2001-06-20June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1
)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 20,
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. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Martin moved approval of items 5.1, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 of the Consent Agenda, to defer item 5.2
and to accept items 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 for information. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
(Discussion on individual items are included with that item.)
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.
____________
Item No. 5.1. SP-2001-05. Jensen (Triton PCS) (Sign #49) - conditions of approval (deferred from
June 6, 2001).
The executive summary states that the proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service
facility, to increase wireless coverage along Route 20, north of Charlottesville, in order to assist Triton PCS
with maintaining a wireless communications system in accordance with the requirements of its' FCC issued
license, by preventing the occurrence of a "gap" in the network. The facility will be located within a 30-foot
by 30-foot lease area on TMP 62-91. Development of the lease area would include a self-supporting steel
monopole, painted dark brown, reaching 69 feet high. Three flush-mount panel antennas, nearly 4 feet in
height, and a lightning rod would be attached at the top of the pole. All ground-based equipment would be
contained within a brown metal cabinet, six feet-nine inches in height, to be placed on a 10' by 12' concrete
pad. Access to the lease area will be from a 12' wide approximately 200' long gravel drive proposed in an
existing narrow clearing.
The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the special use permit with
conditions, as described in the attached letter. A public hearing before the Board of Supervisors was held
on June 6, 2001. The Board directed staff to revise the proposed conditions of approval, which follow.
Staff finds the proposal consistent with the goals set forth in the Wireless Policy. Staff
recommends approval of the special use permit, subject to 14 conditions.
In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment:
In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction
from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board
with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.
(Mr. Martin asked whether the Board decided on steel or wood pole at the end of their previous
discussion of this matter. Ms. Humphris stated that when she received the Executive Summary and saw the
sentence “the steel pole shall be painted a brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of trees” she
consulted staff. Staff informed her that they believed the Board wanted it to be a steel pole, however, staff
and the applicant thought it should be a wood pole. Ms. Humphris said she then received an e-mail that
had the sentence reading as “the wood pole shall be a shade of brown that is consistent with the color of
the trees.” That was the last she heard.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he has confirmed it should be a wood pole. Mr. Perkins said that was
correct because the Board did not say there was any diameter limitation on the pole. Ms. Humphris stated
that it was her understanding the applicant preferred wood. Mr. Bowerman said he believes that part of the
issue with the applicant is the loading on the tower. That might push them to steel versus wood.
Mr. Martin said he received an e-mail from Mr. Fogerty stating that the applicant prefers the steel
because of the strength of it among other things. Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board should go with the
wood since that is what is before it. If there is a problem with wood, the applicant can come back and ask
June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2
)
for steel and provide reasons.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board has approved steel poles. Mr. Martin said it has approved three or
four. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know that any steel poles have been installed yet. He noted that when
staff put the word “wood” in the condition they left in the “painted brown” language. He did not think the
Board wanted to keep this language and suggested the wording “the wood pole should be a shade of
brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of the trees.” Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Zoning
enforcement staff has a real problem with painting a wood pole.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved SP-2001-05 subject to the following
conditions:
1. As shown on the latest revised plan entitled Jensen (Triton PCS), sealed and dated May 17, 2001,
the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total height of sixty-nine (69) feet, nor shall it exceed a
top elevation of 558.5 feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), nor shall it ever be more than
nine (9) feet taller than the tallest tree within seventy-five (75) feet of the monopole, whichever is
less. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above
the top of the pole;
2. The facility shall be designed, constructed, and maintained as follows:
a. The wood pole shall be a shade of brown that is consistent with the color of the bark of the
trees;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition
number nine (9) herein;
d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad, and all equipment attached to
the pole, shall be brown or earthtone in color and shall be no larger than the specifications
set forth in the latest revised plans entitled Jensen (Triton PCS), sealed and dated May 17,
2001;
e. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not
exceed one (1)-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the
top of the pole;
f. Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall
provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured
both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); and,
g. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in condition one (1) of this special use
permit without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit;
3. The facility shall be located as shown on the latest revised plans entitled Jensen (Triton PCS),
sealed and dated May 17, 2001;
4. Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the latest revised plans entitled Jensen
(Triton PCS), sealed and dated May 17, 2001;
b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; and,
c. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches;
5. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of
access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying
three 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 installations associated
with the pole and equipment pad, 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 lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. 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;
6. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
7. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a
wireless telecommunication service provider;
8. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are
steeper than 2:1 unless retaining wall, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to
the County Engineer are employed;
9. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be
fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the
lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a
luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed
to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply;
10. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area
shall not be required;
11. Access road improvements shall be limited to drainage improvements and minimal grading
necessary to improve the travel surface and the application of gravel. Should installation of the
facility require provision of greater access improvements, these improvements shall be removed or
reduced after installation is completed;
June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3
)
12. The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and
Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility,
Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special
use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans;
13. No trees or significant vegetation shall be removed from the area bounded by the new access
easement from Route 20 to the tower site, the utility easement across parcels 89 and 91, the
westernmost boundary of parcel 91, and property lines of parcels 89 and 91 along Route 20. The
area subject to this condition is shown on pages SP-2 and Z-2 of the latest revised plans entitled
Jensen (Triton PCS), sealed and dated May 17, 2001; and,
14. The trimming, cutting, or removal of the eighty-eight (88)-foot tall tree located five-hundred-eighty-
five (585) feet from the monopole, as identified on the latest revised plan entitled Jensen (Triton
PCS), sealed and dated May 17, 2001, is prohibited. Any occurrence that destroys or reduces the
height or volume of the tree shall constitute grounds for the Board of Supervisors to void the special
use permit if it determines that the change in condition of the tree requires a modification of the
facility to mitigate its visibility.
____________
Item No. 5.2. Resolution to Request an ABC Board Investigation of the Foxfield Races.
(Mr. Dorrier stated that while the intent may be good to have the investigation, he would prefer to
set up a committee of people from various organizations that are currently involved in the Foxfield races.
The committee could do a study or investigate the actual performance or problems of the race, and then
come back with recommendations to the Board.
Ms. Humphris said she has read the letter provided to the Board (copy on file) from Mr. Ben Dick,
attorney for Foxfield. Mr. Dick speaks of a proposal that she made. She noted that she neither made the
proposal nor had anything to do with it. She finds other statements in his letter very alarming. She also
noted that Mr. Dick says the letter will remain confidential. Ms. Humphris said that a letter sent to a public
official through the mail is not confidential. The letter makes it sound as though she has a vendetta against
Foxfield when all she has ever done is to pass on to the Board the concerns that have been passed to her.
She also noted that Mr. Dick references her comments made on WINA on the Nancy King show. Those
comments were taken directly from the Board’s proposed resolution and nothing else. The letter strays
very far from what the situation is and from what she feels the Board’s action should be.
Ms. Thomas stated that she made a decision not to call on the members of the audience from
Foxfield to speak. The president of MADD was also present at the prior Board meeting. She (Ms. Thomas)
did not feel that was the right forum for a public hearing that had not been advertised or to have a lot of give
and take. Ms. Humphris said that when it was suggested that the Board pull the resolution from the consent
agenda until another meeting had taken place she thought about it hard. When the County had a similar
situation concerning Foxfield arise several years ago, the Board had one major very helpful meeting made
up of members of the Board of Supervisors, members of the Foxfield Board, the County Police Department,
and the County Sheriff’s Department.
Ms. Humphris said what happened here, according to what she was told by Sheriff Robb, was that
he received a phone call from a representative of Foxfield one afternoon that a meeting was taking place
the very next day. He was not able to attend the meeting because he and Chief Miller were obligated to
another meeting. He replied to Mr. Dick that that was the case. The Sheriff seemed to feel that was not an
appropriate way to set up a meeting and she would certainly agree with that. The meeting did not involve
any of the members of the Board. Sgt. Dan Blake was able to be at the meeting and brought back
information on what was discussed. Ms. Humphris said that a major meeting needs to be arranged in a
timely fashion with appropriate notice to all of the players that she has mentioned. The things that have
been suggested need to be run by the Police Department and Sheriff’s Department to see if they believe
those measures will help the situation. No matter what action the Board takes the roads will not be widened
or stretched. She asked that since alcohol does seem to be so much a part of the problem why is it that the
Board has to request the ABC Board to conduct an investigation of the situation. The ABC Board issues the
license for distribution of alcohol, therefore the ABC Board should investigate on its own. Ms. Humphris
said that the Board should postpone any action on the resolution that is before the Board.
Mr. Butterfield asked to address the Board. Ms. Thomas said that she would not allow public
comment at this time. She feels that Foxfield was better off before the letter was written and might be the
same before further comments are made. She believes there is a consensus to defer the action and have
a meeting. She suggested a meeting with the outcome of which being reported back to the Board rather
than appointing a committee. She believes that things are getting a bit out of hand with people assuming
that there is either an evil vendetta or criminal negligence going on. She does not believe there is either of
those things going on. There is an attractive setup for excessive drinking and the efforts are spilling out into
the neighborhood. She believes everyone recognizes that it was not an ideal situation this year. Ms.
Thomas then allowed Mr. Butterfield to speak.
Mr. Butterfield identified himself as the Director of Racing at the Foxfield Races. He stated that Mr.
Dick could not be present because his son had been injured in a go-cart accident and is in the hospital to
have his hand operated on. He noted that the meeting that Ms. Humphris referred to is that after each race
the track’s security meet to discuss the problems that occurred at the races. What occurred was that they
hashed over the various problems. Foxfield is in agreement with the Board that there are serious problems
at the spring race meet with alcohol consumption, traffic and safety. Those at the meeting came up with a
series of ideas and hope that they might be implemented in the future. Usually Foxfield has been asked to
come to a meeting that the County has organized. No one called about a meeting this year. They attended
a meeting in August 2000 and there were various things proposed for the spring race meet. One of which
June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4
)
was to increase Albemarle County police on the roads. He commented that unfortunately many of the
Albemarle County police could not be there because there was a stabbing and 19 officers were involved in
responding to that crime. The other matter discussed was that a magistrate would be at the races and
would issue summonses to people who were breaking the law. Ms. Thomas interjected that the Board has
agreed to have a meeting. Mr. Butterfield thanked the Board.
Mr. Dorrier asked that VDOT as well as student representatives from UVA and JMU be at the
meeting in addition to those Ms. Humphris outlined. Ms. Thomas stated that the resolution would be pulled
from the consent agenda and a meeting would be held to discuss the matter further.)
____________
Item No. 5.3. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 2001-2002 Capital Improvements Budget
and Resolution of Official Intent for use of VPSA Bond Proceeds.
The executive summary states that FY 2002/02 Capital Improvement Budget was approved by the
Board of Supervisors on April 18, 2001 in the amount of $29,693,000, $7,965,000 to the General
Government Capital Improvement Fund, $21,428 to the School Division Capital Improvement Fund and
$300,000 to the Stormwater Fund. In addition to the Capital Improvement Program, this resolution also
includes the appropriation of funds to both the School and General Government Debt Service Funds.
The attached resolution totals $43,840,971 and includes the following:
General Government Capital Improvement Program Fund $12,022,188
This includes $7,965,000 in approved projects, plus $4,057,188 in Capital Reserve funds to be
used for future capital projects and debt service over the next five years. The final reserve reflects a
reduction of $118,000 approved by the Board in April for Simpson Park and an $80,000 transfer of funds
from the Capital Fund into the General Government Debt Service Fund to provide additional funds for 800
MHz debt service, if needed.
School Division Capital Improvement Program Fund $21,428
The only change from the adopted School Capital Improvement Program budget is the transfer of
$675,000 from the Southern Elementary School project and $200,000 from the Maintenance account into
the Northern Elementary School project to cover the projected shortfall. This transfer was approved by both
the School Board and Board of Supervisors at the June 6th meeting.
Stormwater Fund $300,000
There have been no changes to the approved Stormwater Fund allocation.
Debt Service $10,090,783
School Division debt service reflects $8.5 million for Capital Improvement Program projects,
$272,656 for debt service on the PREP facility, which is 100% reimbursed by fees, and $295,925 on the
School's VRS debt service payment. School Divisions were given the option to pay mandated COLA
increases through annual debt payments. The final payment is due in FY03.
General Government debt service totals $990,202, which includes $948,000 in debt service for the
800MHz radio system project and $42,202 for the Monticello Fire Rescue Station.
Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Appropriation for the FY2001-02 Capital
Improvement Program and FY2001-02 Debt Service funds. Also recommended for approval, is the
attached Resolution of Official Intent to use VPSA bond proceeds for school capital projects.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2002
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AND DEBT SERVICE
FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions
with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all resolutions wholly in conflict
with this resolution and all resolutions inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein
specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
Paragraph One
ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS$ 1,630,000
1. County Computer Upgrade$ 220,000
June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5
)
2. County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement Projects500,000
3. Court Facilities Renovation/Expansion565,000
4. Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects80,000
5. Court Square Enhancements250,000
5. J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement Projects15,000
$1,630,000
Paragraph Two
FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY$ 2,898,000
1. Fire/Rescue Training Center/Police Firing Range$ 10,000
2. Fire/Rescue Building and Equipment Fund2,765,000
3. Police Video Cameras for Patrol83,000
4. Transport Vehicles for Arrest40,000
$2,898,000
Paragraph Three
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION$ 1,456,000
1. Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program$ 406,000
2. Revenue Sharing Road Projects 500,000
3. Sidewalk Construction Program410,000
4. Transportation Planning & Improvement Program100,000
5. Street Lamp Program40,000
$1,456,000
Paragraph Four
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT$ 78,000
1. CALAS Facility$ 28,000
2. Region Ten Facilities 50,000
$ 78,000
Paragraph Five
PARKS AND RECREATION$ 803,000
1. County Athletic Field Development$ 228,000
2. Crozet Park Athletic Field Development131,000
3. Paramount Theater33,000
4. Parks & Rec Maintenance/Replacement Projects60,000
5. PVCC Facility Renovation93,000
6. Recreation Facilities Project50,000
7. Rivanna Greenway Access and Path25,000
8. School Athlet Field Irrigation77,000
9. Scottsville Community Center Improvements44,000
10. Simpson Park50,000
11. Towe Park Lower Field Irrigation12,000
$ 803,000
Paragraph Six
ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS$ 1,000,000
1. Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program$1,000,000
Paragraph Seven
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS$ 100,000
1. Keene Landfill Closure$ 100,000
Paragraph Eight
CAPITAL RESERVE$ 4,057,188
1. Capital Reserve$4,057,188
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$12,011,188
To be provided as follows:
General Government CIP Fund Balance$ 1,982,000
School Debt Service Reserve1,785,000
General Government Debt Service Reserve1,690,000
City Reimbursements8,000
June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6
)
Courthouse Maintenance Funds44,000
Borrowed Funds-Fire/Rescue Station465,000
Interest Income100,000
Tourism Funds658,000
Transfer from General Fund5,290,188
$12,022,188
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$12,022,188
SECTION II - SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL
DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
Paragraph One
EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)$21,428,000
1. Administrative Technology$ 70,000
2. Brownsville Additions240,000
3. Burley Addition/Renovations6,995,000
4. Crozet Kitchen65,000
5. Instructional Technology396,000
6. Jouett Addition/Renovation315,000
7. New Northern Elementary School10,544,000
8. New Southern Elementary School1,225,000
9. School Maintenance/Replacement Projects1,578,000
$21,428,000
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$21,428,000
To be provided as follows:
School CIP Fund Balance$ 546,000
Interest Earned150,000
State Construction Funds400,000
VPSA Bonds20,332,000
$21,428,000
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$21,428,000
SECTION III - STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORMWATER
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for stormwater improvement purposes herein specified to be
apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
Paragraph One
STORMWATER PROJECTS$ 300,000
1. Stormwater Control Program$ 300,000
SUMMARY
Total STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 300,000
To be provided as follows:
Transfer from the General Fund$ 300,000
Total STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 300,000
SECTION IV: DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the function of DEBT
SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and
the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:
June 20, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7
)
Paragraph One
SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND$ 9,100,581
1. Debt Service Payments - School Division$8,532,000
2. Debt Service Payments - PREP272,656
3. VRS Early Retirement295,925
$9,100,581
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 9,100,581
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $8,832,000
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)295,925
Revenue from Local Sources (PREP Fees)272,656
$9,100,581
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 9,100,581
Paragraph Two
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND$ 990,202
1. 600 MHz Debt Service Payment$ 948,000
2. Fire/Rescue Building Debt Service Payment42,202
$ 990,202
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 990,202
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fd Transfer) $ 910,202
Revenue from E-911 Surcharge80,000
$ 990,202
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$ 990,202
SUMMARY
Total COUNTY DEBT SERVICE appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$10,090,783
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources$9,738,127
Fees and Surcharges352,656
$10,090,783
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Total COUNTY DEBT SERVICE resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002:$10,090,783
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - IV IN THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2002
RECAPITULATION:
Section I - General Government Improvements Fund$12,022,188
Section II - School Division Capital Improvements Fund21,428,000
Section III - Stormwater Capital Improvements Fund 300,000
Section IV - Debt Service10,090,783
$43,840,971
GRAND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $43,840,971
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from
one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the
appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation resolution.
SECTION V
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I, II and III are appropriated
upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms
and those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Melvin A. Breeden) and Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors (Ella W. Carey) are hereby designated as authorized signators for all bank accounts.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum,
conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full
in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and
available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the
appropriations in full.
Otherwise the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of
all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the
said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included in its
estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not
be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the
Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures
which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may
be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of
Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items
exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required, and provided further that no
requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be
required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency,
or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent
shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the
contracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract
shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County
Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not
issue any warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments,
bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the
discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for
its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or
approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the
same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, two thousand and two.
* * * * * * * * * *
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the “County”), intends to undertake various
improvements to its public school system as described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project prior to the issuance of the Bonds, as hereinafter
defined, and to receive reimbursement for such expenditures from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
(1)The County intends to finance the Project through the issuance of bonds in an amount not to
exceed $20,332,000 (the “Bonds”).
(2)The County intends to receive reimbursement from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds for costs
of the Project paid by the County prior to the issuance of the Bonds.
(3)The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as “official intent” within
the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
**********
Exhibit A
PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED SCHOOL PROJECTS
FY 2001/02
DescriptionAmount
1Brownsville Additions$240,000
2Burley Addition/Renovations$6,995,000
3Jouett Addition/Renovations$315,000
4Northern Area Elementary$10,544,000
5Southern Area Elementary$1,225,000
6Maintenance/Replacement$1,013,000
$20,332,000
____________
Item No. 5.4. Adopt Resolution Endorsing Meadow Creek Parkway and Resolution of Intent to
Amend Comprehensive Plan.
(Ms. Thomas asked to whom the resolution would be sent. Mr. Davis said the resolution that
endorses Alternative A will be sent to the appropriate VDOT official. Ms. Thomas noted that the Board has
a lot of good reasons why Alternative A is the alternative selected. She feels that if it goes without a cover
letter VDOT may not know why the Board feels this to be the best alternative. She asked that staff prepare
a cover letter. Mr. Tucker noted that VDOT has reviewed the report of the consultants. Staff will send a
cover letter.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolutions:
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
WHEREAS, the proposed corridor for the Meadow Creek Parkway consists of
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
approximately two miles in length, with the first segment being within the Charlottesville City
limits between Route 250 and Melbourne Road, and the second segment in Albemarle County
between Melbourne Road and Rio Road; and
WHEREAS, in September, 2000, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
contracted with Jones & Jones Architects and Landscape Architects to develop design and
alignment recommendations for the second segment of the Meadow Creek Parkway, to
consider the parkway corridor for its potential as a linear park and to look at adjacent park and
urban development areas along the corridor of land between Melbourne Road and Rio Road
in Albemarle County, with the overall vision being the creation of a true "parkway"; and
WHEREAS, Jones & Jones led and coordinated a design team that worked in
conjunction with the Albemarle County Engineering and Planning Departments and the
Planning Commission. The culmination of this process was the creation of a written report
providing three alternative alignments with Alternative "A" being the recommended alignment.
Alternative "A" was then further refined and final recommendations for the parkway, urban
development and parklands was presented to the Board of Supervisors on June 6, 2001;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that having reviewed all the alternatives and
aspects of the proposed project, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, hereby endorses
Alternative "A" and requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to proceed
expeditiously with the design of the Meadow Creek Parkway, from Melbourne Road to Rio
Road, in conformance with the proposed Alternative "A" roadway alignment recommendation
and concept set out in the "Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report - May, 2001".
* * * * * * * *
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby adopt a Resolution of Intent to consider amending the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the "Meadow Creek Parkway Final Report, dated May,
2001"; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board requests the Albemarle County
Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan, and to send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date.
_______________
Item No. 5.5. Set public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 17, Water Protection,
pertaining to persons holding certificates of competence overseeing land disturbing activity.
The executive summary states that during its 2001 session, the General Assembly amended the
erosion and sediment control enabling legislation to require that, effective July 1, 2001, all land disturbing
projects requiring an erosion and sediment control plan be overseen by a person holding a certificate of
competence. The proposed ordinance would implement this new requirement.
The proposed ordinance would amend Albemarle County Code §§ 17-203, 17-205 and 17-211 to
require that each erosion and sediment control plan submitted by an owner, and each agreement in lieu of
a plan, identify a person holding a certificate of competence, and to require that the certificate holder be in
charge of and responsible for carrying out land disturbing activity under the plan or agreement. The
certificate holder may be anyone from the owner's project or development team. The Virginia Department
of Conservation and Recreation (the "DCR") is currently developing a program to educate and certify
persons for this program. Licensed professional engineers, land surveyors, architects, landscape architects
and other persons holding other certificates issued by the DCR are considered by the DCR to be certified
for this program. Requiring a certificate holder to be responsible for carrying out land disturbing activity will
not change the owner's ultimate responsibility for all land disturbing activity on his or her property.
Staff requests the Board authorize the Clerk to advertise the proposed ordinance for public hearing
on July 11,2001.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set the public hearing for July 11, 2001.
Item No. 5.6. Daft copy of minutes from Planning Commission meetings of May 22 and May 29,
2001, were accepted as information.
Item No. 5.7. 2000 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals, was accepted as information.
Item No. 5.8. Third Quarter Report for JAUNT Services in Albemarle County for FY 2001, was
accepted as information.
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Albemarle County's 2001-02 Annual Plan for the
administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.)
Mr. Tucker noted that HUD requires each public housing agency to prepare a five-year plan for
administering public housing assistance programs. The initial five-year plan was submitted to HUD in
January of this year. HUD approved the plan with the condition that all of the required public notices and
public hearings take place for submission of the Annual Plan. In March the executive summary of the initial
plan was mailed to representatives of tenants who were asked to be members of a Resident Advisory
Board and to comment on the plan. Staff has received those and addressed them in the plan. No policy
changes were recommended. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed annual plan and
submission to Housing and Urban Development. Subsequent to the public hearing staff is requesting that
the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the certification of compliance. Mr. Tucker noted that Mr.
Ron White, Chief of Housing, is available to answer questions.
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. Thomas asked if there is a formal Resident Advisory Board and whether or not it meets. Mr.
White noted that due to the timeframe an executive summary as well as the full plan were sent out to
approximately 20 tenants who agreed to be a part of a resident advisory board. There have not been any
face-to-face meetings. The representatives were notified of the public hearing. Ms. Thomas asked if there
is a plan to have the group meet. Mr. White said that the group would probably be modified because some
people did not want to participate after the first year plan. The County needs to get a group of people who
are interested in participating and probably will meet at least on two occasions before the next annual plan
is done.
Ms. Humphris moved approval of the proposed annual plan and submission to HUD and to
authorize the County Executive to sign the certification of compliance. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Martin.
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.
PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans
and Related Regulations
Board Resolution to Accompany the PHA Plan
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHIA) listed below, as its
Chairman or other authorized PHA official if there is no Board of Commissioners, I approve the submission
of the 5-Year Plan and Annual Plan for PHA fiscal year beginning 7/1/01, hereinafter referred to as the Plan
of which this document is a part and make the following certifications and agreements with the Department
of Housing Development (HUD) in connection with the submission of the Plan and implementation thereof:
1.The Plan is consistent with the applicable comprehensive housing affordability strategy (or any plan
incorporating such strategy) for the jurisdiction in which the PHA is located.
2.The Plan contains a certification by the appropriate State or local officials that the Plan is consistent
with the applicable Consolidated Plan, which includes a certification that requires the preparation of
an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, for the PHA's jurisdiction and a description of
the manner in which the PHA Plan is consistent with the applicable Consolidated Plan.
3.The PHA has established a Resident Advisory Board or Boards, the membership of which
represents the residents assisted by the PHA, consulted with this Board or Boards in developing the
Plan, and considered the recommendations of the Board or Boards (24 CFR 903.13). The PHA
has included in the Plan submission a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident
Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the Plan addresses these
recommendations.
4.The PHA made the proposed Plan and all information relevant to the public hearing available for
public inspection at least 45 days before the hearing, published a notice that a hearing would be
held and conducted a hearing to discuss the Plan and invited public comment.
5. The PHA will carry out the Plan in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair
Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
6. The PHA will affirmatively further fair housing by examining their programs or proposed programs,
identify any impediments to fair housing choice within those programs, address those impedi-ments
in a reasonable fashion in view of the resources available and work with local jurisdictions to
implement any of the jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively further fair housing that require the
PHA's involvement and maintain records reflecting these analyses and actions.
7.For PHA Plan that includes a policy for site based waiting lists:
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
·
The PHA regularly submits required data to HUD's MTCS in an accurate, complete and timely
manner (as specified in PIH Notice 99-2);
·
The system of site-based waiting lists provides for full disclosure to each applicant in the
selection of the development in which to reside, including basic information about available
sites; and an estimate of the period of time the applicant would likely have to wait to be
admitted to units of different sizes and types at each site;
·
Adoption of site-based waiting list would not violate any court order or settlement agreement or
be inconsistent with a pending complaint brought by HUD;
·
The PHA shall take reasonable measures to assure that such waiting list is consistent with
affirmatively furthering fair housing;
·
The PHA provides for review of its site-based waiting list policy to determine if it is consistent
with civil rights laws and certifications, as specified in 24 CFR part 903.7 (c) (1).
8. The PHA will comply with the prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of age pursuant to the
Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
9.The PHA will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and 24 CFR Part 41, Policies and
Procedures for the Enforcement of Standards and Requirements for Accessibility by the Physically
Handicapped.
10.The.PHA will comply with the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1968, Employment Opportunities for Low- or Very-Low Income Persons, and with its
implementing regulation at 24 CFR Part 135.
11.The PNA has submitted with the Plan a certification with regard to a drug free workplace required
by 24 CFR Part 24, Subpart F.
12.The PHA has submitted with the Plan a certification with regard to compliance with restrictions on
lobbying required by 24 CFR Part 87, together with disclosure forms if required by this Part, and
with restrictions on payments to influence Federal Transactions, in accordance with the Byrd
Amendment and implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24.
13. For PHA Plan that includes a PHDEP Plan as specified in 24 CFR 761.21: The PHDEP Plan is
consistent with and conforms to the "Plan Requirements" and "Grantee Performance
Requirements" as specified in 24 CFR 761.21 and 761.23 respectively and the PHA will maintain
and have available for review/inspection (at all times), records or documentation of the following:
·
Baseline law enforcement services for public housing developments assisted under the
PHDEP plan;
·
Consortium agreement/s between the PHAs participating in the consortium and a copy of the
payment agreement between the consortium and HUD (applicable only to PHAs participating
in a consortium as specified under 24 CFR 761.15);
·
Partnership agreements (indicating specific leveraged support) with agencies/organizations
providing funding, services or other in-kind resources for PI-IDEP-funded activities;
·
Coordination with other law enforcement efforts;
·
Written agreement(s) with local law enforcement agencies (receiving any PHDEP funds); and
·
All crime statistics and other relevant data (including Part I and specified Part II crimes) that
establish need for the public housing sites assisted under the PHDEP Plan.
14.The PHA will comply with acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and implementing regulations at 49
CFR Part 24 as applicable.
15.The PHA will take appropriate affirmative action to award contracts to minority and women's
business enterprises under 24 CFR 5,105(a).
16. The PHA will provide HUD or the responsible entity any documentation that the Department needs
to carry out its review under the National Environmental Policy Act and other related authorities in
accordance with 24 CFR Part 58.
17. With respect to public housing the PHA will comply with Davis-Bacon or HUD determined wage
rate requirements under Section 12 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
18. The PHA will keep records in accordance with 24 CFR 85.20 and facilitate an effective audit to
determine compliance with program requirements.
19. The PHA will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act and 24 CFR Part 35.
20. The PHA will comply with the policies, guidelines, and requirements of OMB Circular No. A-87
(Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments) and 24 CFR Part 85
(Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local and
Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments.).
21. The PHA will undertake only activities and programs covered by the Plan in a manner consistent
with its Plan and will utilize covered grant funds only for activities that are approvable under the
regulations and included in its Plan.
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
22.All attachments to the Plan have been and will continue to be available at all times and all locations
that the PHA Plan is available for public inspection. All required supporting documents have been
made available for public inspection along with the Plan and attachments at the primary business
office of the PHA and at all other times and locations identified by the PHA in its PHA Plan and will
continue to be made available at least at the primary business office of the PHA.
County of Albemarle VA036_______
PHA Name PHA Number
(Signed) Robert W. Tucker, Jr.___- June 20, 2001____________
Signed/Dated by PHA Board Chair or other authorized PHA official
Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING to amend the jurisdictional area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to Barbara Harris. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request would allow for sewer service to a 1.97 acre parcel located north of
Barracks Road and east of and adjacent to the Barracks Market. It is in the rural area and currently has
jurisdictional area for water service only. The applicant is requesting sewer service because the Health
Department has determined that there is not adequate location for a septic system on site and has
indicated that in evaluating the site the possibility of locating septic fields on adjacent property is not a viable
alternative. The Health Department’s concern was that those surrounding parcels were also very small in
size and locating additional septic systems on those parcels would compromise the ability of those parcels
to sustain viable septic field systems in the future.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there are existing sewer lines adjacent to the property. This is an
undeveloped parcel so there are no current health or safety issues. However, this request is necessary for
the property to be developed for residential use. Most of the surrounding properties are already provided
water and sewer service. The parcel is less than two acres in size and cannot be further subdivided or
developed under current zoning. Therefore, the provision of sewer service would not result in the extension
of lines into previously unserved areas and would not serve to potentially support more intensive
development beyond the one dwelling unit that would be located on the property.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends amending the jurisdictional area to provide sewer service to
tax map 62, parcel 26. He added that this 1.97-acre parcel has not been recognized as a separate parcel
on the County's current tax maps. The maps are to be corrected to reflect the existence of the parcel.
However, at this time there is no separate parcel number to refer to for this parcel. The Zoning Department
and Real Estate Office have determined that the 1.97 acre parcel is an existing, separate parcel.
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 moved approval to amend the jurisdictional area boundaries of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for sewer service to Tax Map 62, Parcel 26 for Barbara Harris (the 1.97 acre
parcel). The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
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.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2001-009. Crossroads Waldorf School Early Learning Center (Sign #79).
PUBLIC HEARING to allow private school w/up to 85 students. Znd PUD. TM61X2,P4B. Loc on Four
Seasons Dr, approx ¼ ml from intersec of Four Seasons Dr & Hydraulic Rd. Contains 2.314 acs. Rio Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report. He noted that the request would utilize the former
ACAC facility in the Four Seasons Development for an Early Learning Center. The applicant will operate a
temporary school for children ranging from infant/toddler to kindergartners. The applicant initially envisions
approximately 55 students, however the applicant has requested a maximum limit of 85 students to cover
future enrollment. The applicant anticipates acquiring or building a new facility by the summer of 2004.
The special use conditions stipulate that this permit will expire in August 2004. The Charlottesville Catholic
School currently occupies the facility but will be moving out this summer.
Staff found factors favorable to include the building is currently being used as a school and in its
use there have been no complaints. The impacts from the proposed Crossroads Waldorf School should be
even less than the Catholic School because the student body will be significantly smaller. Both staff and
the Planning Commission have recommended approval with four conditions. The Planning Commission
made a slight adjustment to the third condition stating that the site shall not be used as a school after
st
August 15, 2004 rather than August 1 to allow for a bit of flexibility for the applicant.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to
address the Board.
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Ms. Nancy Reagan introduced herself as the School Administrator for Crossroads Waldorf School.
She stated that the school currently rents a facility from the County in Crozet in addition to the site
proposed at Four Seasons for two years. Ms. Thomas asked if the maximum enrollment figure is large
enough. Ms. Reagan responded that it is given the fact that the school has the other facility. There are two
early childhood classes in Crozet along with the rest of the grade school. The applicant plans to move the
classrooms from St. Paul’s Memorial Church. The church needs the space, requiring the applicant to
vacate. The applicant proposes to use four rooms which is considerably less than what is currently being
used by the Charlottesville Catholic School. The applicant views this as a temporary move.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerman noted that he believes this is a continuation of a current use on a temporary basis.
Mr. Bowerman moved approval of SP-2001-009, Crossroads Waldorf School Early Learning
Center subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Humphris.
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.
(The conditions, as approved, are set out below:)
1. Maximum enrollment will be 85 students;
2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with occasional uses
in the evenings and weekend;
3. The site shall not be used as a school after August 15, 2004; and,
4. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be shielded or arranged to reflect light away from adjoining
residential areas.
(The next two items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-1999-13. Young America (Sign #98). PUBLIC HEARING on a request for
a Zoning Map Amendment of approx 3.50 acs to allow for HC uses. Znd LI & HC. TM76M1,P1;TM76,P55A
&TM76,P55C. Loc on approx 9.099 acs on E side of 5th St Ext just N of intersec w/I-64. Scottsville Dist.
(Property designated for Industrial & Regional Service uses in Neighborhood 5 in the Comp Plan.)
Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11,
2001.)
____________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-1999-59. Young America (Sign #95). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to
approve approx 4.0 acs of approx 12.987 acs for grading in floodplain of Biscuit Run at its confluence with
Moores Creek. Znd LI & HC. Portions of TM76M1,P1;TM76, P55A&TM76,P55C. Loc on E side of 5th St Ext
just N of its intersec w/I-64. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's reports. He noted that the request is to rezone an area west
of Biscuit Run currently zoned LI and also an abandoned unzoned right-of-way for the Old Fifth Street both
to HC. Concurrent with the rezoning the applicant is requesting to fill in the floodplain at the confluence of
Biscuit Run and Moores Creek. The request to rezone and fill the floodplain is based on the desire of the
applicant to lease or sell a developable site to an unspecified user or users. Staff has a conceptual plan for
a restaurant or convenience store submitted for review. The plan has not been proffered and is not under
review as a preliminary site plan. In order to define the potential of the site to a potential client, the applicant
feels he must be able to define the maximum footprint available. To achieve the maximum footprint the
applicant needs to know the maximum area of floodway fringe that the County will permit to be filled.
This is an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan for both Regional Service and Industrial
Service. Current zoning aligns with the Comprehensive Plan designations. This change in zoning would be
inconsistent with the Plan’s designation of industrial service. However, because of the peculiarities of the
properties, staff believes rezoning a portion of the property as a part of a complete well-developed proposal
should be considered. This area also falls under the Comprehensive Plan’s Interstate Interchange
Development Policy which recommends either large-scale, regional uses or highway service businesses
primarily relying on the interstate traveler. This rezoning proposal falls into the highway service business
category. Policy also recommends that highway-oriented businesses be clustered with a common access
point. The proposal’s use of Holiday Inn’s existing entrance seems to meet this recommendation.
However, the applicant has not responded to VDOT and staff concerns related to traffic, internal circulation
and off-site improvements that this proposal might necessitate. The Policy also recommends that the
maintenance of functional and aesthetic integrity should be emphasized in the review of applications for
development. Staff does not believe the applicant has sufficiently addressed those matters at this time.
Mr. Cilimberg said when this request was before the Planning Commission, there were several
issues raised during the discussion. Staff has provided an Executive Summary which notes some of the
activities and information received since the Planning Commission’s meeting. A fiscal impact analysis
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
performed by both the applicant and staff shows a revenue benefit to the County, if the project were to be
approved and built. While positive revenue generation was seen as a mitigating issue by some of the
Commissioners, it appears that the Commission’s recommendation for denial was based on outstanding
design issues, unresolved environmental impacts and traffic concerns raised in the staff report. The
applicant’s revised Concept Plan has not been submitted to the County as either a proffered plan or a site
plan, thus it has not gone through the County’s site review process and its merits have not been evaluated.
The plan does show an on-site detention basin and reduction of the fill that is outside of the waterward 50
feet of the 100 foot stream protection buffer. The plan and proposal still have several outstanding issues
that need to be resolved. Some of the issues are: lack of a mitigation plan for impact of to the stream
buffer; lack of a sufficient traffic study; undemonstrated ability to mitigate impacts to the Entrance Corridor;
and greenway trails shown in this area in the Comprehensive Plan have been ignored.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Engineering Department has identified two items that have not been
provided on the Concept Plan -- the 100-foot stream buffer and a mitigation plan. The Engineering
Department has recommended, after reviewing the latest information, six conditions for consideration
should the Board decide to take action on the SUP. Those conditions are set out on Attachment C, as part
of the staff's report. The Planning staff is recommending a seventh condition that would delay any of the fill
activity occurring until a final site plan is approved.
Staff has identified a favorable factor to the request being the applicant showing that fill in the
floodplain is possible without raising the flood elevation. Unfavorable factors include the lack of information
and definition of the project which makes it difficult to assess if filling the floodplain is a worthy activity; and
the lack of information and definition of the project makes it difficult to assess the project’s impact on a wide
variety of other issues (e.g. visual, traffic, environmental and greenway impacts).
Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not recommend approval of this request because the applicant has not
provided or defined solutions to a wide-range of potential impacts. Staff believes the applicant should more
fully develop the proposal before the Commission and Board considers the request to rezone and approve
the SUP for fill. The Planning Commission agreed, and at its meeting on May 22, 2001, recommended
denial. Before denying the request, the Commission recommended the applicant defer the request to allow
additional information to be developed and provided. Instead the applicant requested the Planning
Commission to take action.
Mr. Dorrier said it is apparent that there are many unanswered questions about this application. He
asked who is pushing it to the Board for a resolution. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant requested that the
request be acted on by the Commission and move forward to the Board.
With no further questions of staff at this time, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Thomas asked
the applicant to address the Board.
Mr. Bob Smith said he is a commercial real estate broker representing the applicant. Mr. Smith
introduced Mr. Dale Ludwig who also represents the owners and is available to answer questions. He also
introduced Mr. Jim Pagleesy, of Dewberry & Davis, who have done the floodplain study for the applicant.
Mr. Smith stated that back in 1997 the owners approached him and asked his help in marketing this
property. In discussing the matter with County staff, he was told that the one-acre parcel was zoned HC
and was located in the floodplain. He was told that there was nothing that could be done until the parcel
was removed from the floodplain. The applicant then retained Dewberry & Davis to research the matter.
The applicant received approval from FEMA to remove one acre from the floodplain. The applicant then
approached VDOT about what was necessary. VDOT’s requirements were costly so the applicant
reconsidered the matter. The applicant was told that they would have to get a wetlands study before they
could proceed. That study was cleared, approved and accepted by the County staff. The applicant then
asked Raudabush & Gale to determine what might be removed from the floodplain. Raudabush and Gail
estimated three and one-half acres. The applicant took this information to Dewberry & Davis who then
conducted another study. The first study was done on Moores Creek and the second was done on Biscuit
Run and Moores Creek. FEMA gave its approval on July 5, 2000.
Mr. Smith said in order for the applicant to be able to develop the land, he needed to purchase
some old abandoned property in the back of Old Lynchburg Road. VDOT did vacate that section of the
state road. The applicant has been working on this plan for five years and has received a lot of support
from County staff. If the Board were to approve the rezoning and special permit requests, the applicant is
aware that before he can improve on the property, a site plan must be approved. He is also aware that the
applicant would need to get approval from the ARB, submit a mitigation plan to be able to get within 50 feet
of the stream, prepare a stormwater detention study and submit a runoff control plan. Many of these
programs are very expensive to do. Mr. Smith said if the applicant does not know for sure that he can use
the property, it does not make much sense to go forward. The applicant has not been able to convince
potential buyers to configure their layout on the property. The project will take a lot of work. There will be
two users. There will be cross easements for parking and travel. It will be very intense. Mr. Smith stated
that he designed the Rio Hill project several years ago. That was a much bigger project, but required one-
half the work of this project. The applicant needs the Board’s support and understanding. The economic
impact to the County is significant and should be considered.
Mr. Dorrier asked why a proffered plan had not been submitted. Mr. Smith responded that no
potential user is going to consider the property without a guarantee or a deed to the property that they can
use. Currently there is no way the land can be used. It cannot be built upon and the zoning is part
industrial, part HC and part unzoned. Mr. Dorrier asked if the applicant wants the entire property zoned HC.
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Smith replied, "yes". As part of the conceptual plan, the applicant chose what was thought to be the
highest generating type users. The applicant had a traffic study done on those two users. That information
was submitted to the County. The applicant has proffered an easement to the greenway along both
Moores Creek and Biscuit Run. Ms. Thomas commented that the Board does not have a proffer in writing.
Mr. Smith responded that it was part of the zoning application. Mr. Davis replied that the County has not
received a legally signed proffer.
Mr. Dorrier asked if a zoning amendment is usually considered along with a proffered plan. Mr.
Cilimberg replied "yes", in almost every case. Mr. Dorrier asked if the matter before the Board is unusual.
Mr. Cilimberg said the more unusual aspect is the limited size and the amount of floodplain. It is not
unusual in terms of a parcel of land needing a different zoning for marketing purposes. He cannot think of a
rezoning request in recent years that the Board has considered without proffers that address design and
uses. Mr. Smith then read from the application “if this property is rezoned from LI to HC the owners will
grant 20 foot easements to be added to the proposed greenbelt trail system as shown in red on the
conceptual plan accompanying this zoning request.” Since then staff has asked that it be increased to 50
feet and the applicant agreed.
Mr. Davis stated that having that language on the application plan does not meet the required
process to make a proffer. It has to be in a document signed by the owners. Mr. Smith said that the
applicant has committed to do it and will.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dorrier said that this property lies in a problematic area because there are three different
zonings. Mr. Cilimberg said the roadway was not zoned but by default it becomes R1. Mr. Davis disagreed
and advised that it is not zoned. Mr. Cilimberg said the larger part of the property is zoned LI. The HC
exists on the front. Mr. Smith then pointed out on a map the different zonings. Mr. Dorrier clarified that
what the Board is considering is not a down zoning or an up-zoning but a lateral zoning. Mr. Cilimberg said
that he’s not sure what LI to HC would be considered. Mr. Dorrier asked if the problem with the site is the
floodplain and the slope thereof. Mr. Cilimberg said the floodplain is the very restrictive aspect of the site
physically. Mr. Dorrier said he does not feel that the Board has enough information. In his opinion, the
Board needs more information about the floodplain and the potential use of the site. It bothers him that the
Planning Commission has denied the proposal.
Ms. Humphris stated that she tried to make a list of the things that staff and the Planning
Commission said they needed. She does not believe it is known exactly what is in the request about the
greenway. She thought it very interesting the statement in the letter from FEMA about providing the
delineation of the floodway as separate from the floodplain. It states that "the floodway is provided to your
community as a tool to regulate floodplain development, therefore, the floodway modifications described in
this letter and map revision, while acceptable to FEMA must also be acceptable to your community and
adopted by appropriate community action as specified in their regulations". This proposal is for develop-
ment in a large floodway area which requires an enormous amount of fill. It would be unusual for this
Board to approve a rezoning and a SUP without considerably more information about what is going to
happen on that piece of land.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff has a list of things that are necessary. The Board has four items plus the
conditions recommended by Engineering should the Board approve the request. Mr. Tucker said he
suggested to Mr. Cilimberg that perhaps the applicant could proffer those items in greater detail so that the
Board receives them at the time the site plan is submitted. As he understands it, the applicant feels he is in
a "catch-22". The applicant cannot sell the property because no one wants to contract with him unless it is
rezoned. Therefore, the applicant cannot define what needs to be on the property in order to provide the
requested information. Perhaps if there were a proffer the applicant would do it.
Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would provide the mitigation plan for the impact on the stream
buffer prior to the proffer or would he proffer to provide the plan as part of the site plan. Mr. Tucker
suggested the latter; the applicant would proffer to provide the plan at the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said he
believed that particular item was included among the Engineering Department’s six conditions for the SUP
and for the floodplain intrusion or fill in the floodplain. He believes the third issue, the undemonstrated
ability to mitigate impacts to the Entrance Corridor, begins getting into overall site design that then says the
applicant needs to present a proffered plan. That has been a real difficulty for the applicant. What the
applicant has provided is simply a concept at this time. The applicant cannot say that concept is what will
be on the site. Certainly that would be along the lines of what has been discussed during the staff review
period.
Mr. Martin asked if, in order to get the zoning, the applicant needs to show how he will mitigate the
impacts to the Entrance Corridor, or can the applicant proffer at this time that he will present at site plan
stage a plan to mitigate impacts. Mr. Cilimberg said the former. The latter could happen on any by-right
development. What the ARB is limited to is what is put before them in terms of whatever those uses are.
Whereas in a zoning case you can look at uses, locations and relationships to not only the Entrance
Corridor but any other adjacent properties, if the applicant will proffer those things through a plan.
Mr. Dorrier said that it seems like HC will cause more runoff which will cause more problems with
the flood area. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it depends on the extent and type of development and the amount
of impervious cover. Typically when you are dealing with a SUP for fill in the floodplain you are doing it
based on a site plan. You know the particular area of disturbance.
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Davis said there appear to be two issues. One issue is the rezoning, whether or not that is
appropriate. Staff has laid out that analysis. Perhaps with the proffer that addresses the zoning issues the
Board could go forward with the zoning decision. The more problematic application is the SUP because
the Planning staff typically wants to see a site plan to determine how much of the floodplain should be filled
based on a specific development plan. What Mr. Smith has indicated is that he does not have that yet.
That is his dilemma. He feels he needs the SUP in order to market the property. Previously that has not
been the case when applications are made. Typically the Board sees a SUP application for the floodplain
with a specific development plan. That is the frustration Mr. Davis feels staff has had in reviewing the
application.
Mr. Thomas said she is very sympathetic to this plight. Mr. Martin said this is not the first time the
Board has seen such a situation. Ms. Thomas said there is no way the Board can put conditions on a
rezoning. Those have to be proffers. The conditions possibly could deal with all of the issues in the SUP.
She feels even that will have to be deferred because that was not what staff thought the Board was going to
do when they prepared the staff report. Therefore, she would not be confident that all conditions necessary
to do that rather strange move of having a SUP before there is a plan are concluded in what is before the
Board. The Board has a rezoning request without proffers and a SUP that may not contain all of the
conditions necessary.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this application is denied, whether the applicant could make another application
in the future. Mr. Davis responded that the Zoning Ordinance precludes substantially the same zoning
request from being re-filed for one year. So, if it were denied, it would prevent the applicant from filing the
same application for that time period. He believes that staff’s recommendation would be to defer the
matter.
Mr. Dorrier then moved to refer ZMA-1999-13 and SP-1999-59 back to the Planning Commission
for additional work with staff and applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Mr. Bowerman said that he does not want to create the expectation of a certain type of
development by a rezoning that then becomes more legislative, after the fact ,when the Board does not
know the intensity to which the property can be used without all the information. The Board does not want
to get in a box itself based upon a rezoning without necessary proffers.
Ms. Humphris said the staff planner commented that he was not sure there was room for
mitigation on site. If the Board does not know what is planned, it does not know what is possible. The
Board is in a difficult situation.
Mr. Perkins asked what are the current by-right uses. Mr. Cilimberg said there is approximately one
acre HC which allows all by-right uses as well as an application for a SUP. The two to three acres that are
LI by-right has not been marketable for them. Mr. Davis noted that there are a wide range of uses allowed
in LI by-right. Ms. Thomas stated that even with those uses the applicant will need a SUP to use the
floodplain. Mr. Tucker stated that whether it was zoned all HC, or as it is, the applicant still has to go
SUP
through the process for the floodplain. Ms. Thomas said even if the Board approved the SUP, the
applicant still would not have the zoning he feels is also necessary for marketing. Mr. Tucker said the SUP
would probably be similar in requirement whether it remains as it currently is or if it was all HC. Mr.
Cilimberg said he believes the applicant attempted to show two uses that would be high traffic generators
logical in that area and provide for the most likely maximum extent of development. With respect to the
floodplain fill, the applicant has presented a worse case scenario. Theoretically the applicant could come
in with a plan of lesser development which would not require as much fill.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Smith if the zoning amendment with proffers would help. Mr. Smith said that
to get a site plan approved all of the things the Board is discussing must be addressed. Mr. Martin asked if
the applicant were to receive the zoning with the proffer that was offered would that help with marketing the
project. Mr. Smith said it would. Ms. Thomas asked if this is the case, even though the applicant only had
the rezoning, he would not know if he could use the floodplain. Mr. Smith answered," no". Ms. Thomas
then asked if having the SUP, to show that the land could be used, would help market the property. Mr.
Smith stated that County staff, on several levels, has recommended that the applicant request the rezoning
and SUP simultaneously. Mr. Smith referring to a map of the property showed the Board what FEMA had
approved being removed from the floodplain. By doing this, the applicant would only raise the level of the
floodplain 2/100s of an inch. Nothing will be raised offsite on any other property. Mr. Smith said that if it
were not for the County's requirement regarding the level of the floodplain, this matter would have been
settled a long time ago. With this condition, however, the applicant has had to be very careful.
Ms. Humphris asked what would be different should the matter be referred back to the Planning
Commission. Ms. Thomas said that was up to the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg said he heard the Board say
that, in its action, it expects the applicant to be offering proffers to address issues that have been identified
by staff and the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas added that staff would be reworking recommended
conditions. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that staff would work on the final conditions necessary for fill in the
floodplain for the SUP. He understood the Board to say that included among the proffers, the Board would
want to have an application plan or conceptual plan of development so that it has an idea of how that
development relates to the overall use of the property. He said that staff is going to be trying to guide the
applicant back to the Planning Commission with something that is more substantive.
Ms. Humphris enumerated the conditions she pulled from the staff's report. She asked if the
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
following items would need to be dealt with in the proffers: 1) The need for a 100 foot easement for the
greenway; 2) The building needs to be pulled in waterward 50 feet; 3) There was no mitigation plan for
disturbance of the landward 50 feet or the 100 foot stream buffer; 4) Staff and VDoT raised concerns
about the traffic study; 5) There were no improvements proposed to the two sections of the greenways on
the applicant's site which was clearly explained in the staff report why that needed to be done; 6) Under-
ground utilities were not mentioned. Staff indicated in its report that there would be underground utilities.
This does not minimize the impervious cover; 7) Although there are now two proposals, earlier there was no
proposal for treating water quality; 8) The building orientation was not to the street as the Board prefers; 9)
The fuel canopy is too close to the street which is a problem in the Entrance Corridor; and 10) The large
amount of fill would diminish the aesthetic value of the creek and the greenway trail. Ms. Humphris said
those are some of the things that pulled out and feels should be dealt with in the proffers or the application
is not worth going back.
Roll was then 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.
(The next three items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda item No. 11. ZMA-00-10. Avemore (Signs #85&86). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to
rezone 27.46 acs from R-10 to R-15 to allow mixed use of 406 d/us, retail uses & offices. Loc on Fontana
Dr approx 1/10 ml from intersec of Rt 20 & Fontana Dr. TM78,P58I&TM78B,Pls2A,2B,4B,3-1&4-1. (The
Comp Plan designates this property as urban density residential, recom for 6-34 du/ac in Neighborhood 3
Pantops Development Area.) Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.)
____________
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-2000-69. Avemore (Signs #27&60). Public Hearing to allow professional
offices in residential development. Loc on Fontana Dr approx 1/10 ml from intersec of Rt 20 & Fontana Dr.
TM78,P58I&TM78B,Pls2A,2B,4B,3-1&4-1. (The Comp Plan designates this property as urban density
residential, recom for 6-34 du/ac in Neighborhood 3 Pantops Development Area.) Rivanna Dist. (Notice of
this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.)
____________
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2000-70. Avemore (Signs #87&99). Public hearing to allow retail stores &
shops in residential development. Loc on Fontana Dr approx 1/10 ml from intersec of Rt 20 & Fontana Dr.
TM78,P58I&TM78B,Pls2A,2B,4B,3-1&4-1. (The Comp Plan designates this property as urban density
residential, recom for 6-34 du/ac in Neighborhood 3 Pantops Development Area.) Rivanna Dist. (Notice of
this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's reports. The request is to rezone a little over 20 acres from
R-10 with proffers to R-15 with proffers to allow 406 dwelling units including 360 apartments and 46
townhouses. The applicant also has two special use permits related to two 10,000 square foot buildings
adjacent to Fontana Drive, one of which will allow for professional offices, the second for retail shops. This
property is located east of Route 20 North and approximately one mile from the 250/Route 20 intersection.
Below the project is the Wilton Farms Apartment complex. Fontana Subdivision is north of the site and up
the hill. The proposed entrance for Avemore is off of Fontana Drive, directly across from the entrance to
the Frost Montessori School.
The applicant has stated his intent to build a high quality mostly brick façade development with
amenities. The applicant also intends to develop a mixed-use type project that incorporates several
aspects of the neighborhood model. This is an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan for urban
density which is six to 34 dwelling units per acre. This proposal will allow for approximately 15 units per
acre.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is extensive staff information provided. He noted that factors
favorable include that the plan provides for increased inter-parcel interconnections. It provides for regional
detention of stormwater runoff. It provides for mixed-use development with amenities. The developer has
worked to offset the impact to the adjacent property through proffers for traffic improvements. The
developer is also providing off-site improvements such as sidewalks, money towards a traffic light or other
improvements along Route 20 and a connector road ultimately to Olympia Drive.
Mr. Cilimberg then noted that factors unfavorable include that the plan does not provide for a
centralized recreational amenity however the applicant is providing for open space and amenities around
the periphery. The plan does not place the commercial buildings as close to Fontana Drive as staff would
like to see however, staff does recognize that the location of the property lines keeps the building further
back. The office and commercial uses allowed under the special use permits are undefined at this time.
However, staff believes that the conditions of the special use permits will limit the most objectionable uses
in a residential area. Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of the rezoning with
the proffers as proposed and the special use permit for professional offices with one condition and the
special use permit for retail stores and shops with one condition that has two subsections regarding uses.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to
address the Board.
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Robert Hauser said he is President of Stonehouse Development, the applicant. Mr. Hauser
asked for approval of the requests before the Board. He noted that in the interest of the Board’s time he
has elected not to make a formal presentation. He did say that he is very proud of the work that the
applicant has done. It has been eight months since the submission of the rezoning application. The
applicant has had a number of meetings with staff and neighboring groups. He feels that it is a plan that
speaks to the County’s goals including DISC, speaks to his needs as a developer and speaks to the
concerns of the community and the neighboring community.
Mr. Hauser noted that staff, the Fontana community and Virginia Land have worked to discuss a
regional water quality facility. County Engineering staff has suggested that there are reasons that detention
is not as important in this particular location. Some of Fontana’s motivation is to remove an unsightly
detention facility that is not functioning well. He stated that after 20 years of development he feels that
regional detention is a good idea. There is not centralized recreation. Mr. Hauser noted that he is familiar
with and supports new urbanism. He said that the boulevard which is proffered will help create a sense of
place that makes communities livable and why centralized recreation areas, where appropriate, are
recommended. He pointed out that the other constraint the applicant has is that they are doing everything
possible to hold the development away from Fontana. For this reason the applicant did not want to enlarge
the center of the property with a recreation building.
Mr. Hauser then addressed the commercial buildings. He referenced the plans noting that the strip
of land that separates the applicant’s property from the Fontana development belongs to the Fontana
Homeowners Association and prevents the applicant from pulling the commercial buildings up to the road.
He believes the motivation is to create a pedestrian friendly commercial amenity. He believes the applicant
can do that. Fontana has expressed a willingness to work with Mr. Hauser to relocate the line to
accomplish some goals. Mr. Hauser stated that Frank Cox, land planner, was also present to answer
questions.
Mr. Ed Parker, President of the Fontana Homeowners Association stated that the Association has
had many discussions with Mr. Hauser. The Association has worked deals with Mr. Hauser that he believes
will benefit the community and help him to establish a viable solution for the area. The Association has
nothing to add to what has already been submitted.
rd
Ms. Thomas referenced an April 23 letter that lays out some of the things that the Association
believes have been agreed to. She asked if the Association is satisfied that the items referenced in the
letter have been sufficiently met. Mr. Parker answered, "yes".
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Martin said that he has reviewed the information as well as attended some of the earlier
meetings that included Fontana and others. He believes the applicant has worked with Fontana and Wilton
Farms as much as possible. He believes the items that were unfavorable have been worked out.
Ms. Thomas asked the applicant about public transportation access, although it may be more
appropriate to address at the site plan stage. One of the reasons she is excited and supportive of this
project is because it will be within reach of public transportation. Mr. Hauser responded that Wilton Farm
Apartments is currently served by the local public transportation. The developer of Fontana is doing some
road improvements. The applicant has agreed to extend those improvements to their entrance. The
applicant has every intention to make it public transit friendly.
Mr. Martin then moved approval of ZMA-00-10 subject to the applicant's proffers. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
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.
(The proffers, as approved, are set out in full below:)
PROFFER FORM
Date: June 19, 2001
ZMA #00-10
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): TM78,Parcel 58I, and TM78B, Parcels 2A, 2B, 4B, 3-1, and 4-1
27.46 Acres to be rezoned from R-10 to R-15
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized
agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if
rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the
rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation
to the rezoning request.
Signature of All OwnersPrinted Names of OwnersDate
Greenbrier office Park L.L.C.
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
RHH, Inc., Mgr, Robert Hauser, Pres. Robert M. Hauser, Pres.6-19-01
(Signed)
Robert Hauser Homes, Inc.
Robert Hauser, Pres.Robert M. Hauser, Pres.6-19-01
(Signed)
Philip A. SansonePhilip A. Sansone6-19-01
(Signed)
AVERMORE PROFFERS
The applicant’s objective with this development is to provide a compact, high-density
residential development with a variety of housing types and environmental and
developmental amenities. Facilities for appropriate and complementary professional and
retail services will be located within the development. With design features such as
sidewalks, a central green, a community clubhouse, walking trails and preservation of
open space, the development is intended to be sensitive to the natural characteristics of
the site and to the surrounding areas, to provide an improved level of amenities, and to
promote economical and efficient land use and appropriate and harmonious physical
development, in order to accomplish a design in keeping with the goals and objectives of
the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The development will be a premier residential
community and will reflect the applicant’s commitment to providing high quality and
attractive architectural design.
In connection with the applicant’s rezoning application, the following proffers are made:
A.The Conceptual Development Plan dated March 28, 2001, last revised May 10,
2001 (the “Plan”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, is proffered. All improvements
shown on the Plan will be installed upon completion of all phases of construction.
The character of the development will be in general accord with the form and
character that is suggested by and is compatible with the proposed building
elevations attached as the exhibits listed below. Modifications to the elevations
shown on the attached exhibits which are either suggested by or required by the
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board will be deemed to be in “general
accord.”
Exhibit B“Shops,” dated 12-15-00
Exhibit C“Apartments,” dated 12-15-00
Exhibit D“Garages,” dated 12-15-00
Exhibit E“Townhomes,” dated 12-15-00
Exhibit F “Clubhouse,” dated 12-15-00
B.Commercial buildings will have two (2) street facades (each with at least one
street-level entrance), facing both Fontana Drive and the development.
C.In satisfaction of the recreation facility requirements set forth in Section 4.16 of the
County Zoning Ordinance and in order to better meet the needs of the residents of
Avemore, the following amenities are proffered:
(1)The Village Green will be surrounded by a hedge. Large variety trees, 2.5
inches in caliper or larger and of a species common to the area, will be
located every 40 feet on center between the hedge and the travelway
surrounding the Village Green. There will be access points to the Village
Green at each of the four corners, each of which will consist of one (1)
gateway flanked by two (2) brick corners. The hedge will be at least 24"
high at planting, and the gates and brick corners will be approximately 32"
high. At least three (3) benches will be provided in the Village Green. The
Village Green improvements will be built in conjunction with the
construction of the townhouse section phase of the development.
(2)In addition to the Village Green, outdoor recreation facilities will consist of
at least three (3) tot lots to be placed in the approximate locations shown
on the Plan [reference 4.16.2].
(3)The community clubhouse will contain an outdoor swimming pool, indoor
fitness center, community room, business center, and leasing and
management office for the development. At least two outdoor (2) picnic
table and at least two (2) outdoor grills will be provided in the area
adjacent to the creek behind the clubhouse.
The Director of Planning may determine that substitutions of recreation facilities
are in general accord with this proffer and in satisfaction of the minimum
requirements of Section 4.16.2.1.
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
D.The applicant agrees to participate in the development of a regional SWM/BMP
facility in lieu of any requirement that it develop on-site SWM/BMP facilities for the
Avemore development.
(1)The regional SWM/BMP facility will be designed and sized to provide a
standing pool with a water quality volume equal to approximately 92,100
cubic feet at the approximate location shown on the Plan.
(2)The regional SWM/BMP facility meeting the above design requirements
shall fulfill the Avemore development’s requirement for stormwater
quantity and quality for all portions of the development draining to the
facility. Any portion not draining to the facility will have to meet the
stormwater quantity and quality requirements by means of a separate
stormwater management plan.
(3)The regional SWM/BMP facility will be constructed by the applicant, at its
initial expense, during the first phase of Avemore construction, and will be
completed prior to the issuance of permits for additional phases.
(4)The engineering design of the regional SWM/BMP facility will be subject to
final engineering and site plan approval by Albemarle County’s
Department of Engineering. The Department of Engineering will have the
right to reduce the design parameters outlined in this Item D if hydrology
characteristics, hydraulic engineering, geotechnical engineering or
topographic conditions dictate a modified design.
(5)The proffer set forth in this Item D is contingent on the availability of
contiguous off-site property and the cooperation of the owners of such off-
site property in providing the necessary dedication of such property for the
purposes of construction and maintenance of the SWM/BMP facility. The
off-site land will be dedicated under terms satisfactory to the applicant and
the County prior to issuance of a grading permit for Avemore.
(6)In the event that the applicant determines that the regional SWM/BMP
facility is not feasible under the terms and conditions outlined in this Item
D, the applicant in its sole discretion shall have the right to construct on-
site SWM/BMP improvements to satisfy County water quality and water
quantity requirements. In such event, the proffers set forth in this Item D
shall be null and void.
E.Applicant will acquire sufficient right-of-way, as determined by the County of
Albemarle Engineer, for a private, urban cross-section connector road that will be
constructed to VDOT Mountainous Terrain Standards. Such right-of-way will
commence at the round-about/parking area at the northeastern corner of the
development, in the general area shown on the Plan as “Reserved for Private
Street Connection (24' Pavement Maximum),” and will terminate at Olympia Drive.
This right-of-way will be platted prior to approval of a site plan for the Avemore
development.
In conjunction with the construction of the phase closest to the area shown on the
Plan as “Reserved for Private Street Connection,” the applicant will either construct
the connector road or bond with the County for the construction of the connector
road. This bond will be held until the completion of the connector road; provided,
however, that if Olympia Drive is not extended to a point where the connector road
can be completed within 15 years, the bond will be returned to the applicant, with
interest.
F.Upon construction or widening of Fontana Drive, the applicant will construct a four
foot (4') wide, concrete sidewalk along Fontana Drive, between Avemore
Boulevard and State Route 20.
G.Internal walking paths will be five feet (5') wide and will be paved in asphalt.
H.Prior to site plan approval for phase 1 of Avemore, the applicant will dedicate to
public use an eight foot (8') wide right-of-way for the construction, maintenance
and repair of a sidewalk across Wilton Lots 16A, 16B, 17-1, 17-2 and 17-3, along
the common boundary of such lots with State Route 20.
I.The applicant will provide sufficient right-of-way in the area between Wilton Farm
Road and State Route 20 necessary to facilitate the construction of a second left-
turn lane from Fontana Drive onto State Route 20, provided that such right-of-way
will not create a zoning violation for any existing improvements along the path of
such new right-of-way. This right-of-way will be provided at the time the Avemore
road plan is approved by Albemarle County.
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
J.The Open Space shown on the plan along the shared common boundary with lots
1 through 10, Fontana, Phase 1, will consist of (i) a forty foot (40') buffer which will
not be disturbed during construction and (ii) a seventy foot (70') building set back.
K.The applicant will contribute the lesser of (i) 50% of the cost of installing a traffic
signal at the intersection of Fontana Drive and State Route 20 or (ii) $50,000, such
sum to be applied only to the cost of installing such traffic signal. If the County
obtains full funding for such traffic signal from other sources and the applicant is
not required to contribute toward the cost of such signal, the applicant agrees that
its contribution may be applied instead toward the portion of the Route 20
improvement project in the area between Fontana Drive and U.S. Route 250.
Such payment will be made by the applicant at the later to occur of (x) the
installation of such traffic signal (or installation of the Route 20 improvements, as
the case may be) or (y) the issuance of the first building permit for the Avemore
development.
____________
Mr. Martin moved approval of SP-2000-69 subject to the one condition recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
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.
(The condition, as approved, is set out in full below.)
1. The professional office uses shall be limited, in combination with the retail stores
and shops uses allowed in SP-00-70, to not exceed 20,000 square feet.
____________
Mr. Martin then moved approval of SP-2000-70 subject to the one condition recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
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.
(The condition, as approved, is set out in full below.)
1. For the purposes of this Special Use Permit, retail stores and shops shall be
defined as the commercial uses listed below:
a. The following retail sales and service establishments:
1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops,
2. Clothing, apparel and show shops,
3. Department store,
4. Drug store, pharmacy,
5. Florist,
6. Food and grocery stores, including such specialty shops as
bakery, candy, milk dispensary, and wine and cheese shops,
7. Furniture and home appliances (sales and service),
8. Hardware store,
9. Musical instruments,
10. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops,
11. Optical goods,
12. Photographic goods,
13. Visual and audio appliances,
14. Sporting goods, and
15. Retail nurseries and greenhouses,
b. The following services and public establishments:
1. barber, beauty shops,
2. Churches, cemeteries,
3. Funeral homes,
4. Health spas,
5. Indoor theaters,
6. Laundries, dry cleaners,
7. Libraries, museums,
8. Nurseries, day care centers (reference 5.1.06),
9. Eating establishments,
10. Tailor, seamstress,
11. Medical center,
12. Indoor athletic facilities (added 9/15/93), and,
13. Farmers’ market (reference 5.1.36, added 10/11/95).
(The next three items were heard concurrently.)
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Agenda Item No. 14. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code
§3-227 to extend the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District upon the 10-year review of the district. Znd
RA. Includes properties described as TM121,Ps7,72C,85&85A;TM122,Ps5,&5A;TM128,Pls13,14A,14B,
14C,14D,27,29,30&72;TM129,Ps3,4,4A,5,6,6A,7A,7D&9;TM130,Ps1,4&5A;TM134,Ps3&19;TM135,P7,10&
11. Loc generally S of Keene, S & E of Esmont & W of Scottsville. Comprises a total of 7789.622 acs.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.)
_____________
Agenda Item No. 15. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code
§3-215 to extend the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District upon the 10-year review of the district. Znd RA.
Includes properties described as TM135,Ps13,15,15A,17,18,19,22, 22A& 22C;TM136,P9B& 19B. Loc
generally W of Scottsville, N of CSX Railway, along Rts 627,726&625. Comprises a total of 645.158 acs.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.)
____________
Agenda Item No. 16. PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code
§3-216 to extend the High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal District upon the 10-year review of the district. Znd
RA. Includes properties described as TM85,Ps33B,39,39A1,39H, 41A&41A1. Loc generally S of Batesville,
along Rts 693 & 694. Comprises a total of 622.44 acs. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on June 4 and June 11, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's reports for all three Agricultural/Forestal Districts. Both the
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission voted to extend the three districts for ten years each.
Since the Commission’s meeting the County received a letter from Kenneth and Margaret Davis, the
owners of Shirland Farm, requesting withdrawal of their property from the Totier Creek Agricultural/
Forestal District. This encompasses about 173.12 acres. After that withdrawal the Totier Creek A/F District
will total approximately 6,835 acres.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Committee and the Commission recommend approval of the extensions.
There are also some housekeeping matters that were taken care of in the ordinance regarding removal of
some parcels that are not in the district now but had been referenced. Staff recommends approval of all
three.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Davis noted that all three districts are addressed in a single ordinance and therefore can be
adopted with one motion.
Ms. Thomas expressed her frustration that each time A/F District extensions are brought before the
Board more and more people are withdrawing from the districts. She has asked that thank you letters be
written to those property owners who are remaining in the districts but does not think that is being done.
She wanted to know what is being done to try to encourage people to stay in the districts. She knows that
the Comprehensive Plan will address the issue, but she is still frustrated. Mr. Cilimberg said that he is not
sure what staff can do except to try to sell the benefits of staying in the districts. He did note that the
withdrawals can be for many personal reasons. Mr. Tucker said that short of an exit interview it is difficult to
know why property owners withdraw.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the value of the land is a consideration for the property owners when they
consider placing their property in a district. Mr. Davis answered that it is not. He noted that a major
advantage to being in an A/F district is land use taxation on the use of the property. Most of these
properties that are withdrawing can still qualify for land use taxation if the parcel size and use is appro-
priate. There is not financial incentive for people to remain in the districts. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there
was a committee a few years ago that addressed land use taxation and brought the matter to the Board.
The Board decided not to go with the recommendation. He also noted that he believed Faquier County
went as far as going to public hearing on removing land use taxation, with the exception of A/F districts, and
had many hundreds of people show up.
Mr. Davis noted that James City County only allows land use for agricultural property outside of an
A/F district. Therefore, in order to get land use for open space or horticultural property the property must be
in an A/F district. Mr. Perkins noted that he shared with Mr. Tucker that Rockridge County requires that
everyone who participates in land use taxation evidence that they are actively involved in farming annually.
Mr. Tucker stated that Roxanne White is looking at the matter with Bruce Woodzell and Melvin Breeden to
see if that is something that staff wants to bring to the Board.
Ms. Thomas said the County has an increasing number of 21 acre lots that cannot be subdivided
so putting them in land use is not of benefit to the County. Mr. Perkins noted that in some cases in the
subdivision, where the 21 acre lot is located, there are restrictions in the covenants that keep the property
owner from doing different things such as cutting trees without approval from the homeowner's association.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff can send thank you letters to people who remain in an A/F district.
Mr. Bowerman moved approval to amend the Albemarle County Code Section 3-215 Hatton
Agricultural and Forestal District, Section 3-216, High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District and Section
3-227, Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District, to extend each district for an additional ten years. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
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.
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 135, parcels 13, 15, 15A, 17, 18, 19, 22, 22A, 30
(part); tax map 136, parcel 9B. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more than
10 years and last reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior to June 29,
2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(a); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01)
Sec. 3-216 High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District” consists
of the following described properties: Tax map 85, parcels 33B, 39, 39A1, 39H, 41A,
41A1. This district, created on January 16, 1991 for not more than 10 years and last
reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior to January 16, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(t); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01)
Sec. 3-227 Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District” consists
of the following described properties: Tax map 121, parcels 70, 72C, 85, 85A; tax map
122, parcels 5, 5A; tax map 128, parcels 13, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 27, 29, 30, 72; tax map
129, parcels 3, 5, 6, 6A, 7A, 7D, 9; tax map 130, parcels 1, 5A; tax map 134, parcels 3, 19;
tax map 135, parcels 7, 10, 11. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more than 10
years and last reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior to June 29, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(b); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01)
Mr. Bowerman moved that Planning staff send, under the Chairman’s signature, thank you letters
to all persons placing and/or keeping property in A/F districts. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
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.
Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: March, March 19(A), March 21(A)and April 4.
Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of April 4, 2001, pages 1-19, and found them to be in order
with some minor typographical errors.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of March 7, 2001, and found them to be in order with some minor
typographical errors.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of March 19(A), 2001, and found them to be in order.
Ms. Humphris moved approval of the minutes as read. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
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.
Agenda Item No. 18. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tucker said he received notice from Donna Shaunesey, Executive Director of JAUNT,
informing the Board that JAUNT will hold its annual stockholders' meeting to formally approve appointment
of Board members on Wednesday, July 11, 2001. They need the Board to appoint a proxy to vote the
County's shares at this meeting. Mr. Tucker recommended that the Board appoint Juandiego Wade to
serve as proxy representing the Board for JAUNT's annual stockholders' meeting.
June 20, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Dorrier so moved the appointment of Juandiego Wade to serve as the Board's proxy. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
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.
____________
Ms. Humphris referenced a letter regarding the Preallocation Hearing to be held in Culpeper on
th
July 17. She asked what the Board thought about its representative emphasizing the funding for Phase 2
of the Meadow Creek Parkway, the need for the interchange study on 29 North and the need for moving
forward with the Route 20 improvements as soon as possible rather than going through the entire
document. Mr. Cilimberg noted that what is needed is the priorities report from the Board. Ms. Humphris
said that the Board usually submits a list of priorities with the statement. Ms. Thomas said she will make the
presentation. There was Board consensus that Ms. Thomas would make the statement with emphasis as
suggested by Ms. Humphris.
____________
At this time, Mr. Tom Meyer asked if he could address the Board. Mr. Meyer thanked the Board for
th
approving the traffic light at the intersection of I-64 and 5 Street Extended. With respect to the Young
America matter, Mr. Meyer said that it would help if the maps used showed the hotel. He also noted with
respect to Avemore that there would be a major recreation center across from the development on Route
20.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Meyer for his comments.
Agenda Item No. 19. Closed Session. Personnel Matters.
Not held. Consensus of Board to meet for supper in closed session at 5:00 pm prior to July 11,
2001 Board meeting.
Agenda Item No. 20. Certify Closed Session.
Removed from Agenda.
_____________
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn.
At 8:50 p.m., Mr. Bowerman moved the Board adjourn to July 11, 2001. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Humphris.
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.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 08/15/2001
Initials: LAB