2001-04-18April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 18,
2001, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Laurie Bentley.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Ms. Kay Slaughter, Chair of the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia, thanked the Board for
th
its contribution to the Lewis & Clark Festival which will be held October 13 in Charlottesville. The Center
has received a grant from the National Park Service to help with the Festival planned in the Fall. With this
funding, the Center can also plan a second Festival in the Spring. The Board’s contribution will help match
the grant from the Park Service. The Center also has it’s Lewis & Clark website up: lewis&clarkeast.org.
__________
Ms. Katie Hobbs, with the League of Women Voters, distributed copies of the statements regarding
the Ivy Landfill made last night at a meeting at the City Hall. She expressed regret that the majority of the
Board members could not attend to hear the more than 20 citizens who spoke very eloquently on the
subject.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Martin, to approve items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items as
information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
__________
Item 5.1. SP-2000-64. David Weber (Triton PCS) (defer to April 25, 2001).
A letter dated April 11, 2001, was received from Valerie W. Long, Attorney, for the applicant, Triton,
PCS, Inc., requesting a deferral of the board's consideration of SP-2000-64 until April 25, 2001. This
deferral will allow the Planner additional time to review the revised plans incorporating the shed structure,
and to review her proposed revisions to the recommended conditions of approval.
By the recorded vote set out above and at the request of the applicant, SP-2000-64 was
deferred to April 25, 2001.
___________
Item 5.2. Authorize County Executive to sign Stormwater Drainage Easement Dedication for
Westmoreland Court.
The executive summary states that this request is for the Board of Supervisors to authorize the
Engineering and Public Works Department to pursue permanent stormwater drainage easements in
support of a County ClP project serving Westmoreland Court.
In April 2000, the Board approved an Engineering recommendation that all future stormwater
drainage facilities that serve the public (including stormwater basins) be dedicated to public use by a
permanent drainage easement. The County's stormwater program is maturing to the point where public
responsibility is extending to the maintenance of our stormwater infrastructure. Current experience and
evidence from field inspections indicates that this approach is necessary to adequately protect public
health (e.g., flood control) and the environment. In general, private interests, chiefly homeowners'
associations do not have the technical nor financial capacity to maintain this complex infrastructure.
Tax Map 61A, Section A, Parcels 14 and 15 are located in the Rio District and include 511 and 512
Westmoreland Court. Each property owner has expressed an intent to dedicate a permanent drainage
easement to the County for the purpose of a drainage improvement project. The regional stormwater
management system in this area consists of a series of surface and underground facilities serving the
streets and properties in the Westmoreland development. This CIP project will repair the outfall and replace
a portion of the existing underground stormpipes that receive runoff from Nottingham and Westmoreland
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Roads and Westmoreland Court. These stormpipes discharge stormwater runoff into a stream located at
the rear of 511 and 512 Westmoreland Court.
Staff requests the Board authorize the Engineering and Public Works Department to pursue
permanent easements for the Westmoreland Court stormwater drainage improvement project and
authorize County Executive to sign deeds of easement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to sign a
Stormwater Drainage Easement Dedication for Westmoreland Court.
__________
Item 5.3. Appropriation: Transfer Donations from General Fund to Fire & Rescue Division
$10,746.95 (Form #20063).
The executive summary states that in 1998 an account was established for donations received by
the Fire & Rescue Division for services rendered to our residents/public.
The need for regular CPR training for volunteers, County personnel and citizens has necessitated
the purchase of three (3) CPR mannequins and associated supplies at a cost of $ 746.95.
Additionally, volunteer fire and rescue squads have identified the need for a portable rehabilitation
unit that could be used during crisis situations. An additional $10,000 is needed to renovate and equip a
County school bus, which has been donated. Funds in this account, remaining after FY 00-01 will need to
be rolled over to FY 01-02 to complete the work needed to place this unit in service.
Staff requests the transfer of $10,746.95 from the County's General Fund to two Fire & Rescue
Division accounts. Based on the identified needs for CPR classes and the rehabilitation bus, staff
recommends that $10,746.95 be transferred into the Fire & Rescue Division operational budget.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20063
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FIRE/RESCUE EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 32015 550402 TRAINING $ 746.95
1 1000 32015 601015 PORTABLE REHAB UNT 10,000.00
TOTAL$10,746.95
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 51000 512008 TRANSFER FROM CONTRIBUTION FUND $10,746.95
TOTAL$10,746.95
TRANSFERS DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 8405 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE$10,746.95
1 8405 93010 930009 TRANSFER TO G/F 10,746.96
__________
Item 5.4. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for February 13, March 13, March 20 and
March 27, 2001, were received for information.
__________
Item 5.5. Copy of Architectural Review Board minutes for March 5, 2001, was received for
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2000-33. Keswick (Signs #62,67,68&69). PUBLIC HEARING on a request
to allow an expansion of a resort hotel in accord w/ Sec 10.2.2 (27) of the Zoning Ord. This expansion
request includes 75 add'l guest rooms, add'l parking, an outside pool & the relocation of the gate house.
This proposal includes a reconfiguration of the residential lots approved w/ SP-95-12 that will result in a
decrease of 10 single-family residential lots. In conjunction w/ a prel site plan application, SDP-00-63, the
following Zoning Ord waivers have been requested: Sec 4.12.6.1 related to one-way ingress and egress;
Sec 4.12.6.2 related to one-way internal circulation aisles; Sec 4.2.3.2 related to developing on slopes of
25% or greater; Sec 4.12.6.5.c. related to curvilinear and parallel parking; & Sec 5.1.16(a) related to a
required 75' setback for a swimming pool. TM 80, P 9 - Keswick Hall; P 8Z - Keswick Club, the portion on
the W side of Club Dr, approx.17.5 acs & the small portions being added to P 9 for the pool & wing
expansion; Ps 8, 61, 62, 62A, 62B, 62C, 62D, 70A, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 106 & 109A. Located at 701
Club Dr on the S side of St Rt 731 & W of St Rt 616 & on the N side of I-64. Znd RA. Rivanna Dist. (Notice
of the public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office and made a part of
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He stated that the Keswick Corporation is requesting a
permit for expansion of the Keswick Estate operations. An over-all site plan has been submitted with the
special use permit application. The additions Keswick Estates proposes include are: 28 guest rooms, a
new pool, and a pool house adjacent to Keswick Hall; reconfiguring parking and travel-ways, submitting a
site plan within 18 months to add ten cottages with two to four units in each resulting in 47 additional cottage
units and remodeling two existing cottages; adding a day spa and a banqueting pavilion, building
administrative buildings and a maintenance building; and decreasing the total residential lots by 10 from the
total of 88 lots approved with SP-95-12.
Mr. Cilimberg continued stating that the Keswick community is comprised of a mixture of residential,
large estates, and agricultural and forestal uses along with supporting community commercial uses. There
is a fairly long history of planning and zoning activity at the Keswick property. The staff report notes that the
rural areas must not expect levels of service delivery equal to those provided in development areas. Any
expansion of the Keswick Inn and development of the residential community within Keswick must be
thoughtful to the surrounding area as well as preserve the consistency with the rural area. Staff also notes
that the Economic Development Policy speaks to and encourages tourism focused on rural, agrarian, and
historical resources in the County which do not threat nor compromise those resources. Although an
expansion of the lodging and service facilities for tourists may encourage tourism, it may also compromise
other Rural Area resources.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the original structure, the Villa Crawford, was identified on the National
Register of Historic Places as a contributing building in the Southwest Mountains Historic District. Although
much of the original structure was remodeled, it retains an important place within the District. Staff has
noted that the acreage and residential lots would be reduced from almost 208 acres to approximately 165
acres. The 88 acres of existing open space will be increased to almost 100 acres. Access for the
improvements and expansion has been recommended to include improvements on Route 22 by providing
right and left turn lanes at its intersection with Route 744, and recommended by VDOT and the County’s
Engineering Department. There will be a need for additional right-of-way along Route 22 to install a left
turn lane and it has been agreed that this improvement occur with the later development phase to allow
right-of-way negotiations. A condition of approval is offered that would require the improvements, with
timing based on the second phase of development which will be the 26 hotel rooms.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that, based on information provided by the applicant, water has an existing
permitted capacity within the central water system that could encompass all anticipated Estate expansion
plus 47 residences. Upgrades of the existing system to fully utilize these wells and their yields would allow
all Estate development plus 74 residences. Additional well capacity would be required only for the
remaining 48 residential lots. There are only three wells currently in the system therefore any expansion to
create additional wells to serve the Keswick needs would require an approval by the Virginia Department of
Health and the County for an expanded central water system. The sewer system is in a defined service
area and it cannot be expanded beyond its limits based on an easement that was given to the Piedmont
Environmental Council several years ago that would hold that service area boundary.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized by stating the favorable factors noted by staff. Expansion would allow
an existing facility to continue and potentially enhance its economic vitality as well as tourism in the County.
There will be a reduction in the number of residential lots which will offset to some extent the increased
utility usage and traffic generation of the expansion of Keswick Hall. Reduction of those residential lots will
also increase the open space provided and the proposal as conditioned would stay within their previously
approved area of central sewer service. Staff also noted unfavorable factors. Traffic would be increased
on Routes 731 and 616 leading to the site. Additional demand on the central water and sewer system
would result in the expansion. Commercial use in and of itself does not promote agricultural and forestal
policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the proposal to divert water from the 124 approved residential lots
to serve the Inn expansion may result in a future request to expand the central water system.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends approval of the request with conditions. The Planning
Commission unanimously recommended approval as well but with revised conditions particularly pertinent
to the provision of water. Mr. Cilimberg noted that today there was a request from the applicant for
additional language to be added in conditions #3 and #4 regarding the demonstration of satisfaction for any
approvals relating to the water system. Mr. Cilimberg provided to the Board staff’s thoughts on this issue.
Referencing the submitted document (copy on file), Mr. Cilimberg stated that the requested changes
highlighted in bold italics were submitted today. The intent of the first change in each condition is to have the
option of the Director of Engineering determine satisfaction of the condition rather than the Planning
Commission. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission had intentionally conditioned that they be the entity
making the determination of satisfaction, so this proposal is not consistent with their intent. Practically
speaking, such determination by the Commission will necessitate a recommendation by the Engineering
Department.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether allowing the Director of Engineering to determine the satisfaction of
the condition affected a change. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it does to the extent that if the engineers said
"yes," under this condition, then it does not go to the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas stated that the
Planning Commission specifically requested that the matter come back before it. Mr. Bowerman clarified
that it was because the word “or” is added. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was because of the addition of the
“Director, Engineering and Public Works or” phrase.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the second change in condition number four is to allow the determination
to be made as regards either the existing water system or any such expansion to the system the County
might approve. The change would make this condition consistent with condition #5 which permits the
applicant to seek system expansion. Staff does believe that addition is warranted but also suggests the
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
additional sentence in bold and underlined be included. This was not requested by the applicant, but it is
explicitly understood that this condition does not presuppose approval of an expanded central water system.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the difference between what the Planning
Commission recommended to the Board and what the applicant is now requesting for conditions #3 and #4.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant is asking that the Director of Engineering and Public Works be the
deciding point for the demonstration of satisfaction. Ms. Humphris asked why the applicant would want that
to be. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he believes the applicant feels that it can be handled administratively. Ms.
Humphris clarified that the Planning Commission said that it wanted to make the determination. Mr.
Cilimberg responded "yes", according to the record of the meeting. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Director of
Engineering, being able to approve the condition, is being recommended in both three and four. He noted
that the second part of condition #4 is necessary because there is the possibility under condition #5 that the
applicant could seek approval of expansion of their central water system but without this language, that is
bolded in italics in condition #4, it does not actually allow them to proceed with the central water system
unless the applicant demonstrates satisfaction. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the Planning Commission
contemplated that in the condition. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes", because they actually considered condition #5,
but did not guarantee it. Ms. Humphris asked what the difference is between what the applicant is
requesting tonight and conditions #4 and #5 together.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that with this additional language, condition #5 is to permit them to seek the
expansion of the system. Condition #4 is stating that no property shall be subdivided or subdivision plat
recorded unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction, of whomever the Board approves, that the
existing system is available and adequate to serve all said lots as well as all existing improvements. This is
actually the part where after the applicants got an expansion, they then seek to get those lots onto the
system. Mr. Davis stated that he believes it is recognized that under the existing permit there may not be
enough water to meet this condition for unplatted lots and that there may need to be an amendment to the
well permits before there would be adequate water for future platting of lots that would be permitted by the
special use permit. Ms. Humphris asked if that was not what the Planning Commission took care of in
conditions #4 and #5, with #4 stating the applicant cannot do it under the current permit but could come
back and seek to obtain those approvals. Mr. Davis said "yes", and that he thought the problem with
condition #4, as it was drafted, is that it referred to a specific permit dated March 12, 1992. All the amended
language says is that the permit or any future amendment to it must be deemed to be satisfactory for the
lots that are to be platted. The language change does not change the meaning at all, but clarifies a
technical flaw in condition #4.
Mr. Thomas noted that under either, the matter would have to come back to the Board in addition
to the Department of Health. Mr. Davis agreed. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Davis interpreted expansion of
the existing central water system to include increasing pump and storage capacity or only adding new wells.
Mr. Davis stated that he has not examined what the permit limitations are by the Department of Health. Ms.
Thomas stated that according to Timmons the permit only allows for a certain number of gallons and
therefore if you increase the pump you would have to get a new permit. Mr. Davis stated that he believed
that was correct.
With no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Thomas asked the
applicant to address the Board.
Mr. Dean Andrews addressed the Board on behalf of applicant. He is the Vice-President and
Senior Officer for Orient Express Hotels in North America and President of Keswick Corporation. He has
also been a resident of Charlottesville since last October. Orient Express Hotels owns 30 hotel and train
operations worldwide and operates in 18 countries. The applicant has spent quite a bit of time and effort
getting the design for this expansion for Keswick, adequately addressing traffic and water issues, and
addressing the underlying economic and business need for this request. As the Board is aware, when the
applicant purchased Keswick it was in difficult economic circumstances and in the past went through a
couple of bankruptcies. The applicant has a strong business need to invest further to make this property
economically viable in terms of employment and the ability to market it on a year-round basis. For these
reasons, the applicant is prepared to double its investment currently in Keswick Hall. By the end of the
program, should the Board approve it, the applicant will have invested over $30 million in the project. Mr.
Andrews noted that the holders are owners and not developers looking to build it up for the sake of selling it
out and then leaving the community. Mr. Andrews thanked the Board for its consideration and gave way to
Jay Wineberg and Richard Carter, co-counsel.
Mr. Jay Wineberg introduced himself. He began by stating that the applicant believes the special
use permit that it seeks is in the best interest of the community. The reasons he gave are: 1) The
improvements permitted by the special use permit will encourage Heritage Tourism as contemplated by the
County’s Economic Development Plan. 2) It complies with the County’s proposed Historic Preservation
Plan which suggests the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to allow uses to encourage the re-use of
historic structures with greater flexibility. 3) The request complies with the stated intent of the proposed
Historic Overlay District which seeks to promote tourism and other economic benefits by protecting historic
cultural resources including historic landscapes which are attractive to visitors. 4) The special use permit
will result in a vastly superior resort hotel being located in Albemarle County which will be of sufficient size
to attract corporate meetings as well as national and international guests. The applicant believes that with
this expansion the site will be economically viable and a credit. 5) Upon its completion, it will provide 85
jobs and an excellent opportunity for County citizens to train and obtain employment in the luxury hospitality
industry. 6) It will contribute an additional $664,000 annually or $55,000 per month to the County in the
form of real estate taxes, personal property, food room, beverage and business license sales and use
taxes. This is in addition to what goes to the Commonwealth.
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Wineberg continued stating that the applicant’s economic contribution studies estimate that
Keswick will purchase approximately $1,685,000 a year from local business persons. The applicant has
completed traffic engineering utilities and infrastructure studies to determine the feasibility of this request to
be sure that the utilities in sufficient quantity and capacity, and infrastructure, will be available to serve the
expanded facility without encroaching on anyone else’s utilities. In short, the applicant wanted to be certain
that the proposed plan would work not only from the County and it’s citizens standpoint, but before the
investment of this large sum was made. With regard to traffic, the applicant’s traffic engineer, Tom Flynn, is
working carefully with the County’s traffic engineer and, with Mr. Robert Ball and Bill Mills of VDOT to
articulate the precise off-site improvements that are required of which the applicant has agreed to make
them. That commitment is in writing with the Planning Department. The applicant's engineering studies
confirm that existing water supply from on-site wells is more than sufficient to cover the planned
improvements to the hotel, club and the existing platted homesites. No outside water sources are required
or planned for Keswick Estates. Mr. Wineberg also noted that the ring easement precludes the expansion
of sewer into any other properties.
Mr. Wineberg said when the applicant appeared before the Board last October for a zoning text
amendment, he specifically committed that any request for a special use permit would be accompanied by
an overall long-range plan so that the Board would know the total context of the project. The applicant has
submitted that plan. The applicant has worked carefully with staff to make corrections and refinements in
that plan. The applicant has also worked with the Piedmont Environmental Council. In this process the
applicant has agreed to reduce the overall number of lots by ten and to dedicate 100 acres of open space
easements. Again, the applicant respectfully submits that what it has proposed is in the best interest of the
County and its citizens.
In summary Mr. Wineberg gave the reasons the applicant feels the project is in the best interest of
the County: 1) The special use permit will ensure the renovation and economic vitality of this historic
heritage attraction. 2) It will result in $660,000 a year in additional tax to the County over what it is receiving
now from Keswick Hall. 3) It will provide training for 85 jobs in the luxury hotel industry. 4) It encourages
Heritage tourism. 5) It complies with the County’s proposed Historic Preservation Plan. 6) It complies with
the stated intent of the proposed Historic Overlay District.
Mr. Wineberg noted that the matter is before the Board with the recommendation of not only the
staff but the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission subject to eight conditions. The
applicant has made a concerted effort to meet regularly with its neighbors and residents in the area to keep
them advised of its plans as well as the environmental groups. He reported that the project has the
overwhelming support of its neighbors and neighboring community as evidenced by the more than 78 or 80
letters that were submitted to members of the Board at the time the applicant appeared on the zoning text
amendment. Mr. Wineberg concluded by stating that the applicant is sensitized and sensitive to the issue of
water. The applicant is perfectly satisfied with the changes to item condition #4. With regard to the change
that says that satisfaction must be demonstrated to the Director of Engineering or the Planning
Commission, it was made with two thoughts in mind. One is timesaving. To go back to the Commission
clearly takes three to four months and the applicant desires to break ground in November. The other
reason is that if the Director has any questions, the applicant will pass it on to the Planning Commission
when it comes before that body. The applicant would like the language change but does not consider it a
deal breaker and will comply with the Board’s desire.
Ms. Thomas reminded those who would address the Board during the public hearing that each
person has three minutes during which to make comments. She also reminded those present that the
Board discourages any form of applause because that sometimes leads to noises of disapproval which are
not acceptable. Anyone addressing the Board can ask that those supporting his/her position stand to be
recognized.
Mr. Thomas Sheehan, a County resident, stated that he is totally in agreement with the expansion
of the Hall. He believes it is essential to the economic viability of the whole project. Mr. Sheehan noted that
the County has a trinity of operation in this project. There is a residential estate area, a hotel, and a private
golf club and community. He noted that $50 million had been poured into this facility yielding a beautiful
facility. He opposes only one item, the relocation of the Keswick gatehouse. No comment has been made
this evening on that issue. He stated that Sir Ashley paid $285,000 to construct the gatehouse at the east
and the west. In January 1994 the west gatehouse was completed. In June 1995 the extended road, Club
Drive, was completed. Sir Ashley paid $46,000 to have the gate manned with no charge to his residents.
He wanted to have easy access from Route 64 for his guests at the Hall and for club members coming to
the property. The Board has before it a request to relocate the gatehouse. To Mr. Sheehan’s surprise on
February 26 and 27 the gatehouse was being destroyed. He sees this as an economic waste.
Mr. Walter Johnson, a Keswick Estates resident, stated that he is one of the three resident board
members on the Keswick Estate Owners Association. He is a member of the advisory board for the club.
Without reservation he willingly states that the cooperation between the residents and Orient-Express could
not have been better. The applicant was willing, able and open to discuss any subject. The community
expects to continue this relationship with the applicant. This application is supported universally by the
community. Mr. Johnson said he was a member of the Planning Commission in 1992 when the special use
permit (SP-92-21) for the gates was approved. That application was made specifically and exclusively to
authorize a private road from Route 731 to Route 616. The gates were there to control traffic. They were
to be monitored 24 hours a day. With respect to moving the gatehouse, on the original plat and the special
use permit the gatehouses were identified as they are today. This application is supported throughout
Keswick Estates and the community.
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Ms. Sara Lee Barnes, of Route 22, Keswick, stated that she has been trying not to get involved in
the issues surrounding the proposed expansion of Keswick Hall for a variety of reasons, one of which is that
she does not want to oppose her friends. She stated that the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District
can now boast that 25 percent of the land is under permanent conservation easement. This is an
extraordinary amount of protected land and with each passing year the number of acres increases. The
landowners in this area are speaking loudly and clearly that they want this area to remain rural. She asked
the Board to seriously consider how inappropriate the continued expansion, particularly that of an increased
number of lots in Keswick Estates are to this rural area. While no one denies that Orient Express is a very
good corporate neighbor, one also cannot deny that they are capitalizing on the rural, historic and scenic
neighborhood for their enterprise. Individual property owners are doing what they can to protect this area.
She asked the Supervisors to help by doing everything they can to protect the area.
Mr. Richard Carter, Co-counsel for the applicant, stated that when he looks at this property in the
rural areas he tries to find what is unique about Keswick that distinguishes it from another application. He
believes that one of the things that makes it unique is protection. The ring around this property, not only
protects the property, but also protects the rural area. This ring protects the other adjacent properties from
outside expansion. The applicant has entered into an agreement with Piedmont Environmental Council that
the sewer lines will not go outside of the ring. This ring also protects and isolates Keswick from changing
the character of the surrounding area. He noted that the staff report states that the addition to the Hall will
do nothing to change the character of the surrounding area. Another uniqueness of this application is its
existence. Keswick has been, is and will have its current use. This property was RA before there was a
codified RA. The third thing that makes this application unique is the type of product that is being sold
there. This is a destination point for corporate meetings and the well-to-do. It provides a market range in
housing to a very narrow group of high end consumer. This is not something that will be built out in a short
period of time due to the cost of the lots and homes. He feels that this is the fulfillment of promises made
to people who bought homes in Keswick Estates years ago.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the gatehouse was improperly located originally. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it
needed to be moved because it was not properly located originally. Mr. Dorrier asked if the move had been
completed and if it is legal. Mr. Andrews stated that it has been moved to where it should have been and
with the County’s permission.
Ms. Humphris requested that the Board discuss condition #3. Ms. Thomas stated that the purpose
of condition #3 is to make sure that the final site plan is not approved, if there is a water problem. She
asked if the final site plan is both phase one and phase two. Mr. Cilimberg said that the final site plan is
going to be one or more phases depending on how the applicant approaches it. Ms. Humphris asked what
“prior to final site plan approval” means. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it means prior to the first plan that is
before the County for final approval. Ms. Thomas asked if that would be phase one. Mr. Cilimberg said
that staff understands it to be phase one, however the applicant does not have to do a phase one and two.
The applicant could do it all at once. Ms. Thomas clarified that if the applicant does the project in phases
condition #3 kicks in before any site plan. Mr. Bowerman said that it is not clear as to the intent. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that Joan McDowell is currently working on the Phase I final now. Mr. Davis said that he
thinks the language is clear. Mr. Martin said that the only other change in condition #3 is that the applicant
shall demonstrate that the existing central water system is satisfactory to the Director of Engineering and
Public Works and the Planning Commission as opposed to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Humphris said she does not understand why the condition states that the existing water system
approved under this particular permit will show that it is "available and adequate to serve all of said lots,
…and all platted lots", when it does not currently satisfy the need for all the platted lots. Currently it satisfies
the need for only 47 of the platted lots. It has to be upgraded before it will satisfy 74 lots and it will not ever
satisfy the 78 existing platted lots. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant is aware that this condition will
limit them if they cannot meet it. Staff has advised the applicant that could be a problem for them. Ms.
Thomas clarified that the phrase “in all platted lots” means all the platted lots that the applicant can cover
with the water as opposed to all of the lots that are platted and recorded in the County Courthouse because
there is a discrepancy between 78 and 47. Ms. Thomas stated that she did not want to set up a condition
that sets the applicant up for failure. Mr. Cilimberg responded that platted lots are lots that are actually
recorded.
Ms. Joan McDowell stated that the applicant has 78 platted lots owned by Keswick and 46
unplatted lots. The water report is based on well studies done in 1985 and again in 1990. The letters that
are attached with the staff report and all of the information are done with no new water study. Staff felt that
it needed a new water study to show that everything within Keswick was covered as well as the surrounding
area. Staff wanted to make sure that if the applicant did a draw down it would not effect someone in the
adjacent neighborhood. Ms. McDowell said the sentence in one of the reports that "the assumption that lots
outside of Keswick would all be very large low density estate lots" does cause her some concern, since that
is not the case. There are 14 lots on wells currently. Therefore there are 64 platted lots. The water study
talks about upgrades to the system. Staff is not sure what that means. Staff does know that if it goes over
the 74 capacity the applicant is going to have to drill the fourth well, get a permit and get Board approval.
Some of the 64 platted lots are going to require some kind of upgrade of the system. Whether or not a
permit is needed, staff could not say. The bottom line is that the applicant is saying that it has enough
capacity for these lots. Referring to page 12 of the staff report, Ms. McDowell stated that Keswick owns 38
of the platted lots. The lots will not be sold without water. She has heard the applicant assure the Planning
Commission and the Board that they are not going to be selling lots that do not have water. If the applicant
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
goes to plat lots there will be more studies.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the operative language is that the applicant has to show that water is
available and adequate to serve the improvements and associated uses that are authorized by the special
permit and all existing improvements, existing associated uses and all existing platted lots. The onus is on
the applicant; not the County. The applicant must provide, prior to final site plan approval, a study that the
County’s Engineering Department, primary David Hirschman, reviews and finds meets this condition. Ms.
Humphris said that the best the Board knows right now is from the Timmons report of October 15, 2000
which shows the applicant cannot. Mr. Cilimberg said that may very well be the case, but again, the onus is
on the applicant. Ms. Humphris said if the applicant needs to drill a fourth well it would be off-site, on
someone else’s property because of the location of the other wells and the type of soil on the property. Ms.
Thomas said condition #3 is going to be impossible for the applicant to meet but if they have agreed to it
then the onus is on them. Ms. Humphris stated that it seems strange to have a condition that the Board
already believes is impossible for the applicant to meet.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Hirschman spoke with staff yesterday and stated that he was unsure about
the 2000 Timmons report. Everything will have to be brought up to date. The report is based on ten year
old data. Ms. Thomas stated that the permit is for 73,520 gallons which is an amendment of the permit.
Ms. Humphris said as long as everyone understood that to the best of the Board’s knowledge the applicant
could not meet the terms of condition #3 under this permit, the applicant could not pump enough water to
fulfill their needs.
Ms. Humphris asked how the Board was going to deal with the language regarding "demon-strating
to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Public Works or the Planning Commission". Mr. Martin
stated that he thought the Board would leave that language as it appeared originally. Due to the work of
staff and the Planning Commission, the decision for the Board is whether or not to permit an expansion of
this use in the rural area. When the ZTA was approved, the Board talked about the pros and cons to the
expansion. He came down on the side of this being in the best interest of the rural area because it is an
existing use. He has seen it go through some changes and it appears to be a viable business interest now.
Mr. Martin addressed Mr. Sheehan, stating that the location of the gatehouse is not an issue before
the Board issue unless it is in an illegal place. It appears that it is now in the legal place. He thanked Ms.
Barnes for her e-mail and comments.
Ms. Humphris said that when the Board discussed the ZTA the hard decision was made regarding
proceeding with the expansion of this use in the rural area. It was a difficult decision to make for the very
reason that Ms. Barnes pointed out earlier. A sacrifice is being made by the people who live in the area and
the Board did not ask for the sacrifice without a great deal of soul searching and heart searching.
Mr. Martin then moved approval of SP-2000-33, subject to the eight conditions recommended and
the amendment to condition #4. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The Keswick Estate shall be developed in general accordance with the plan titled “Keswick
Estate Conceptual Long Range Master Plan”, prepared by Roudabush, Gale and Associates, dated
December 18, 2000 and included as Attachment A (on file in the Clerk’s office);
2.No building permits shall be issued for Phase II improvements beyond those improvements
authorized by SP-00-33, as shown on the plan titled “Keswick Estate Conceptual Long
Range Master Plan” prepared by Roudabush, Gale and Associates dated December 18,
2000, until all road improvements described in the Virginia Department of Transportation
letter from R.P. Ball dated February 21, 2001, and included as Attachment B (on file in the
Clerk’s office), have been completed (not bonded) to the satisfaction of the County
Department of Engineering and Public Works and the Virginia Department of Transportation;
3.Prior to final site plan approval of the improvements authorized by SP-00-33, the applicant
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that the existing central
water system, approved under Permit Number 200192 issued by the Virginia Department of
Health, Division of Water Supply Engineering, dated March 12, 1992, is available and adequate to
serve all of the improvements and associated uses authorized by SP-00-33, as well as all existing
improvements and associated uses and all platted lots, without compromising on-site and adjacent
off-site well water supplies. In making this demonstration, the applicant shall use test procedures
approved by the Virginia Department of Health and the County Department of Engineering and
Public Works;
4.No unplatted property shall be subdivided and no approved subdivision plat shall be recorded
unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering and Public Works
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
or the Planning Commission, that the existing central water system, approved under Permit
Number 200192 issued by the Virginia Department of Health, Division of Water Supply
Engineering, dated March 12, 1992, or as such permit is amended or such subsequent permit
approved by the Virginia Department of Health, Division of Water Supply Engineering, and the
Board of Supervisors, is available and adequate to serve all of said lots, as well as all existing
improvements, associated uses, and platted lots, without compromising on-site and adjacent off-
site well water supplies. Nothing herein shall guarantee approval of such amendment or permit. In
making this demonstration, the applicant shall use test procedures approved by the Virginia
Department of Health and the County Department of Engineering and Public Works;
5.If the central water system must be expanded to meet existing or future demand, the applicant shall
seek and obtain all necessary approvals for expanding the system from the Virginia Department of
Health and the County Board of Supervisors;
6.All areas identified as open space on the plan titled “Keswick Estate Conceptual Long Range
Master Plan” prepared by Roudabush, Gale and Associates dated December 18, 2000, shall be
subjected by the applicant to one (1) or more easements preserving those areas as open space in
perpetuity. Each easement holder shall be an organization authorized to hold such easements by
the Commonwealth of Virginia. Prior to final site plan approval of the improvements authorized by
SP-00-33, the applicant shall present written evidence to the Planning Commission demonstrating
that this condition has been satisfied;
7.Except for any restaurant on the property open to the general public, Keswick Hall and its
associated facilities shall be used only by the guests of the inn and their invitees, and members of
the Keswick Country Club and their invitees; and
8.Each plat of division of any lands shown on the plan titled “Keswick Estate Conceptual Long Range
Master Plan”, prepared by Roudabush, Gale and Associates, dated December 18, 2000 shall
include the following statement if those lands are not within a jurisdictional area and will not be
served by a public water or sewer system: “On the date of approval of this plat by the agent, the
lands being divided are not within a jurisdictional area and public water and sewer service are not
available.”
(Note: David Bowerman left the room at 8:05 p.m. and returned at 8:08 p.m.)
________________
(The next two items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2000-54. Albemarle High School Cross Country (Signs #44&45). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to allow a cross-country tract, including competitions with other teams, in
accordance with Sec. 10.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. TM 45, P 1, contains 706.512 acs. Located at
300/333 Panorama Rd (Rt #844). Znd RA. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 2001)
__________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2000-73. Panorama Farms Bicycle Trails (Signs #46&47). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to allow commercial mountain bike trail, including competition sin accordance with
Sec. 10.2.2.4 of Zoning Ordinance. TM 45, P 1, contains 706.512 acs. Located at 300/333 Panorama Rd
(Rt #844). Znd RA. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on April 2
and April 9, 2001)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report. SP-2000-54 is a request for a cross country track to be
used in practice and competitive events. He noted that there has been a cross country track function
operating over the past two years at the property. There have been high school track members training at
the property approximately three times per week. There were meets held in the fall of 2000 including an
invitational drawing approximately 1800 people. There are smaller competitive events that would consist of
approximately 220 plus athletes and an equal number of spectators.
SP-2000-73 is a request for a commercial mountain bike trail operation including competitions.
These trails are typically four feet wide with an eight foot high clearance and they are in existence and have
been used by the public. The commercial use of the trails would include regional spring and fall races with
approximately 150 to 200 riders and about half that number of spectators. Local participant races with
between 25 and 50 riders and an equal number of spectators would also take place. These races would
not conflict with cross country meets.
Mr. Cilimberg continued stating that this is another property located in the rural area. Although
commercial recreational operations would not promote preservation of agricultural and forestal
development activities directly, the limited improvements that are required for these uses are reversible in
nature; they can be converted back to natural state. The cross country trails are located on the western
portion of the property closest to the Rivanna Reservoir. Separate bike trails are generally located on the
northern and eastern portions of the property. The bike trails begin in an area between the family residence
and the compost operation. The parking area would be centrally located to serve both uses. He also noted
that the County’s Parks and Recreation Department supports these private recreational uses.
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Due to the topography and the location of the trails in relation to the adjacent residences, the trail
would have minimal impact on adjacent properties. The cross country trails located closest to the Rivanna
Reservoir on the west side of the property have been designed to mitigate environmental land use impacts.
Impacts related to access through Panorama Road for daily use would be minimal, although a short
duration of potential impacts increases dramatically when competitive events are held. With conditions that
have been recommended, there will be no requirement for the surface treatment of the parking area for
either required parking or overflow parking. This is important. It is in the applicant’s interest as well as the
County’s not to have a level of use that would require paved parking.
Staff has noted favorable factors which include that both are compatible uses that do not prevent
the on-going agricultural activity on Panorama Farms; that both proposed recreational activities require
improvements that are reversible in nature; and that it maintains open space adjacent to the Rivanna
Reservoir; and addresses a County recreational demand. Unfavorable factors noted are: non-agricultural,
commercial activity in the rural area; intense uses associated with large athletic competitions would not be
typical uses within the rural area; and large recreational uses could set a precedent for other non-
agricultural uses in the Rural Area District.
While the recreation uses are not directly related to agricultural production, they would not prevent
continued farming of the property and would provide a supplemental income for the farm. Staff did
recommend approval with various conditions that were outlined in the original staff report. It was noted in
the action letter that the Planning Commission’s action left an opportunity and understanding that staff
would work with the applicant to determine if additional activity associated with each request could be
accommodated without the need of paved parking. In response to the applicant’s request for additional
daily use and competitive events, and the Planning Commission’s request that conditions of approval reflect
the increase usage request, staff worked with the Engineering Department to review the revised usage
estimates and determined paved parking would not be required. Therefore, conditions of approval have
been amended to reflect the revised usage request. Mr. Cilimberg said in the revised staff report there are
conditions that have been crossed through from the original as well as added with underlining that would
reflect those changes.
Mr. Cilimberg said in addition, the applicants presented verification for an emergency access
through Loftlands Drive after the staff report had been completed. This verification permitted a revision to
condition #6 as shown in the revised conditions. One final note, in review of the conditions, staff noted that
there was an inadvertent omission of one condition that was important to SP-2000-54 in terms of the usage
and the relationship to parking needs. The added condition would be condition #9 under SP-2000-54
submitted to the Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked if condition #9 is recognition of the usage which allowed for the non-pervious
cover and this codifies it so that the intent is clear. Mr. Cilimberg responded that condition #9 establishes
the limits of the timeframe for use and activity at the site that could occur without any surface treatment of
parking. Mr. Cilimberg read from the last paragraph of the Engineering Department’s report: "We feel the
ten week track season condition is important. If track events were also expanded to the entire year staff
would need to review traffic figures again. It is possible that asphalt pavement would be needed for the
parking lot as well as an 18 foot wide roadway." Ms. Thomas asked if this would allow practice but no
competitive events beyond ten weeks or is any use of the track prohibited beyond ten weeks. Ms. McDowell
said that this condition is for the cross country track only, not the bicycle trail. The bicycle trail is a year-
round use. She stated that it is important not to have people there year-round. Ms. Thomas asked if an
individual training for a running event would be able to use the area in the off season. Ms. McDowell
responded that officially it is limited to the ten weeks, however, she did not feel that one or two people using
it occasionally would cause a large enough problem to require Zoning enforcement.
With no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Thomas asked the
applicant to address the Board.
Mr. Steve Murray introduced himself stating that he will speak generally regarding both the cross
country and the bike trails and specifically for cross country. His brother would address the Board with
specific information concerning the bike trails. He believes the Board understands the dynamics behind the
decision to undertake the project in trying to generate revenue from the farm without any land use change.
He, therefore, did not address any of those arguments. He thanked staff and Ms. McDowell specifically for
the tireless effort put into this project. Staff has shown tremendous flexibility in recommending approval for
this use. Mr. Murray went on to address specific conditions. Condition #1a states that users present on
trails should not exceed a total of fifty (50) at any one time. He noted that if 60 children showed up to run
cross country they would not be turned away.
Mr. Murray stated that the other issue is condition #8 which concerns toilets. The applicant has
spent three or four years trying to come up with concepts that will keep the farm in open space and
generate revenue. The concepts that the applicant considered were the bike trails and the cross country
trails. The reason that these are so applicable under RA zoning and these activities are so compatible is
the fact that they are totally reversible. There is no infrastructure necessary. The concept of constructing a
permanent bathroom facility is contrary to the concept of reversibility developed by the applicant. He
requested that the Board allow the applicant to use porta-johns for the bathroom facilities. The prospects
of Panorama Farms selling one more acre in the next ten years is inconceivable. The applicant removed
Panorama Farms from the Agricultural and Forestal District in order to be able to consider alternative
activities on the farm. There is no land use plan which can be taken into consideration in allowing the use
of porta-johns.
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Andrew Murray introduced himself as the applicant. He thanked staff particularly for its revised
staff report. It makes a huge difference. He also thanked the Board members who were able to visit the
site and meet with the applicant. He directed the Board’s attention to SP-00-73, condition #1c. Mr. Murray
went on to explain the anatomy of a mountain bike race in expressing his disagreement with the condition.
He stated that the event takes most of a day and that there are many small races within the event. The
participants in these races are broken up by gender, age, experience level and skill level. There is not a
mass entrance or a mass exodus from the farm at any time. He suggested that there be signage instead of
having personnel at the intersection of Panorama Road and Earlysville Road. He believes that signs
placed on Route 743 approximately 200 yards prior to the intersection in both directions would serve two
purposes. There would be cautionary signs that would indicate additional traffic entering the highway and it
would also give directional information to people coming to the race. Likewise a sign at the end of
Panorama Road at that intersection would suffice to indicate a stop sign ahead. He has no problem with
this condition as long as the same standard applies to all other public events and public parks in the County
that host similar events.
Mr. Murray then referred the Board to condition #2 which is a site development plan on a USGS
Quadrangle map. He referenced a map on the board that he had developed from a Quad map. It is a
much larger scale than a Quad map. It shows all of the trails, all of the waterways, all of the roads coming
to the farm, leaving the farm, all of the bridges built, the structures, the grave yards, the fields, the reservoir.
The only thing that is not on the map is contour lines and location of a bathroom which he would be happy
to add if the Board and applicant can come to terms on the type of bathroom. He asked that the map he
developed be accepted as a site development plan for the application. He also addressed the issue of the
bathrooms. He outlined for the Board the steps in building a bathroom, including obtaining permits, digging
the footing, building the structure, heating the structure, drilling a well, and building a septic system. This is
a huge amount of infrastructure for a toilet. He noted that the Walnut Creek Park and other public facilities
close their bathrooms for five months out of the year and use a porta-john as a substitute. If it is good
enough for public parks for five months out of the year, which has many more activities than bicycle trails, it
should be adequate for Panorama Farm.
Mr. Perkins stated that he thought the issue of toilet facilities is outside the purview of the Board and
is up to the Health Department. Ms. Thomas asked about using the word “temporary” or “removable”. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that if there is a requirement for a permanent facility it does not matter what the
special use permit conditions say. At the Planning Commission meeting this was revised so toilet facilities
would be a little more generic and would basically be provided as required and approved by the Health
Department. Mr. Murray said that the issue is somewhat of a catch-22. He spoke with a representative
from the Health Department who stated that in some instances the County has precedence over the state’s
health requirements. He believes the Health Department is leaning to the County to make the decision.
The applicant’s numbers indicate approximately five users a day as far as the mountain bikers go. The
Health Department representative informed Mr. Murray that for anything under ten a porta-john is
acceptable. Mr. Martin said that he thought Ms. Thomas’s idea of placing “removable” or temporary” would
be acceptable.
Mr. Steve Murray stated that he failed to note that the two major cross-country meets that have over
100 participants are policed by the County Police Department. The School Resource Officer and his staff
take care of traffic control. The signage then is primarily for the bike trails.
Ms. Ann Mallek representing the Earlysville Area Residence League addressed the Board in
support of the applicant. Compared to the by-right activities which may occur on this property, the bike trails
are beneficial to the County in several ways. Bike trails would be less destructive to the land and to the tax
base than 50 to 60 houses filled with children to educate. Each house might generate ten automobile trips
per day, seven days a week, on average plus would intensify the land use with wells and septic systems on
the shores of the South Rivanna Reservoir. Bike passage will cause little if any erosion on land which
borders the Reservoir, certainly causing less than would the heavy pointy feet of several hundred cows
which could be supported on these acres. This proposal would especially be beneficial if paved parking
lots are avoided to reduce runoff into the waterways. Mulched or grassy farm lanes can provide access for
the occasional competition gathering, as is so clearly shown at Foxfield where annual spring and fall horse
races, plus a myriad of other activities such as auctions, dog shows and horseback riding gatherings have
already shown.
The trail system would provide access to a healthy recreation activity which could be enjoyed by
family members of all ages as well as the occasional competitive super-athlete. It is a lengthy drive from
Earlysville to the lovely trails built and maintained with County funds at Walnut Creek and the population of
the northwest part of the County is growing rapidly. The League desires to maintain open space. The
League encourages the Murrays to reestablish the agricultural and forestal district if this permit is approved.
Can the County expand its mindset concerning acceptable uses of farmland and open space? Reasonable
proposals might assist families to preserve open land. Whether the use is keeping horses or cows or
growing crops, raising greenhouse plants, or maintaining paths on which to ride bicycles or to run on one’s
own feet, all seem to have equal need of space and to provide benefit to the community.
Ms. Mallek noted that the following points in the EARL Membership survey supports this proposal:
89 percent of those responding chose natural beauty and rural landscape as most important; 58 percent
included small town environment and 22 percent featured farming as most important; 33 percent want
County funds spent on the preservation of open space; 57 percent want Earlysville to remain rural without
development of commercial recreation facilities such as amusement parks but bike paths, walking and
jogging trails and open space areas are supported.
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dorrier said that any limitation of participants should be based on the 700 acre tract of land and
not the arbitrary number of 50. He suggested that perhaps the limit should be to one participant per acre.
Ms. Humphris asked if the number of 50 reflected in condition #1a is the upper limit without requiring paved
parking. Ms. McDowell stated that staff did not calculate upper limit. She noted that the applicant
requested 42 and staff rounded up to 50. Mr. Davis stated that condition #1a addresses only the practices.
He is familiar with how cross-country teams operate and stated that the participants generally carpool so
that the parking requirements would not really apply individually to each person driving. He does not
believe this will be a practical concern. Ms. Humphris said that she just wanted to get it right without
causing a hardship. Mr. Martin stated that what he heard staff say is that the number 50 was a random
number. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff estimated two vehicles for the 42.
Ms. Humphris expressed concern that should more than 50 children show up to participate that
none be turned away. She asked why a number has to be specified. Ms. Thomas suggested dropping
condition #1a. Mr. Dorrier asked if someone from the County would be counting the number of participants.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there has been tremendous diligence on the part of staff and the applicant in
trying to work through these things because whereas some of these things might seem to be picky the
Board is looking at this as a repetitive activity throughout the County. Staff has shown due diligence in
reviewing it under that concern. He noted that the applicant has been very willing to go through all the little
things that are kind of minutia but important because the Board does not want to set any precedents that
could get out of hand like Foxfield did. Mr. Davis suggested saying 75 people. Mr. Tucker said that he feels
enforcement of the number is a question. If there are issues that the Board is uncertain about, it would be
better to remove those issues and have it reviewed in a year or two.
Ms. Humphris said that the point is precedent. The Board needs to be careful that it does not allow
open house in case there is another application. Mr. Tucker noted that would be a reason for review. Mr.
Dorrier noted that the competition would involve teams other than Albemarle High School. He asked what
would happen if there were some 100 participants. Mr. Martin suggested that the Board go with the 75
number and deal with it if it becomes a problem. Mr. Dorrier asked how many students are on the cross
country team. Mr. Davis responded that there are seven people that run the race and then there are 20 to
25 kids on a team. There is a boy’s team and a girl’s team. The ballpark is about 50.
Mr. Bowerman asked if what has been submitted by the applicant could serve as a site plan. Ms
McDowell said that it is good as it stands but staff is concerned that you cannot really tell the exact
location. She noted that perhaps a topo map would help. Mr. Bowerman suggested that USGS be used.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested either a topo map or a USGS.
Mr. Bowerman addressed the applicant asking whether or not he could do a topo overlay of the
existing map. Mr. Andrew Murray responded that he could. Mr. Bowerman addressed condition #1d. He
asked if the Board has to be specific in terms of requiring personnel here or if the event can dictate the type
of action necessary. Ms. Humphris responded that she believes the applicant has stated that there is
personnel for the cross country event provided by the school. However, on the other issue, the County does
not require that of itself for the same activity at Walnut Creek. Mr. Perkins noted that there are different
circumstances at Walnut Creek than at Earlysville. He suggested that the wording be such that it could be
determined whether or not the personnel is needed by the Police Department. Ms. Thomas suggested that
the word “personnel” be removed and adding the phrase “require traffic control at the intersection when
deemed necessary by the Albemarle County Police.”
Mr. Bowerman turned to the issue of toilet facilities. He suggested that the Board state what it
intends unless other requirements are dictated by the Health Department. He suggested the condition read
“portable toilet facilities shall be provided or as otherwise required by the Thomas Jefferson…” Mr. Davis
said he thinks that what staff is saying is that the Health Department is going to have its own minimum
requirements out there. This is the Board’s opportunity to require something greater than the Health
Department requirements which he does not believe the Board wishes to do. He suggested that condition
#8 state that “portable toilet facilities shall be provided as required and approved by the Thomas Jefferson
Health Department. Then if the Health Department will approve portable toilets, the Board has made that a
condition of the permit. If the Health Department won’t, then they will not. But, the proposed wording will
indicate to the Health Department that portable toilets are acceptable to the Board.
Mr. Bowerman then turned his attention to the new condition #9. No comment had been made
regarding the ten week season. The applicant stated that it is a ten week season. It may be a ten week
season but the runners do not stop running. Mr. Murray agreed. He noted that there would be occasional
practices. Ms. Thomas noted that the High School League probably controls the season. Mr. Murray
agreed. Mr. Bowerman stated that he does not have any problem with the language as long as the Board
recognizes that there could be people running on the course outside the ten week season. Condition #9
also sets the parking requirements.
Mr. Perkins addressed condition #3. In his experience wood chips and sawdust hold moisture. If
the applicant has a good fescue sod then nothing else is needed but gravel would be better in wet spots
than would chips. Mr. Cilimberg suggested removing any reference to type and say “with material subject
to approval by the Engineering Department.” Ms. Thomas suggested condition #3 read: “shall be
constructed and maintained subject to the Engineering Department". Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Davis if this
wording is satisfactory. Mr. Davis responded that it is. Mr. Davis questioned whether staff meant to use the
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
term “tract” instead of “track” in condition #9. Mr. Cilimberg said that it should read “track.” Mr. Davis
further clarified that perhaps it should simply be “cross country.” Mr. Cilimberg agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the changes made by the Board. For SP-2000-54 condition #1a was
changed from 50 to 75; condition #1c stays the same; condition #2, “USGS Quad map or equivalent
topographic map for the restroom, parking lot, access road and trails; condition #3, “with wood chips or
similar material” was deleted; condition #8, “portable” in front of toilet facilities; and condition #9 is “the use
of the property for cross country, as approved shall be limited to a ten (10) week season.”
Mr. Martin moved approval of the SP-2000-54 subject to the nine conditions and changes as
summarized by Mr. Cilimberg. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1) Albemarle High School Cross-Country (SP-00-54) shall operate in accord with the following:
a)Users present on trails shall not exceed a total of seventy-five (75) at any one time,
except during competitive events.
b)One competitive event per year shall be permitted with not more than 700
participants (not including spectators). All other competitive events shall be limited
to no more than 300 participants (not including spectators).
c)Competitive events with more than a total of one-hundred (100) participants and spectators
shall require traffic control personnel at the intersection of SR 844 (Panorama Road) and
SR 743 (Earlysville Road), when deemed necessary by the Albemarle County Police. “
d)No more than a total of eight (8) competitive events (competitions/meets/races) per year
shall be permitted.
e)No more than one (1) event at a time on the subject property shall be permitted;
2.A site development plan on a U.S.G.S. Quadrangle or other topographical map for the restroom (if
required by the Health Department), parking area, access road and trails shall be required;
3.The parking areas shall be constructed and maintained with material subject to approval by the
Engineering Department (Section 4.12.6.3);
4.Trail construction and maintenance specifications shall be submitted to the Albemarle County
Engineering Department for approval. All trails shall be constructed and maintained according to
these specifications;
5.No motorized vehicles other than farm equipment or equipment needed for construction,
maintenance or emergency purposes shall be permitted on the trails;
6.Secondary emergency access from Loftlands Drive shall be provided as approved by the
Engineering Department;
7.No sales of refreshments shall be permitted at any time, other than during competitive events;
8.Portable toilet facilities shall be provided as approved by the Thomas Jefferson Health District; and
9.The use of this property for cross-country track, as approved under SP-00-54, shall be limited to a
ten (10)-week season between the months of August and November.
___________
Mr. Cilimberg then summarized the changes to SP-2000-73. Condition #1d, “when deemed
necessary by the Albemarle County Police Department” is added; condition #2, “USGS Quad map or
equivalent topographic map for the restroom, parking lot, access road and trails, condition #3, “with wood
chips or similar material” was deleted; and condition #8, “portable” in front of toilet facilities.
Mr. Martin moved approval of the SP-2000-73 with the eight conditions and changes as
summarized by Mr. Cilimberg. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The Panorama Farms Bicycle Trails (SP-00-73) shall operate in accord with the following:
a) Users present on trails shall not exceed a total of fifty (50) at any one time, except
during competitive events.
b)No competitive event shall have more than two hundred (200) participants (not including
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
spectators).
c)Competitive events with more than a total of one-hundred (100) participants and spectators
shall require traffic control personnel at the intersection of SR 844 (Panorama Road) and
SR 743 (Earlysville Road), when deemed necessary by the Albemarle County Police. “
d)No more than a total of seven (7) competitive events (competitions/meets/races) per year
shall be permitted.
e)No more than one (1) event at a time on the subject property shall be permitted;
2.A site development plan on a U.S.G.S. Quadrangle map or other topographical map for the
restroom (if required by the Health Department), parking areas, access road and trails shall be
required;
3.The parking areas shall be constructed and maintained with material subject to approval by the
Engineering Department (Section 4.12.6.3);
4.Trail construction and maintenance specifications shall be submitted to the Albemarle County
Engineering Department for approval. All trails shall be constructed and maintained according to
these specifications;
5.No motorized vehicles other than farm equipment or equipment needed for construction,
maintenance or emergency purposes shall be permitted on the trails;
6.Secondary emergency access from Loftlands Drive shall be provided as approved by the
Engineering Department;
7.No sales of refreshments shall be permitted at any time, other than during competitive events; and
8.Portable toilet facilities shall be provided as approved by the Thomas Jefferson Health District.
Mr. Perkins said he assumed that this property was a part of land use taxation. He asked if these
uses might jeopardize this taxation. Mr. Murray said this issue was discussed at length with Bruce
Woodzell, the County Assessor. Mr. Woodzell indicated there could be a potential problem especially with
the bike trails and that the applicant might have to measure the bike trails so that they have a uniform width
and then remove that acreage from any taxation. The argument on appeal would be that agriculture goes
over top of the cross country trails. Mr. Davis stated that he also has spoken with Mr. Woodzell. He noted
that staff would have to determine what parts of the facility are non-productive land. Any non-productive
land would have to be removed from land use. Mr. Davis said it would depend on whether or not the cross
country trails are non-productive with respect to an agricultural use for the majority of the time. He believes
that will be a factual determination that staff will have to make. The bike trails will probably have to be
removed. Ms. Thomas asked the applicant if it is continuing with the hay making. Mr. Murray said there is
no other change in land use.
(The Board recessed at 8:57 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m.)
______________________
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-2001-005. Klockner Stadium/County. (Signs #46 and 47). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to rezone 30.4 acres from having no zoning district to R-1 zoning. ZMA is being
processed in conjunction with SP-00-84. TM76A,PJ3, Loc on 230-6 Ivy Road, contains Klockner Stadium,
University Hall & Frank McCue Bldg. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Development
Area w/a Public/Semi-Public U (University of Virginia) designation. Jack Jouett District. (Notice of this public
hearing was published in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report. He noted that the Klockner Stadium request is to permit
the R-1 zoning that would be necessary to accommodate the special use permit. This is also the subject of
a special use permit. None of the property is zoned therefore it needs a zoning. R-1 would be the
appropriate zoning based on the zoning of other University property. It is recommended for the Board’s
approval.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Humphris move approval of ZMA-2001-005, Klockner Stadium/County, to rezone 30.4 acres
from having no zoning district to R-1 zoning. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
______________________
(Agenda Items 10 through 14 were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2000-83. ECC Tower/County (Sign #70). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow communication fac including a 165' high monopole communication tower in accord w/ Sec
10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 60, P 30F. Located at 2306 Ivy Rd. Znd R-1. Jack Jouett Dist. (Notice of
this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 2001.)
__________
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2000-84. Klockner Stadium/County (Signs #75&76). PUBLIC
HEARING on a request to allow 2 antennas on an existing 105' high stadium light pole, in accord w/ Sec
10.2.2.6 of the Zoning. The antenna would be positioned at approx 75’ & 100’ on the pole. TM 76A, P J3.
Located at Klockner Stadium. Jack Jouett Dist. . (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on April 2 and April 9, 2001.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-2000-85. Fan Mountain/County (Signs #80&81). PUBLIC HEARING on
a request to allow a communication fac including a 120' high self-supported, lattice communication tower,
antennas mounted at 55' & at 60', ground equipment & a 12’ by 26’ building on a 50’ by 50’ fenced area of a
111.5 acre parcel in accord w/ Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning. TM 109, P 60. Located on Fan Mountain Rd,
past the University of Virginia’s Fan Mountain Observatory. Znd RA. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public
hearing was published in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 2001.)
___________
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2000-86. Bucks Elbow/County (Signs #83&84). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow a 20' increase in the height of an existing 120' communication tower, on a 100’ by 100’
fenced area, in accord w/ Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 39, P 1B1, contains .23 acs. Located on
Buck’s Elbow Mountain & accessed from Whitehall Rd. Znd RA. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public
hearing was published in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 2001.)
____________
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-2000-88. Carters Mountain/County (Signs #94&96). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to allow a communication fac consisting of a 250' high lattice tower & equipment shelter on a
60’ by 70’ lease area, in accord w/ Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 91, P 28, contains
234.165 acs. Located on Carter’s Mountain & accessed from St Rt 53. Znd RA. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of
this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on April 2 and April 9, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff reports for Agenda Items #10 through #14. He noted that the
Board has received a lot of information on these proposals from prior presentations. He noted again that
the request for the Peter Mountain facility was withdrawn. Alternatives are being examined as to the
replacement for that facility. There would be a special use permit required for whatever that alternate site
or sites might be. The Planning Commission was informed of the withdrawal.
The Commission took action on the five remaining sites, recommending all five to the Board. Four
were recommended for approval unanimously and the ECC facility by a vote of 6 to 1. In that case the vote
against approval was due to the visibility concerns from Route 250. Staff recommended approval as well
as the Planning Commission on each of the five active special permit requests with conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said in the Executive Summary, staff noted a change to SP-00-83 and SP-00-84
conditions regarding the contingency on a variance. Staff has added the language “or amendment to this
section as proposed by ZTA-01-05” to each of these special use permits.
Staff provided various maps for the Board showing the locations of the five sites. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that a summary of some of the specific matters that were raised at the Planning Commission meeting
regarding characteristics of the ground equipment, the tower, the fencing and the public versus private
issues have been provided to the Board.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Joe Flemini stated that he generally opposes towers. However, these are different. The tower
at the Emergency Communications Center is absolutely essential. The County is just now coming into the
thst
20 Century in communications now that the 21 Century has dawned and the County is way behind. He
feels that the County is past due for a trunked 800 MHz system. He encouraged the Board to accept the
proposals as they are. The ECC happens to be in a part of the County where one will see a monopole
tower. He asked the Board to accept the proposal as it is because it is absolutely essential for the future
growth of public communications in the County.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Thomas said she felt the report was very good and included information she had not gotten in
the previous conversations. Regarding the ECC tower, there had been an earlier question about whether a
tower could be placed anywhere on Lewis Mountain and if a tower were placed on Lewis Mountain whether
that meant there could be a much lower tower at ECC and still meet the needs of the system or whether it
would end up being a taller tower at ECC if there were a tower on Lewis Mountain. She believes the
confusion has to do with whether Lewis Mountain takes the place of the Klockner Stadium tower.
Mr. Wayne Campagna, Project Coordinator for the 800 MHz Project, answered that the Lewis
Mountain tower scenario was one of the options of many options reviewed by staff. The thinking was that a
tower could be placed on Lewis Mountain and keep a lower tower profile at the ECC. That tower would be
a point of connection to the Bucks Elbow tower. Klockner Stadium was not in the configuration at that time.
It came into the configuration design this past year as a point of connection from the ECC to Klockner
Stadium directly and was put in place to be able to allow the tower at the ECC to be as low as it possibly
could in consideration of its connectivity to Bucks Elbow. That is what resulted in the tower being proposed
at 110 feet at the ECC. Mr. Campagna clarified that on the agenda it is indicated as 165 feet at the ECC
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
but the correct tower height is 110 feet at the ECC. When staff looked at that possible scenario it became a
question of what the path reliability would be on its connectivity to each of the points. The reliability of the
connectivity was below what was required for the system. Therefore, that ruled it out as a possible tower
scenario. The University was not in favor of that site location either.
Ms. Thomas noted that the ECC facility is located in her district. The ARB did not approve it
because of its visual impact. Ms. Thomas said she met with the Scenic 250 Committee and one of its board
members pointed out that one of its amateur radio clubs is having to provide the communication for the
Dave Matthews Band concert and all of the safety personnel involved with that because there’s no way to
cover such an event with the County’s present radio set up. That group did not choose to oppose what will
be a very visible tower.
Ms. Humphris moved approval of SP-2000-83, subject to the four conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission, with a change to condition #3 as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Dorrier.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The site development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans titled “ECC Site Plans and
Elevations”, prepared by Rivanna Engineering, dated 1-23-01;
2.Landscape screening consisting of evergreen and deciduous trees shall be installed alongside and
parallel to the Route 250 right-of-way, between the ECC building and the westernmost property
line, subject to the approval of the Planning Director or designee;
3.This special use permit shall be contingent upon approval of a variance from provisions set forth in
Section 4.10.3.1 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance or amendment to this section as proposed by
ZTA-01-05; and
4.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of
access for vehicle or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying
tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site
both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of
Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with
the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall
be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized
by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing
trees within two-hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two-hundred (200)-foot buffer,
after the installation of the subject facility.
__________
Ms. Humphris moved approval of SP-2000-84, subject to the three conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission, with a change to condition #2 as recommended by staff. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The site development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans titled “Klockner Stadium”,
prepared by Harris Corporation, dated 10-18-00, and included as Attachment E (on file in the
Clerk’s office);
2.This special use permit shall be contingent upon approval of a variance from provisions set forth in
Section 4.10.3.1 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance or amendment to this section as proposed by
ZTA-01-05; and
3.This special use permit shall be contingent upon approval of ZTA 01-05.
__________
Mr. Dorrier moved approval of SP-2000-85 subject to the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The site development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans titled “Fan Mountain Site
Plan and Elevations”, prepared by Rivanna Engineering, dated 1-23-01; and
2.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of
access for vehicle or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying
tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site
both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of
Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with
the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall
be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized
by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing
trees within two-hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two-hundred (200)-foot buffer,
after the installation of the subject facility.
__________
Mr. Perkins moved approval of SP-2000-86 subject to the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The site development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans titled “Bucks Elbow
Mountain Site Plan and Elevations”, prepared by Rivanna Engineering, dated 1-23-01; and
2.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of
access for vehicle or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying
tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site
both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of
Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with
the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall
be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized
by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing
trees within two-hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two-hundred (200)-foot buffer,
after the installation of the subject facility.
__________
Mr. Dorrier moved approval of SP-2000-88 subject to the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The site development shall be in substantial compliance with the plans titled “Carters Mountain Site
Plan and Elevations”, prepared by Rivanna Engineering, dated 1-23-01; and
2.Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of
access for vehicle or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying
tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site
both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of
Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with
the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall
be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized
by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing
trees within two-hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two-hundred (200)-foot buffer,
after the installation of the subject facility.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff wanted to share anything with respect to the Peters Mountain tower. Mr.
Tucker stated that staff is currently working with a property owner on a possible contract that has not been
finalized. Ms. Thomas thanked staff for working hard on this for many months. She also noted that the
University was very generous with a number of the towers being on University property. She feels it is
important to write a note of thanks.
________________
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Agenda Item 15. Adopt FY 2001-02 County Operating Budget and Capital Budget, and Approve
FY 2001-02 to FY 2005-2006 Capital Improvements Program.
The Executive Summary states that on April 11th, a public hearing was held on the Board
Supervisors' proposed operating budget for FY 2001/02 and the proposed FY 2001/02 - FY 2005/06 Capital
Improvement Program. Since there were no additional funding requests or proposed changes to either the
FY 02 Operating Budget or the FY 02-FY 06 Capital Improvement Program, both FY 02 Operating and ClP
budgets being brought forward today for adoption are the same as the Board's proposed budget presented
at the public hearing. There have been no changes since the last Board work session.
The FY 02 proposed operating budget, which totals $173,117,976, represents a $1.317 million
increase over the County Executive's recommended budget. Of this increase, $119,628 went to General
Government and $1,449,395 was added to the School Division budget ($1,623,757 million additional local
support offset by a $174,362 reduction in state revenues). The FY 02 Capital Budget totals $29,693,000,
which reflects the first year of the five-year FY 01/02- FY 05/06 Capital Improvement Program of
$113,061,000.
FY 02 Operating Budget: The attached resolution (Attachment B) formally approves the proposed
operating expenditures for FY 2001/02, which total $173,117,976. Attachment A summarizes the changes
to the County Executive's recommended budget made during work sessions with the Board's remaining
Contingency Reserve Fund of $661,543.
FY 02 Capital Budget and FY 02 - FY 06 Capital Improvement Program: The proposed FY
2001/02 Capital Budget totals $29,693,000, $7,965,000 for General Government projects, $21,428,000 for
School Division projects and $300,000 for Stormwater Projects. A breakdown of the FY 02 Capital Budget
by functional areas and revenue sources is shown on the following page. Also shown on the next page, is
the same breakdown for total expenditures and revenues of $113,061,000 for the five-year Capital
Improvement Program, FY 02 - 06. All project information on the proposed capital budget and five-year
Capital Improvement Program can be found in the FY 2001/02-FY2005/06 Capital Improvement
Program/FY2006/07- FY2010/11 Capital Needs Assessment document. No changes have been made to
the initial recommendation.
Expenditures by FunctionFY 01-02FY 01/02 - 05/06
Adminstration & Courts$1,630,000$15,129,000
Public Safety$2,898,000$17,413,000
Highways & Transportation$1,456,000$7,567,000
Human Development$78,000$228,000
Libraries$0$878,000
Parks & Recreation$803,000$4,783,000
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE)$1,000,000$1,000,000
Utility Improvements$100,000$300,000
Stormwater Projects$300,000$2,425,000
School Division Projects$21,428,000$63,338,000
Grand Total Projects$29,693,000$113,061,000
Available Resources:FY 01-02FY 01/02 - 05/06
Local Revenues - General Fund$6,890,000$26,857,000
CIP Fund Balance$646,000$1,180,000
Tourism Fund Revenues - ACE/Other$658,000$995,000
Interest Earned$250,000$1,250,000
Courthouse Maintenance Funds$44,000$248,000
City Reimbursements$8,000$17,000
State Construction Funding$400,000$2,000,000
Borrowed Funds - General Gov$465,000$22,721,000
VPSA Bonds - Schools$20,332,000$57,793,000
Grand Total Resources$29,693,000$113,061,000
If the Board has no further additions or deletions to the FY 02 proposed operating budget, staff
requests approval of the budget adoption resolution in Attachment B. Staff also requests adoption of the
proposed FY 02 Capital Budget of $29,693,000 and approval of the FY 02 - FY 06 Capital improvement
Program of $113,061,000 as detailed.
Mr. Martin moved adoption of operations budget totaling $173,117,976. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Mr. Perkins stated that he would vote against the adoption. Ms. Humphris asked why he would vote
against adoption. Mr. Perkins stated that he felt the County is spending money in a reassessment year with
no regard for next year which will have no reassessments. This amounts to a 15 percent increase. The
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
County could have a 66 cent tax rate and raise the same revenues as raised last year from real estate. Mr.
Perkins said that he feels the County is over spending. He feels that people are being overtaxed particularly
with the job losses in the community. He received calls regarding the reassessments. Though the
reassessments average 13 percent he had many constituents whose reassessments were in excess of 20
percent.
Ms. Humphris stated that she thought the budget to be adopted this year took into consideration the
County’s plan to set aside a large amount of money each year for future capital needs. She thought the
capital needs study bore this out and that all Board members had agreed that this would be the course of
action. Mr. Perkins said the County is setting aside more but it is also spending more. He feels that the
current trend is not healthy. Ms. Humphris said she wished this discussion had come up during the budget
work sessions. Mr. Perkins said the Board has these discussions every year but it has made no difference
in the past and he does not see that it would have made a difference this year. Ms. Humphris said that had
Mr. Perkins addressed his issues during the work sessions not only would other members of the Board
know how he felt, but members of the public would also know and that would have been helpful. Mr. Martin
stated that since he had been on the Board there has never been a 6-0 vote. It has always been 5-1 at best
and last year it was 4-2.
Mr. Dorrier stated that last year he voted against the budget because he did not feel the County
needed the tax increase. This year, however, he is voting for the budget because once the Board made a
decision to increase the tax rate it seems that the rate after the refund of the surplus appears appropriate
for this years budget. Mr. Dorrier said there are a significant number of capital needs that need to be met.
There is a compensation package to which he feels committed. The County has also seen the state
mishandle its budget and reduce the amount of income coming to the County from that budget. He did not
see the same amount of anger and opposition to the proposed budget during public hearings that he had
seen the previous year. Lastly, the fiscal condition of the County is excellent and needs to be maintained.
Ms. Humphris agreed.
Mr. Perkins stated that the County needs to look at the extra services and consider service districts.
By creating service districts those who will receive the service will pay for the service.
Ms. Thomas agreed with Mr. Dorrier’s statement. She is proud of the fact that the County is doing a
far better job of setting aside funds for capital projects than it was doing just a couple of years ago. This will
reduce the interest payments to be made in the future for debt service. This budget increasingly recognizes
the need of things like stormwater and other things.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:Mr. Perkins.
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the
operations budget for the county for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2001 be approved as follows:
General Government Adminstration$7,000,062
Judicial$2,566,307
Public Safety$15,071,001
Public Works$2,954,322
Human Development$10,478,340
Parks, Recreation,and Culture$4,315,533
Community Development$3,972,425
City/County Revenue Sharing$6,482,712
Refunds$92,100
Capital Improvements$5,590,188
General Government Debt Service$910,202
Education-Operations$95,944,684
Education-Self Sustaining Fund$8,546,557
Education-Debt Service$8,532,000
Contingency Reserve$661,543
TOTAL$173,117,976
__________
Mr. Martin moved adoption of FY 2001-2002 Capital Budget totaling $29,693,000, as set out
above. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
__________
Mr. Martin moved adoption of FY 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Program totaling $113,061,000,
as set out above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
_______________
Agenda Item 16. Adopt Calendar Year 2001 Rates.
The Executive Summary states that on April 11, 2001, a public hearing was held on the Board of
Supervisors' proposed operating budget for FY 2001/02. A separate public hearing also was held on the
2001 calendar year tax rates. The attached resolution to set the 2001 tax year or calendar year tax rates
must be approved at the April 18, 2001
The attached resolution sets the tax levy for calendar year 2001. The proposed rates are set at
$0.72/$100 assessed valuation for real estate tax for the first half of the tax year and $0.76/$100 assessed
valuation for the second half of the tax year and $4.28/$100 assessed value for the personal property tax
rate. The impact of the reduced real estate tax rate in the first half of the tax year will be to effectively return
approximately $1.4 million dollars to the taxpayers.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed tax rates at the April 18th meeting, in order that the
printing and mailing of the tax bills can occur in a timely manner.
Mr. Martin moved adoption of a resolution setting the County levy for taxable year 2001 at
$0.72/$100 for the first six months and $0.76/$100 for the second six months for real estate and the
personal property of $4.28/$100. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:Mr. Perkins.
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set
the County Levy for the taxable year 2001 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two
st
Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate for the 1 half of the
nd
2001 tax year (June, 2001 collection) and Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) for the 2 half of the
2001 tax year (December, 2001 collection); at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents
($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of personal property; at Four Dollars and
Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of
machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars
st
worth of assessed value of public service assessments for the 1 half of the 2001 tax year
and at $0.76 of every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service
nd
assessments for the 2 half of the 2001 tax year; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect the taxes on
all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property.
__________________
Agenda Item 17. Approval of Minutes: February 7, February 14, February 21 and March 14, 2001.
Mr. Martin had read the February 21, 2001 minutes and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the February 14, 2001 minutes and found them to be in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read the February 7, 2001 minutes, pages 1-18, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Martin moved approval of the minutes as read. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
Agenda Item 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
April 18, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Tucker informed the Board that staff had recently learned that the consultant had
underestimated the amount needed to bring 100 percent of classified staff who qualified to midpoint. The
amount budgeted will meet only about 97 percent of market. The County will try to make that up next year.
The teachers are not affected, only classified employees.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. At 9:48, there being no further business to come before the Board,
motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn until April 25, 2001.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES:Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS:None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 08/15/2001
Initials: LAB