the City of
Charlottesville.
Establish a Gypsy Moth Advisory Committee responsible for develop-
ing a local information and control program.
3. Designate a Gypsy Moth Coordinator.
Since that report, staff has attended meetings held by the Virginia Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and had discussion with City
staff on the community approach. The State meetings have emphasized the
need for a centralized program for this community, and have focused on the
capabilities of the Extension Service staffs throughout the State being
assigned the responsibility for developing the program, administering the
program, and working as liaison with the State Department of Agriculture.
With the County and City Extension Service already merged into one function,
it is recommended that Mrs. Elizabeth Payne be designated as Coordinator of
the local Gypsy Moth program for Albemarle and Charlottesville, and that six
members of the existing eighteen member Extension Service Citizen Advisory
Committee be requested to volunteer to fulfill the function of a Gypsy Moth
Advisory Committee. In addition to the six citizen members (three each from
the County and City) it is recommended that a staff representative from each
of the County and City Parks Department, the County and City School Divi-
sion, and the Virginia Division of Forestry be assigned by the heads of
those agencies to participate on the Committee. (School Division involve-
ment is intended to cover an educational aspect of the community program).
Additionally it is recommended that the County/City Watershed Management
Official be assigned to membership on the Advisory Committee.
A report similar to this memorandum is being made by City staff to the City
Council. Upon approval by both you and City Council, and reconciliation of
any significant differences in the two approvals, the Gypsy Moth Committee
will begin developing a recommended County/City program. That program will
be transmitted to both governing bodies for approval, prior to implementa-
tion.''
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the County Executive's recommendation for the
following representatives to the Gypsy Moth Advisory Committee responsible for developing a
local information and control program:
1. Mrs. Elizabeth Payne as Coordinator for Albemarle and Charlottesville;
2. Six members of the existing Extension Service Citizen Advisory Committee
be requested to volunteer;
3. Six citizen members (three each from the County and City);
4. Staff representatives from each of the County and City Parks Department,
and the County and City School Division;
5. Staff representative from the Virginia Division of Forestry; and
6. County/City Watershed Management Official.
Mr. Way seconded the motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion was carried with the
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Amendments: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Charter.
Mr. Bowie summarized the following memorandum dated December 12, 1986, from the County
Executive:
"Attached are two proposed amendments to the TJPDC Charter for your review
and approval. The first amendment changes the membership of the Commission
to two members from each locality, a change which, you will recall, has been
previously discussed by the Board. The second amendment authorizes voting
by mail on housekeeping, perfunctory matters, provided all members vote, and
the vote is unanimous.
It is recommended that these amendments with authorization for the Chair-
man's signature, be approved."
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CHARTER AGREEMENT
OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
This First Amendment to Charter Agreement dated as of , 1986, among the
undersigned governmental subdivisions as authorized by the Virginia Area
Development Act.
The undersigned governmental subdivisions organized the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission under a Charter Agreement dated
May 1, 1970. The governmental subdivisions now desire to amend the Charter
Agreement.
182
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(PaGe 22_)
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. ARTICLE II, Section 2 of the Charter Agreement is amended by
deleting the original wording and substituting the following:
Each charter member of the COMMISSION shall have two members on the
COMMISSION.
2. ARTICLE III, Section 3 shall be amended to read:
In cases when the business to be conducted at a regular meeting is of a
perfunctory, housekeeping nature such as approval of inter-governmental
reviews, voting by mail is permissible. All members must vote and the vote
must be unanimous.
3. Except as herein modified the Charter Agreement is hereby ratified
and affirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.
Mr. Fisher asked if mail voting had been thoroughly researched by the attorneys. Mr.
Bowie responded that it has been checked by the attorney for the Planning District
Commission, but he does not know about the County Attorney. This change must be approved by
all six charter jurisdictions. Mr. Fisher said he will support this on the basis that it has
been researched and is legal. Mrs. Cooke commented that if these meetings have poor
attendance, she thinks this will encourage even fewer people to attend by allowing voting by
mail. Mr. Bowie said the option rests with the Chairman, not with the member.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement as outlined
above. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Policy Direction.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from his office dated December 30, 1986,
and attached to the following staff report:
"As you know, it is County policy to review citizen requests for amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations only
twice per year. Deadlines for amendments submittals are in March and
September of each year. The policy goes further to indicate that no compre-
hensive plan amendment will be processed within six months of the expected
date of a Five-Year Comprehensive Plan review adoption. As we approach
adoption of a five-year revision in 1987, the Planning staff is concerned
about potential pressure for comprehensive plan amendments throughout 1987.
The County Executive's staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt
a resolution that the March 1987 deadline for Comprehensive Plan amendment
requests will become the last formal request period for amendment to the
Plan until the Five-Year Comprehensive Plan revision is adopted. All
requests for amendment to the Plan after the March 1987 deadline will be
reviewed by the staff and commission as a part of the five-year plan revi-
sion. This request by staff is simply to clarify the Board of Supervisors
intent when administering this policy."
"STAFF REPORT:
Growth Policy Decisions of the Albemarle County Planning Commission
The Commission over the past three months had an opportunity to review a
great deal of information on growth area and rural area development trends
and policies. Based on the information provided, Commission discussion, and
public comments, the staff assembled a set of Growth Policy recommendations
for the Commission's consideration. The Commission reviewed these recommen-
dations at its December 16, 1986, meeting and adopted Growth Policy state-
ments and strategies for the continued review of the Comprehensive Plan.
It should be stressed that the actions of the Commission regarding Growth
Policy were its most important to date in the Comprehensive Plan review
process. These policy actions will be the guiding force for the work of the
Land Use and Transportation/Public Services Subcommittees. The development
of Planning Goals and Objectives by each subcommittee will be based on the
Growth Policy decisions of the full Commission. Within this context, the
adopted policies in this report were intentionally very broad. They cover
each component of growth management - urban neighborhoods, communities,
villages and rural areas - and state policy positions and supporting strate-
gies. The subcommittees may change or add to the strategies to best satisfy
policy positions. The policies and strategies purposely avoid the specifics
of establishing growth area boundaries, locating a mix or types of land use
or identifying implementation measures. This will be the responsibility of
the subcommittees.
183
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
(P~g~e 23)
Summary: The following is a summary of policy statements adopted by the
Planning Commission at its December 16, 1986 meeting, listed in the order in
which they are discussed later in this report. For each area of concern the
report outlines a problem statement or overview an adopted policy statement,
and a list of adopted strategies or strategies to be further considered by
the Land Use Subcommittee.
Adopted Policy Statements:
I. Growth Areas: The concept of directing growth into designated growth
centers should be strongly supported and implementation measures
reviewed for effectiveness.
ae
Urban Neighborhoods: The overall residential holding capacity of
the Urban Area should be maintained at its current capacity.
However, some additional land will be necessary to offset severe
topographic conditions and residential land developed for other
uses (i.e., the urban park).
Communities: The overall residential capacities of the Com-
munities should be maintained. Boundary shifts may be necessary
to better enable these capacities to be realized. The
appropriateness of the location and type of land use
recommendations should be evaluated. Low density residential
development, as well as a mixture of other land uses should be
provided in the Communities.
Villages: The Village concept should be strengthened to encourage
low density development in those areas. Expansion of selected
Villages will be necessary to provide the land area necessary to
accommodate desired Village growth.
II.
Rural Areas: Support the basic Rural Areas concept in the current
Plan. Emphasize the importance and priority of the four major elements
that form the basis for the Rural Areas: water supply protection;
preservation of agricultural and forestal activities; efficient service
delivery; conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources.
ao
Watersupply Protection: Support water supply protection as one of
the four major elements forming the basis for the Rural Areas
concept. Include groundwater protection as part of the water
supply protection policy. Consider extending watershed protection
to the North Fork Rivanna River.
Preservation of Agricultural and Forestal Activities: Emphasize
the importance and highest priority of the preservation of agri-
cultural and forestal industries in the Plan as the primary
element forming the basis for the Rural Areas concept.
Conservation of Natural, Scenic and Historic resources: Emphasize
the importance of natural, scenic and historic resources in
preserving the rural character of the area, and support all three
resources as one of the four major elements forming the basis for
the Rural Areas concept.
Service Delivery: Funding policies guiding the delivery of
services and facility improvements in the rural area must be cost
efficient, well-planned and consistent with land use policies.
III. Rural Residential Policy: Recognize the four major elements for Rural
Area preservation as the priority considerations for the Rural Areas.
Give highest priority to agricultural and forestal activities over all
other activities in the Rural Area."
Mr. Fisher asked the current target date for adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Agnor said the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for presentation to the Board in September
of this year.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to set a deadline of March 5, 1987, for the filing of
citizens' requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan which is within six months of the
expected date of the Five-Year Comprehensive Plan up-date adoption. Mr. Way seconded the
motion.
Mr. Bowie asked what kind of publicity the deadline will be given. Mr. Agnor responded
advertisement through the news media. Mr. Bowie said he is willing to support this as a
policy, but would like to make sure that citizens know about the change.
There was no further discussion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried with the
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor said the Audit indicates that the Regional Jail Fund has $68,655 in funds to
be returned to the two localities. About a month ago, the Jail Board asked that the money be
considered for expanding the staff of the Jail. He responded, as did Mr. Cole Hendrix, City
Manager, that such a request would be appropriate to consider at budget time and not as a
result of excess carry-over funds. Mr. Mike McMahan discussed this response with the Chair-
man of the Jail Board and asked that the Board and City Council be advised that funds would
be returned within the month to the two localities and that the need for expansion of staff
will be a part of the budget request. The amount being returned to the County is $28,149.
Mr. Agnor gave an update on the remodeling of the public entrance to the Police Depart-
ment. Because of the location of the Police Department on the back side of the County Office
Building, several problems have been encountered. When the County Office Building is closed
at nights and on weekends, there is no handicapped access available and there is a problem
with officers coming and going with prisoners and using the same entrance as visitors. To
correct these problems, a handicapped ramp is proposed with construction of a new door for
public access, using the current door for officers and their prisoners. This project is
expected to go to bid within the next six weeks and is budgeted in the CIP.
Mr. Bowie said last Thursday night, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
(TJPDC) had a legislative evening. Senator Michie, Delegates Allen, VanYahres and Earl
Dickerson attended the meeting. For information, there is a regional jail being considered
within the district which involves Louisa and Greene, and there is the possibility of expan-
sion of the City/CountY Joint Security Complex. Current law provides that the State will
match funds fifty-fifty with jurisdictions up to $300,000 per jurisdiction. After much
discussion, Senator Michie agreed to submit a legislative change this session that each
jurisdiction would have to get its' own funds. This came as a result of the County of Louisa
agreeing to match funds for the Town of Louisa, which the Attorney General has ruled is not
legal stating that the jurisdiction had to provide its' own funds. There is no one avail-
able to write the necessary language to be given to Senator Michie. Mr. Bowie said he has
spoken with the County Attorney and asked him to provide the necessary language. This is
only a request for assistance in wording. He wanted the Board to know about this and find
out if there was any objection. Mr. St. John said he had no objection to providing the
language, but would contact the Commonwealth's Attorney for Louisa since they have different
representative in the General Assembly.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. St. John has been helpful in writing several versions on how to get
the County's room tax increased to four percent. The last draft has been mailed to Senator
Michie and the two delegates. Senator Michie advised him on Monday that he has sent this
language to Legislative Services for drafting into a bill and it will be considered. How-
ever, when hearings are scheduled, it will be necessary for someone to be present on the
request.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the County seal was changed.
been changed, only stylized to make it more legible.
Mr. Agnor said the seal has not
Not Docketed: At 3:14 P.M., there being no more scheduled items on the agenda until
4:00 P.M. when the Board is to meet with the Planning Commission, the meeting was recessed.
Agenda Item No. 18. Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission. (The Board reconvened
at 4:00 P.M., in Rooms 5/6 with Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley being absent at this time.)
Mr. Fisher said that Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley had excused themselves from the meeting
because of unspecified, other pressing business.
Members of the Planning Commission present at the meeting were Mrs. Norma Diehl and
Messrs. David Bowerman, Richard Cogan, Richard Gould, Tim Michel and Harry Wilkerson. Mr.
Cogan said that Mr. Stark had started another meeting at 3:00 P.M. and would not be able to
attend.
Mr. Fisher announced that he would turn the meeting over to Mr. Horne for the staff
report. Mr. Horne said that instead of presenting the whole staff report, he would brief the
Board as to where the Planning Commission is in the process of updating the Comprehensive
Plan. The staff report tries to detail for the Board of Supervisors a series of major policy
decisions that the Planning Commission, as a full body, decided to make before breaking up
into subcommittees. The staff report deals with general policies for the growth areas and
rural areas. There are a number of topics that are not covered in this report because the
subcommittees will cover a great number of subjects. There is a Land Use Subcommittee and a
subcommittee on Public Services and Utilities and Transportation. The staff will be meeting
with the subcommittees every week and going through a series of defined topics and getting
the specific decisions out of the subcommittees. The full Commission will then try to
assimilate these decisions into one unified proposal for the Board.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission wants reactions to the adopted policy
statements. Mr. Cogan said yes. Basically the Planning Commission started out by going
through the current Comprehensive Plan and highlighting all of the different details within
that plan and commenting on the plan as it now exists. They felt that many of the recom-
mendations contained in the existing plan were either sufficient or subject to only minor
change, those will be reviewed by the full Commission. One problem in the present plan is
the breakdown of population growth, that being 87 percent in the urban area and 13 percent in
185
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
(~aqe 25)
the rural areas and the villages. In actuality it is really closer to 55/45 percent. The
Commission tried to decide whether to enforce and retain the 87/13 ratio to be used as a
target which may never be reached or to revise things to make it work. The communities of
Hollymead and Crozet, as well as the villages, are not getting their share of the population
growth. Developers have indicated to the Planning Commission that the urban area has almost
been developed to the extent that the marketplace will absorb. If they continue to build the
type of units that they have been building in the urban area, they will not be marketable.
Since 1980, there has been a flood of activity, primarily because of a reduction in interest
rates, and the urban area has been built up very quickly with multiple dwelling units.
Mr. Cogan continued that the Planning Commission has heard from people in the develop-
ment industry and from the University of Virginia, that the County is somewhat behind in
industrial growth. The main concern seems to be with underemployment. There are qualified
people in the community who cannot find jobs equal to their qualifications. These are the
two things that have been highlighted and have been worked on by the full Commission.
Mr. Cogan said that the staff developed a report dated January 2, which is broad and
general. It is the basis on which each subcommittee will develop its plan. He asked that
the Board members give their feelings on the report. He then discussed lot sizes in the
watershed areas.
Mr. Bowerman added that the Commission agrees with the 87/13 percent growth ratio. It
is a goal that should not be abandoned. All the policies go toward strengthening the urban
areas, communities and villages as areas of growth and trying to find ways to accommodate
growth. He said that the Planning Commission recognizes that problems exist either with lot
size, utilities or infrastructure, while still trying to limit growth in the rural areas to
the 13 percent. Mr. Bowerman said that the Commission is still not sure that it is a
realistic goal, but it has not been abandoned as a goal.
Mr. Lindstrom said that if the goal is altered, the less it is likely to come close to
fruition. He thinks the Planning Commission needs to maintain its focus on the values in
that goal, even though they may not achieve it perfectly or come as close as they would like.
Mr. Cogan said that is why they have not abandoned the current plan. He stated that it
had not ever been clearly explained how that percentage came about in the first place. He
agreed with Mr. Lindstrom in saying that you cannot arbitrarily change the percentage because
then the economic and marketplace forces might add on it an additional percentage that would
not have been there to begin with. Mr. Michel said one response to this whole situation is
the idea of potentially enlarging the urban area in recognition of that factor.
Mr. Fisher stated that over the years he has begun to question the current policy
concerning the extension of utilities particularly in the growth areas and he wonders if the
Board shouldn't take a more active role. Rather than doing major changes in rural areas, he
entertains a more active role in encouraging development in areas where it is wanted.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Fisher if he envisioned that roadways will be considered the same
as utilities? Mr. Fisher replied that that is a big step, but it is probably not impossible.
It will make the funding issues much greater.
Mr. Cogan said he would like to go into a little more detail about what the Planning
Commission is attempting to do to alleviate this problem. He mentioned earlier about trying
to get more development into the villages and the two communities. The Planning Commission
had a study done about extending utilities to the villages of North Garden, Stony Point and
Ivy. The problem with Ivy is that it lies in the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. Fisher
said that the consequences of extending utilities through nongrowth areas to small growth
areas are almost insurmountable. He thinks it is a difficult problem to encourage controlled
growth in some areas and not have a lot of growth in between areas so people can enjoy the
countryside.
Mr. Way stated that they had not mentioned the one village that already has utilities,
and that is Scottsville. He said that there has been no attempt to extend any utilities
there. Mr. Way remarked that a water system had been put in and the immediate area was
surrounded with agricultural zoning, so there can't be any development. It seems to him that
development has been discouraged in Scottsville. He feels very strongly that if there is
going to be any discussion about utilities that Scottsville would be the natural place to
start because the utilities are already there. Mr. Cogan said that is true as long as the
growth is kept out of the Totier Creek watershed area.
Mr. Cogan stated that the Planning Commission had an engineer study the costs for
utility extensions and the cost per dwelling unit as opposed to on-site sewer and water, etc.
The Hollymead and Crozet communities are areas that the Planning Commission is very
interested in getting developed to take the pressure off of the rural areas. He said this
ties in with what he had mentioned about people who are looking for industrial growth and
development. Obviously, if you create more industrial growth, you create more jobs and
increase the population.
Mr. Fisher commented that he is quite sympathetic with the people who need jobs, but the
trouble lies in trying to find the kinds of industry that will employ those people. Mr.
Cogan said the County would need the promise that the new industry would employ those people.
Mr. Bowie said he appreciated the report, but noted that it contained a statement saying
that the crucial issue is how to attract people to the urban area. He said it appears that
55 percent of the people do not want to live in the urban area, but in the rural area. He
said the adopted concept of directDng growth obviously has not worked. He feels that if the
County could encourage growth and make it desirable to live in the urban area, perhaps a
larger urban area could be filled. The report talks extensively about villages, but it
appears that no one is going to live there without the necessary utilities. He mentioned Mr.
Way's statement about Scottsville. He asked if a "rural ring" has been considered. Mr.
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
( pa_~q~ 2~)
Cogan replied that that would actually be expansion of the urban area at a much lower
density. For example, there could be one-acre parcels that could tie into utilities or two-
acre parcels that would not need utilities, but these parcels would be in an area of good
transportation, proximity to shopping, schools and things of that nature, adjacent to an
existing urban area, .not in the urban ring, but on the fringe of the rural area, but not in
the true rural areas. This could still satisfy the desire of people who want a larger piece
of land and still want to be close to town.
Mr. Bowie said that the concept of a rural ring was mentioned at an earlier meeting, and
he concurs with that concept. He does not think people can be prohibited or restricted on
where they want to live, but there has to be some alternative. If that cannot be solved
through the village concept or through rural subdivisions or something of that nature, he
does not think it will work. Mr. Cogan said there is a lot of merit to what Mr. Bowie has
said.
Mr. Cogan mentioned that any addition to the urban area would also act as a buffer
between the rural areas and the existing urban areas. People would have the advantage of
better transportation and, in the right places, there would be the added advantage of
extended utilities without a great deal of cost, and with possibly no cost to the County.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would personally support a more aggressive approach to making the
villages useable and expanding the urban area in some places. He does not think the Board
tried hard to funnel money into roads in the urban or community areas that need improvements
to foster growth, but basically responded to demands for repairs to roads that were already a
mess. It looks as though there may be twice as much money in the Highway Department budget
to deal with roads, and he thinks the Board should look at using the money the State provides
more creatively instead of reactively. On the other side of the coin, while he is willing to
actively support the expenditures that may be necessary, he is also concerned about the
growth that is occurring in the rural areas and why it is occurring. He said that in many
cases there are infill subdivisions on properties platted before the current Zoning Ordinance
was adopted in 1980. When this Zoning Ordinance was adopted, he felt it could be 10 to 20
years before persistent application of that Ordinance produced fruit. There is also increas-
ingly aggressive and creative use of the five lots allowed by right in the RA district. His
concern is that the Board not only try to beef up the attractiveness of certain areas, but
also take a long, hard look at the way in which development is continuing to occur, not only
on pre-existing parcels, but through use of the five division lots, and if the Board is not
willing to reduce those rights, then the regulations need to be tightened. He feels that the
intent when the ordinance was adopted was that these division rights were going to help the
farmer who needed cash flow and would give family divisions more flexibility. People are
combining all the parcels they can get their hands on and seeing how many lots they can get.
The Board has not had a really serious request for a Special Use Permit for a rural sub-
division. Mr. Lindstrom said he, personally, would like to see a reduction of the five lots
by-right allowed by the Ordinance. However, if that cannot be done, then the Board needs to
seriously look at the way these rights are being used, and make sure they are being used
somewhat along the lines of the original intent. If they are not, regulations should be
drawn that make the intent clear.
Mr. Fisher announced that the Board reviewed the Red Acres Subdivision plat this morning
and did not take any action, but it is the first time the Board has seen a subdivision where
the roads were built off of the lot. The Board was informed that the applicants might go to
court, but the issue of how the development rights are being used is an interesting and
controversial issue.
Mr. Way said that in his area there are a lot of people who have been raised on farms,
or have lived on small'acreage parcels in the rural areas all of their lives. The County
educates these children, but when they graduate are basically expecting that these people
will go live in the urban areas. He would not like to move in a direction whereby
opportunity is limited for people to live on two acre parcels in the rural areas. He is not
in favor of tightening up what is already allowed in the rural areas, and forcing people into
the urban area, without giving them some sort of choice. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at
4:39 P.M.)
Mr. Cogan stated that the more talk there is about reducing the five division rights or
eliminating that right, the more people will be coming up with divisions to try and get
approval before any change is made. He said that this needs to be dealt with rapidly in
order to avoid people making divisions because they fear they may lose that right later.
Mr. Bowie commented that he hates to see five little houses in a row right along the
road. These are obviously by-right, two-acre developments. The problem is that it is not
economically feasible to put these houses back off the road with a common entrance. Under
current regulations, these houses can be put right along the road. Mr. Bowie said County
regulations make it hard to do the best possible job, and he thinks this should be
considered.
Mr. Fisher stated that he did not think there is any way to deal with anticipated growth
in Crozet, unless the County is firmly committed to dealing with the water runoff from that
area. He said if Crozet is carefully constrained to a single watershed area so that an
impoundment on Lickinghole Creek might be used to reduce the amount of pollutants flowing
into the Mechum River, that is a critical part of maintaining Crozet as a viable growth area.
Growth cannot be encouraged in the reservoir watershed unless something is done to offset the
pollution effects of that growth. He said that people who have dealt with watersheds for
long periods of time have told him that the best thing to have there are permanent trees.
Anything in an opposite direction is doing future generations a disservice. He stated that
the proposal for the maximum five acre lot size scares him, if it is applied in watersheds.
Whatever is set for the goal, is what all the developments are going to be. He said that the
watershed is critically important, and steps should be taken to preserve it.
187
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day meeting)
P~ge 27)
Mr. Cogan mentioned that some of the Hollymead community was downzoned a year or two ago
at the request of the owner. The owner did this because for him to develop it according to
the higher density zoning, the Highway Department wanted him to build something almost
equivalent to a major primary highway. He also said that portions of the Willoughby PUD has
been downzoned. He thinks Crozet is a viable location for growth, even though he does not
think it should grow to the degree that is currently shown in the Comprehensive Plan. He
summarized briefly by saying that the Commission has tried to find other means to absorb the
residential growth in the whole County but, basically, they are talking about villages,
communities and additions or changes to the urban area.
Mr. Bowie said he feels the five lots by right is entirely too restrictive. Five lots
cannot be developed economically, so property is being combined to make fifteen or more work
economically. He wonders if there is some way to make it easier for the individual. He does
not have a problem with rural subdivisions. He personally does not expect the County to give
him water if his well runs dry. He said that he would like to see this policy reconsidered
to increase the usage of that concept. Mr. Bowie also stated that he has a lot of problems
with requests for rezoning to light industry where there are no utilities and for nonspecific
uses. He said these requests usually proffer out anything that would provide jobs. Mr.
Bowie said that he thinks it would be appropriate to put in the regulations for light
industrial zoning that an applicant must state exactly what they are going to do as far as
bringing people in from other areas as opposed to hiring local people, and if a certain
percentage of jobs will be held for low income people. He asked for a recommendation as to
whether this could be considered. To put light industrial zones where there are no utilities
and no roads does not make sense. He would like more attention put on this problem.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that specific criteria are built into the current plan. He thinks
the problem is that people have not paid attention to the criteria. He said this Board has
gotten bad publicity when people have tried to put small, light industrial uses in places
that the Board had trouble with, but as a general principle, he thinks the criteria applied
on a case-by-case basis makes sense.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said that one of the things the Planning Commission
is looking at right now is employment in the County. He said it is a very difficult position
to be in, because the Board is criticized no matter what it does. In the last couple of
years, several hundred acres of industrially zoned properties have been put on the Zoning
Map, some were from the outset clearly not intended for industrial purposes. Mr. Keeler
stated that there is one zone missing in the ordinance, and that is a wholesale/warehousing
zone.
Mr. Michel mentioned that there has'been a lot more discussion by the Planning Commis-
sion concerning industry and industrial zoning than is apparent from reading the report. One
of the things that has come out is that under the current ordinance, there have been various
parcels of light industry being used for various business usages, and not just warehouses.
Mr. Lindstrom said that there is always a fringe of underemploye~and unemployed people
surrounding any labor pool. Rather than creating a more stable employment environment, as
the County has diversified away from a traditional government-based employment center into
one that is more nationally and internationally connected, unemployment has gone up and the
fluctuations have been bigger. The result is that the area is no longer dependent on the
most dependable kind of employer and that is state, local and federal government. He is in
favor of trying to provide jobs for people who are here, but he is not sure industrial parks,
etc., address the problem.
Mr. Fisher said he is very encouraged by the progress the Planning Staff and the Plan-
ning Commission are making. He stated that there was a meeting in Richmond last week con-
cerning bypasses and highways, etc. He said it is not clear right now how the final evalua-
tion of various bypass routes is going to be accomplished. It seems to him that there is
likely going to be a report generated by a consultant for the Highway Department which will
identify alternatives for north/south routes. The Board is trying to make sure that when
those routes are identified that the Highway Department's decision-making process will allow
County staff and the Planning Commission a few months to review these alternatives and look
at land use implications, watersked issues and other issues that are important to this
community.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Horne to introduce the proposal to add requirements for a Prelimi-
nary Site Development Plan to the Zoning Ordinance, since there seems to be some concerns
about the idea. Mr. Cogan said this is an effort to implement the recommendations of the
Land Use Regulations Committee. There has been some feedback that the Board members and the
public have some concern regarding this ordinance amendment. He does not want to present
something to the Board that it feels is incomplete or has to have radical changes. He said -
that it is not the Planning Commission's intention to deprive the public of having input.
Mr. Fisher said he is not prepared to discuss this topic at this meeting. Mr. Cogan asked
that the Board send the ordinance back to the Planning Commission if it feels it is
incomplete. They would prefer to rework it and get it back to the Board, rather than having
the Board make wholesale changes.
Mr. Fisher announced that he had received a letter from the Piedmont Environmental
Council about an Historic Landmark Study that is going on in the northeast part of the County
which includes all the historic properties from Ash Lawn north to Orange County. They have
requested the appointment of a Board and/or Planning Commission member to an advisory commit-
tee.. Mr. Fisher said he had asked that Mr. Bowie do this since practically all of this study
188
January 14, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
is taking place in his district, and he has agreed to do so, with Mr. Gould as the alternate.
Mr. Lindstrom made a motion to this effect and Mr. Way seconded the motion which carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board,
at 5:09 P.M., Mr. Bowie made a motion to adjourn until 3:30 P.M. on Januarys21, 1987. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vo~e:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.