2001-07-11July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 11,
2001, beginning at 5:00 p.m., County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 5:30 p.m.), Ms.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 5:15 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H.
Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 5:08 p.m. in the Fourth Floor Conference
Room, by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 5:08 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant
to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider an administrative
performance evaluation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
(Note: Mr. Martin arrived at 5:15 p.m. and Mr. Dorrier arrived at 5:30 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Certify Closed Session. At 6:00 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
=
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
(Note: The Board recessed and then reconvened at 6:15 p.m. in Room 241.)
Agenda Item No. 4. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 5. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Chuck Lebo, Chairman of the North Charlottesville Business Council, presented a copy of a
position paper on the study prepared for the Southern Environmental Law Center entitled: Intersection
A
Alternatives and Complimentary Improvements: Route 29 and Hydraulic Road. He said the Business
@
Council consists of approximately 100 businesses along Route 29 from Barracks Road to Airport Road.
Their tax revenues are in the tens of millions of dollars, they employ thousands, and they provide goods and
services to a trade area of about 250,000 people. This position paper was recently adopted by the Council
concerning new interest in overpasses on Route 29, beginning with an overpass at Hydraulic Road. The
Council is opposed to such overpasses because they would be disruptive to buildings, expensive to build
and would destroy businesses in their way, thus reducing the Countys tax base. He said overpasses, with
=
their retaining walls, are very unattractive and do not belong in a community as beautiful as this one.
Presently there are 18 traffic lights from Barracks Road to Airport Road. An overpass at Hydraulic Road
would only eliminate one traffic light. The Business Council promotes the Meadow Creek Parkway and the
Western Bypass as a means to reduce traffic on Route 29, and favors their immediate construction.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. After a short discussion of several items (In these minutes,
that conservation has been placed with the item being discussed), motion was offered by Ms. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 7.1 through 7.4, and to accept the remaining items on the
Consent Agenda, as information.
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 7.1. Albemarle County's Six-Year Primary Road Improvement Plan (Statement for
Pre-Allocation Hearing in Culpeper.) (Deferred from June 6, 2001).
Ms. Humphris said the draft statement sent to the Board is an excellent, well-composed statement.
Of concern to her is that VDOT seems to feel the Board should not continue to ask for the third phase of
the Route 29 North widening project from the South Fork Rivanna to the Airport/Proffit Road intersection.
She thinks the Board should be very concerned about that since it has been in the transpor-tation
improvement program for 12 years. Several years ago funding of $27,432,000 was anticipated in the FY
1999-2004 program. A year later the funding disappeared, except for some PE and right-of-way money.
Recently, all funding disappeared except for some PE money. When VDOT was asked what happened to
that money, the Board was told that because of their involvement in PE, the money was not needed in the
plan, but when the project was ready for construction the money would be reinstated into the plan.
Today she learned that VDOT is saying this project is totally dead so it should not be a part of
Albemarles request. It occurred to her that the reason they might want it to be dead is because it became
=
involved in a lawsuit. The Southern Environmental Law Center entered into the lawsuit language about
VDOT planning an extension of the proposed bypass which should have its own environmental impact
statement before VDOT proceeded. She said it would be convenient for VDOT for the County not to have
this statement in this presentation at the Pre-allocation Hearing, as well as the MPO not to have it in the TIP.
They could then tell the court that the road project is dead, and there is no problem. She hopes that is not
the reason, and that they told the Board the truth two years ago when they said the money was being taken
out of the plan temporarily, and it would be put back in the plan when the design is firmed up. She said
some months ago VDOT was eager to build this road. She just thought this might be the reason that VDOT
does not want the road in any of the Countys road plans. According to the Countys Comprehensive Plan,
==
the road will be needed, and it has been in the highway improvement plans for 12 years.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the road should remain in the request. He thought dead in the water
A@
meant that the total cost with the parallel roads was $100.0+ million, while just the four-laning was a much
smaller portion of that cost. As to dead in the water, his constituents were happy in the sense of planning
A@
for the expansion of Route 29 without the parallel roads to deal with, just the six-laning. It also gave his
constituents an opportunity to be involved in the project in the beginning.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks this project needs to be in the plan.
Ms. Thomas said that does not mean there is a need for anything in this draft statement. Ms.
Humphris agreed. Ms. Thomas said she had one correction to recommend to page 3 of the
Recommended Priorities, having to do with the Ivy Road Design Study. On Monday, they learned at the
MPO meeting that the City is restudying this project. Therefore, the sentence reading "The Citys plan now
=
calls for changing the scope of this project to three lanes (rather than four lanes with a median as
recommended in the Ivy Road Design Study) with bike and pedestrian treatment and landscaping needs to
@
be deleted. If that sentence is removed, the Board will not have commented on what the City is planning
and it will fit better with the other two statements.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following statement to be
presented at the VDOT Preallocation Meeting for the Interstate, Primary, and Urban Systems, and
for Mass Transit, on July 17, 2001, along with a list of Recommended Albemarle County Priorities.
COMMENTS FOR VDOT PREALLOCATION HEARING, JULY 17, 2001
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, I appreciate this opportunity to
A
bring the County's transportation priorities to the attention of the Virginia Department of
Transportation. While our complete list of priorities is outlined in our written report, I
would like to take this opportunity to highlight for you those projects which we feel are
most pressing and critical to the safe and efficient functioning of our community's
transportation systems. As we strive toward our goal of meeting the increasing demands
of a growing and diversifying population while protecting those community attributes that
create our character and sense of place, our transportation systems become much more
than just infrastructure projects. In many cases they are defining elements of our land
use strategies, and therefore must reflect the values, goals and vision our community has
defined for itself now and well into the future. The projects we bring before you not only
enhance the smooth flow of vehicular traffic but also promote our goal of encouraging
alternative transportation modes including pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as the
possibilities of mass transit to meet the varied transportation needs and pressures of our
rapidly urbanizing county.
We continue to strongly support those Charlottesville/Albemarle Regional Transportation
Study (CHART) projects eligible for the primary program in sequence as called for in the
February 2, 1992, joint resolution between Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the
University of Virginia and agreed to by VDOT.
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
In addition to the Route 29 improvements already completed or currently planned, we
recommend construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to
Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's highest priority project after the Route 29
improvements, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of
service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing
area north of the City.
The first phase of the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is
being funded in the County's secondary program. This project is being planned as a low
speed parkway in the City of Charlottesville, and the County asks that the same design
aspects be employed from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. In particular, the County asks
that this section be designed in accordance with the County's design and alignment
recommendations developed with the assistance of an independent consultant which
emphasize the parkway corridor's potential as a linear park and its relationship to the
development of adjacent urban land.
Planning and design of the second phase of the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road
to Route 29 North is being funded in VDOT's Six Year Secondary Plan for the county.
For the tenth consecutive year the County urges VDOT to investigate all possible funding
sources, particularly primary road funds, to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally
important roadway. Other projects listed in CHART in the northern study area also
should be actively pursued and completed. The County also supports reestablishing
funding for design and construction of the Route 29 interchanges at Hydraulic Road,
Greenbrier Drive and Rio Road, with consideration for alternative design concepts not
previously considered.
Completion of the preliminary engineering and widening of Route 20 South from I-64 to
Mill Creek Drive is a priority that continues to be urgent to us for several reasons. This
roadway now serves heavy vehicular traffic generated by Monticello High School which
opened in 1998. Recently this curvy section of road has been the scene of several
serious accidents, including two with fatalities. We strongly support the incorporation of
sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements.
The Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study recommendations were forwarded to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board in 1996 with the County's endorsement. The
recommendations emphasized use of an access management approach in lieu of a
limited access road design. The County feels that it is imperative that access
management be the design basis for the third phase of the Route 29 widening project
from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Airport/Proffit Road intersection. The
County has recently approved amendments to its Comprehensive Plan regarding the
transportation system in this area that reflect this principle. The County requests that
Route 29 improvements in this area incorporate the County's Comprehensive Plan
transportation system recommendations which emphasize a more complete urban
roadway system serving this emerging urban community.
The County appreciates efforts that have been made in the Route 29 Phases II and III
Corridor Study process to receive public input. Again, the County does not support a
limited access design for the Albemarle County section of the corridor. The County has
recently provided VDOT and CTB a resolution regarding this study which repeats the
access management recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study.
The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it
be seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommen-
dations identified in the Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study and be considered in the Route
29 Phases II and III Corridor Study.
We also strongly support road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will
relieve traffic on Route 29 by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects
include the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector and new roads parallel to Route 29
between the South Fork Rivanna River and Airport Road/Proffit Road that would be built
in conjunction with the Route 29 widening project. The Comprehensive Plan
transportation system recommendations envision future development to be served by a
transportation network that provides a complete system of urban streets, supports
walking and biking, and links all land use in the area.
We are recommending a number of safety improvements with the most critical being the
construction of pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's
Urban Neighborhoods. The walkways along Route 20 North are the most important
improvement due to the significant increase of development and resulting pedestrian
travel along this road. Furthermore, Wilton Farms Apartments are now being served by
public bus service which travels along Route 20 North and a walkway would provide
additional pedestrian access to this service. We are anxious to address the safety
concerns associated with walking along this segment of road as currently constructed.
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
I thank you again for this opportunity to discuss our community's pressing transportation
needs with you. We believe that the recommendations we are presenting to you reflect
effective traffic management priorities as well as community goals and values regarding
transportation networks that support our land use plans. We have devoted much time
and attention, with significant input from our citizens, to developing this list in a way that
manages our traffic flow while also protecting our neighborhood amenities and
community character. If you have any questions that are not addressed in our report, I
hope you will feel free to bring them to our attention.
@
_____
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JULY 17, 2001
PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN
SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT
RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES (July 17, 2001)
The following addresses Albemarle County's priorities for each allocation of TEA-21 and
each sub-allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Standard Projects:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside.
The County supports these projects as referenced.
1)Undertake those Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Study-CHART
(adopted May 24, 2001) projects eligible for the primary program in the sequence
as called for in the February 2, 1992, joint resolution between the City, County and
University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to Route 29 improvements already
completed or currently planned, construct Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route
250 Bypass to Route 29 North.
The Parkway is the County's highest priority project after the Route 29 improve-
ments, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of
service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the
urbanizing area north of the City. The Parkway should be developed as follows:
A)The first phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being
funded in the County's secondary program. This project is being planned as
a low speed parkway in the City of Charlottesville, and the County asks that
the same design aspects be employed from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. In
particular, the County asks that this section be designed in accord with the
County's design and alignment recommenda-tions developed with the
assistance of an independent consultant and endorsed by resolution of the
County Board of Supervisors on June 20, 2001 (Attachment A). This
endorsed design and alignment emphasizes the parkway corridor's potential
as a linear park and its relationship to the development of adjacent urban
land. The linear park concept is intended to replace McIntire park land lost
due to the project and, at the same time, link McIntire Park to the Rivanna
Foundation trails along Meadow Creek and the County's urbanizing area
along Rio Road.
B)Planning and design of the second phase of Meadow Creek Parkway from
Rio Road to Route 29 North is being funded in VDOT's Six-Year Secondary
Road Plan for the county. County staff is working closely with VDOT staff to
get the design process underway. However, it is not possible to construct this
project within a reasonable timeframe solely with secondary funding due to
the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for completion of other
important secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will meet the
criteria for inclusion in the primary system. The Commonwealth
Transportation Board previously decided to eliminate funding of the Route 29
interchanges in the primary plan. If funding of the interchanges is not going to
be re-established in the plan, the County believes primary funds should be
redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate
construction of subsequent phases as a primary road, provided it will
accelerate the Parkway's completion. For the tenth consecutive year the
County urges VDOT to investigate all possible funding sources, particularly
primary road funds, to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally
important roadway.
Other projects listed in CHART in the northern study area also should be
actively pursued and completed. These projects include the Airport Road
improvements and the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector. Also, the County
supports re-establishing funding for design and construction of the Route 29
interchanges at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive and Rio Road, with
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
consideration for alternative design concepts not previously considered.
2)Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South
from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into
these improvements. This is a curvy section of road in the County's Urban Area
that serves the traffic from Monticello High School and has recently experienced
several accidents with fatalities. While this has historically been a project lower on
the County's priority list, its priority has greatly increased due to these recent
events.
3)The County has followed the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Route 29 Phase I
Corridor Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board in 1996 with the County's endorsement. The recommen-
dations emphasized use of an access management approach in lieu of a limited
access road design. Regarding the Corridor Study:
A)The County feels that it is imperative that access management be the design
basis for the third phase of the Route 29 widening project from the South Fork
of the Rivanna River to the Airport/Proffit Road intersection. The County has
recently approved amendments to its Comprehensive Plan regarding the
transportation system in this area that reflect this principle. The County
requests that Route 29 improvements in this area incorporate the County's
Comprehensive Plan transportation system recommendations which
emphasize a more complete urban roadway system serving this emerging
urban community (Attachment B).
B)The County appreciates efforts that have been made in the Route 29 Phases
II and III Corridor Study process to receive public input. Again, the County
does not support a limited access design for the Albemarle County section of
the corridor. The County has recently provided VDOT and CTB a resolution
regarding this study which repeats the access management
recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study (Attachment C).
4)The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends
that it be seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and
recommendations identified in the Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study and being
considered in the Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study.
5)Undertake road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will relieve
traffic on Route 29 by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects include
the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector and the Comprehensive Plan urban
roadway system recommendations between the South Fork Rivanna River and
Airport Road/Proffit Road that could be built in conjunction with the anticipated
Route 29 improvement project. The Comprehensive Plan transportation system
recommendations envision future development to be served by a transportation
network that provides a complete system of urban streets and supports walking
and biking and comprehensively links all land use in this area.
6)There are three areas of emphasis the County requests be addressed on Route
250:
A)Widen Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This
section is covered by the joint Ivy Road Design Study conducted by the City,
County and University of Virginia and originally recognized for improvement in
the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood/University Heights (Area B) Study. Any
plans for the improvement of this section of Route 250 West need to be
coordinated between the City, County and University.
B)The remaining portion of Route 250 West to Yancey Mills (the I-64/250
interchange) was studied by VDOT with a local advisory committee to
determine long-term needs for this road. The Board of Supervisors has
rejected the study recommendations and, instead, recommends maintaining
the present two-lane configuration of the corridor with any short-term or spot
improvements being as non-intrusive and consistent as possible with the
special character of this scenic by-way.
C)VDOT has completed a similar study of Route 250 East from Free Bridge to
the Fluvanna County line. This study's findings have been presented to the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors awaits the
final study recommendations from VDOT.
7)Finish the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in Crozet and improve Route 240 in
accord with County recommendations regarding this study.
8)Undertake improvements of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the
improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation
development. The County supports the recommendations identified by the
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
Fontaine Avenue Task Force.
9)Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250 East to Elks
Drive/Fontana Drive. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these
improvements.
10)Recognize that mass transit can relieve traffic congestion and is an alternative to
road construction, particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and shift
funds from road construction into mass transit to accomplish this.
Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this ten percent set-aside. They
are, in priority order:
1)Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's
Urban Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full
road widening/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for
pedestrian walkways: 1) Route 20 North from Route 250 East to Wilton Farm
Apartments and Darden Towe Park; 2) Route 240 in "downtown" Crozet; 3) Route
20 South from the City line to Mill Creek Drive; 4) along Route 250 East in the
Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks; and, 5) along Route 250 West
from the City limits to the Bypass.
Of these, the walkways along Route 20 North are the most important improvement.
Pedestrian travel along this road has increased significantly with the development
in that area. Furthermore, Wilton Farms Apartments are now served by public bus
service which travels along Route 20 North and a walkway would provide additional
pedestrian access to this service. There is great concern with the safety of walking
along this segment of road as currently constructed.
2)Installation of traffic signals at Route 22 and Route 250.
3)Improvements to Route 250 West along the corridor in Ivy to address existing and
short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in
this area. Of particular concern is the Tilman Road intersection (Route 676), which
serves industrial truck traffic and has poor sight distance. These improvements
should be undertaken in accordance with recommendations approved by the
Board of Supervisors in the Route 250 West Corridor Study.
4)Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet.
5)Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes
22 and 231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates
to traffic created by large trucks along these road segments, and encourages
VDOT to consider all appropriate measures to ensure that trucks travel safely
along these roadways in the future. VDOT is considering undertaking an
origin-destination study regarding truck traffic on these routes as requested by the
County. Restriction of through truck traffic is still considered by the County to be
potentially the most effective measure.
Enhancement Projects:
Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order:
1)Construction of pedestrian walkways along Route 20 North.
2)Pedestrian streetscape improvements along Route 240 in Crozet.
3)Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, Route 29 and Route
250) and Airport Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Airport - landscaping, signage, placement of overhead utilities underground, etc.
4)Completion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation access project at
Monticello.
5)Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an
element of the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991).
6)Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
7)Beautification of streets in Scottsville through the Scottsville Streetscape project.
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
8)Removal of non-conforming billboards.
National Highway System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by
VDOT in this area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has approved the NHS, which includes the existing Route 29, and the Route 29
Bypass. The County's highest priority project in the proposed NHS is the completion of
the widening of Route 29 North from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road.
The County continues to monitor the progress and recommendations of the Route 29
Corridor Studies, which are part of the NHS (additional information is provided under
Standard Projects #3).
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment
for ozone or carbon monoxide.
__________
Item 7.2. Year 2002 Legislative Proposals.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) has requested that
=
the County submit its legislative proposals to be addressed in VACo's 2002 Legislative Program. The
following proposals are submitted for the Board's consideration to be transmitted to VACo for discussion
during its summer steering committee sessions.
State Funding for Education - Request legislation that will raise the Standards of Quality
(S.O.Q.s) and increase percentage of state funding for programs to assist localities to
successfully meet the requirements of the S.O.L.s.
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) - Request that the state fully fund CSA mandates.
Growth Management - Request legislation to provide high-growth jurisdictions with growth
management tools and to provide statewide funding for the Purchase of Development
Rights program for localities that establish and locally fund such a program.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement - Continue to request enabling legislation to
provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County
pursues options to protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic
resource, this legislation would provide localities with a method to ensure full
consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the County or State makes land
use decisions in designated areas.
Virginia Retirement System (VRS) - Request that the State reimburse school systems for
VRS-related costs for positions that exceed those required by current SOQ regulations.
Passenger Rail Service - The County supports and endorses the provision of passenger
rail service from Bristol, VA, to the Richmond, VA, and Washington, D.C. areas with links
to communities along the way.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards - Request legislation that would
direct VDOT to work with urbanizing counties to create separate and distinct
classifications and standards for urban streets in the secondary road system, as well as
standards associated with amenities such as the location of utilities, sidewalks, bike lanes
and street trees.
Local Control of Firearms in the Workplace - The County supports continual local
authorization regarding the regulation of firearms in the workplace which enable localities
to adopt ordinances, resolutions and administrative rules regarding the use of firearms in
the workplace.
Substitution of Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) Funds for General Funds
- Request that the State not use TANF moneys to fund the Healthy Family Program, the
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the CSA Trust Fund Program as
localities cannot use Federal TANF funds as match for other Federally-funded prevention
programs. The State's use of TANF funding for these programs would reduce or
eliminate a locality's ability to obtain certain Federally-funded prevention service
programs and could erode the State's TANF Emergency Reserve Fund.
By the recorded vote set out above, this list of legislative items was approved for submittal
to VACO.
__________
Item 7.3. Charlottesville/Albemarle Youth Summit 2001.
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
It was noted in the staffs report that three organizations, Region Ten, MACAA and the
=
Charlottesville Abundant Life Ministries (CALM) have joined together to organize Youth Summit 2001 for
area youth. The purpose of the summit, scheduled for July 21, 2001, is to provide interactive workshops to
help educate local teens and guide them into the future. The collaboration is requesting support from the
County, along with the City, local businesses, churches and area non-profit organizations. A summary of
the Summit 2001 program and its budget has been forwarded for the Board's review. The group is
estimating a budget of $18,000 for the event, the largest expense being $8,000 for a speaker. They
currently estimate a $6,000 shortfall in their fund-raising efforts. If the Board is inclined to support this
effort, staff recommends that a contribution of $500, an amount that is consistent with that of other donors,
be made. If the Board approves this request, an appropriation request will be included in the August 1,
2001, FY 2002 budget amendment request.
>
(Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the summit is full of good ideas, but the scheduled date is very close. He
asked if staff has any more information on this request than was in the executive summary. Mr. Tucker said
no.
A@
Mr. Martin said they have been working for a long time with several grants, including one from the
Charlottesville Community Foundation. Their plans changed, because he thinks they intended to ask for a
bigger donation than the $500. At this time, he thinks the $500 contribution is reasonable. Next year,
during the regular budget cycle, the Board may be asked for a larger amount.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a follow-up report on this activity.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the request for a contribution of
$500 to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Youth Summit 2001 with the actual appropriation form being
returned to the Board at another meeting for adoption.
__________
Item 7.4. Progress Report on Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program.
It was stated in the executive summary that the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE)
Program received eleven applications for its' initial January 1, 2001, deadline. Properties were ranked by a
series of objective criteria including open space resources, threat of conversion to developed use, natural,
cultural and scenic resources, and County fund leveraging from outside sources. At its meeting on April 4,
the Board approved the final ranking priority list provided by staff and approved the appraisal of the top five
or six properties. Since that meeting, the Finance Department circulated an RFP to obtain cost estimates
for appraising the selected properties. Once the quote requests were received, they were reviewed by the
Appraisal Review Committee and the Finance Department. Following this review, The Appraisal Group
was selected to conduct the appraisals.
Although the ACE ordinance anticipates a closing date on or around July 1 for the purchase of
development rights and easement acquisitions (for the first round of applications), the ACE Committee and
staff now believe that the timeline originally anticipated is not realistic. Delays in various aspects of the
appraisal process have pushed the likely closing date for the acquistion to October. As a result of these
unexpected delays and the attention needed to pursue completion of the appraisals, the schedule for
advertisement of the next round of applications now needs to be adjusted slightly. In addition to these
unexpected delays, the committee also believes that since many in the farming community are busy
throughout June, it is unlikely they could effectively respond to and make application by a July 1 deadline.
Therefore, the ACE Committee has determined that in order to provide adequate time to fully advertise the
ACE Program and draw greater attention and response from the farming community, the next application
deadline should be moved to August 1, 2001. As the ordinance is currently written, this change requires
Board approval. Recommendations on changes to the program will be provided to the Board within the
next two months. Amendments to the program after the first year of actual experience should help to
ensure a more effective program in the future.
(Ms. Thomas asked if it is necessary to have the deadlines stated in the ordinance, thus requiring
continual changes. Mr. Davis responded that after completion of this first round of purchases, he thinks the
dates can be removed. They were originally stated in the ordinance to insure that the program would not
fall behind schedule. There are some parts of the ordinance which will require fine-tuning and that is an
issue to study.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved staffs request to move the ACE
==
application deadline to August 1, 2001, from the original deadline of July 1, 2001.
__________
Item 7.5. Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting.
Mr. Tucker reported that the County of Albemarle has been awarded the Government Finance
Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its 1999-2000
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of
recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a
significant accomplishment by a government and its management. This is the sixth consecutive year the
County has received this award. The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high
standards of the program including demonstrating a constructive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the CAFR.
This report was received as information only.
__________
Item 7.6. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Report for July, 2001, was received as information,
and is on file in the Clerks Office.
=
__________
Item 7.7. Notice from the Department of Transportation on the impact of new laws affecting the
secondary system of state highways, effective July 1, 2001, was received as information.
__________
Item 7.8. Notice from the Auditor of Public Accounts dated April 20, 2001, said the office has
audited the cash receipts and disbursements of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle for
the period of October 1, 1999, through December 31, 2000. This notice was received for information.
__________
Item 7.9. Notice of public hearing, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0086584, Glenmore
Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), was received for information.
__________
Item 7.10. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes for June 19, 2001, was received as
information.
__________
Item 7.11. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's Operating Budget for FY 2001-2002,
was received for information.
__________
Item 7.12. Letter dated July 3, 2001, addressed to the Honorable Sally H. Thomas from Mr.
William C. Shelton, Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development, was received re:
Competitive grant proposal in the 2001 competition under the Virginia Community Development Block
Grant Program. It was stated that of the 1000 points available in the rating system, the Countys proposal
=
received only 706 points. Grant offers were made to local governments with proposals receiving 759 or
more points. This letter was received for information only.
__________
Item 7.13. Notice of wastewater discharge permit application, re: Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport,
VPDES Permit No. VA0090808, was received from Mr. Dwight M. Sours, Environmental Engineer Senior,
Department of Environmental Quality. He states that if a permit is drafted, a notice will appear in the local
newspaper in the next two or three months. This notice was received as information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Transportation Matters.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, provided the following information:
Regarding a comment he made concerning the third phase of the Route 29 widening project, there
was a miscommunication. Due to the funding costs, and the results of the public hearing, a better word to
characterize the project is "deferred" not "dead".
__________
Regarding Consent Agenda Item 7.6, he will be preparing these monthly reports in an attempt to
better communicate with the Board. The ultimate goal is that VDOT improve its performance. He would
appreciate any feedback.
__________
As to maintenance activities, VDOT has finished its first cycle of mowing. Normally there are three
cycles per summer, and they have been successful in doing the first one. They will continue to work on the
shoulders and edges of roads.
__________
Regarding construction, VDOT will be able to do the stripping on Route 637 (Dick Woods Road),
and will try to widen the skinny area between the two wide areas. The road will then be in good shape.
A@
__________
Regarding Route 791 (Wyants Road), VDOT will soon finish work on a drainage problem they did
not foresee during the construction phase. That problem should be under control by next week.
__________
Mr. Bryan handed out an addendum to the Monthly Report which included information on delay of
the bridges over the South Fork Rivanna River on Route 29 North. He said it will probably be October 22,
2001, before that project is complete. He said the major traffic engineering problem with this project was
the unforseen detour imposed on Route 29. In the plans, they were to leave Route 641 open, but after the
barriers were up, it did not appear to be safe to do so. They then changed that part of the plan. He has
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
heard no complaints about this so far.
__________
Included in this addendum was the asphalt schedule for July which includes Route 743 (from
Route 676 to Route 606 and from Route 631 to Route 676). Paving of the eastbound lane of Route I-64
from 0.10 miles east of Route 29 to 0.63 mile east of Route 29. Also, paving of Route 877 (from Route 631
to Route 631). They will also start the paving of Route 631 (from Route 706 to Route 708).
__________
Mr. Bowerman said Carrsbrook Drive has been repaved, and he wondered if the markings to the
entrance of Still Meadows are going to remain the way they were. There was concern by the community
that on-street parking would be eliminated if a turn lane was installed. Mr. Bryan said he does not know; but
will find out.
__________
Ms. Humphris mentioned a letter to the Editor of the Daily Progress, from June Russell, a resident
of Oak Forest, regarding the use of Round-up in the spring to kill the grass in the streets. Mr. Bryan said
VDOT is not doing that any more.
__________
Ms. Humphris mentioned a letter sent to Secretary of Transportation Ybarra and Ms. Thomas
regarding the speed limit on Route 664, asking that it be reduced from 55 mph to 45 mph. Mr. Bryan said
VDOT also received a copy of the letter and their Culpeper traffic engineering people are studying the
issue.
__________
Ms. Humphris mentioned a letter to Ms. Thomas from Ms. Karen Dame regarding the mowing by
an untrained operator which took place in her area. Mr. Bryan said VDOT now sends out a fact sheet on
why they do mowing and how it is done. They are also providing more training to their employees.
Mr. Tucker said Ms. Dames complaint had more to do with the soil erosion which occurred after
=
the mowing. Ms. Thomas asked if the response has been to try and educate people as to how mowing is
done. Mr. Bryan said that is true. He thinks this particular operator needs more training. In the meantime,
he wrote a fact sheet on why VDOT mows.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said VDOT did an excellent job expanding and paving Route 20 South between Keene
and Scottsville.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said it has been brought to his attention that there is a dangerous area between the light
at the Mill Creek entrance and the entrance into the City. A lot of pedestrians walk on Avon Street Extended
to come into the City. There is no area reserved for walking. He asked if VDOT would do a traffic count on
that road from the traffic light at the turnoff to Monticello High School to the City boundary line, to see if it is
possible to install a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Bryan said he would look into the request.
__________
Mr. Perkins said he noticed that the shoulders have washed out in several places along roads
because of the recent heavy storms. On Mint Springs Park Road above the entrance to the park, there are
several sharp drop-offs along the edge of the blacktop. Mr. Bryan said he would have them looked at.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Foster Central Sewage System Expansion request (former Cooper Industries
facility site).
Mr. Stephen Bowler, Watershed Manager, said that on March 17, 1999, the applicant, Mr. Donald
Foster, received approval for a central sewage system in order to allow reuse of the former Cooper
Industries facility. That septic system approved in 1999 is in use. The only condition of the 1999 approval
was that any future expansion of the sewage facilities (beyond the approved 120 worker capacity) required
a new approval of the central sewage permit. The applicant now wishes to increase system capacity to
serve an additional 300 people. He is requesting approval for the expansion. The existing drainfield is
designed to treat 1200 gallons per day. The proposed expansion would add three additional drainfields
treating up to 1000 gallons per day each. The total capacity of the central sewage system (four drainfields)
would be 4200 gallons per day.
He said staff recommends approval of the request to expand the central sewage system subject to
the same condition. The recommendation is based on extensive conversations with representatives of the
Thomas Jefferson Health District and the gentlemen there who designed the system, Mr. Loth. He has
assured staff that the soils are very good for the system. In the context of this being the redevelop-ment of
an existing site, although it is in a water supply area, and the fact that it used to have many more employees
using an antiquated package plant system (which the applicant has removed), they recommend approval
with a condition that Any future expansions will require approval by the Board.
A@
Ms. Humphris said that in Mr. Loths letter of March 27, he concludes it by saying with the care and
=A
maintenance that is prescribed for any subsurface sewage disposal system, this system should be more
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
than adequate. She asked if care and maintenance is just the suggestion that the system should be
@A@
cleaned every x number of years. She asked if there is any way to insure that in this situation, it will be
A@
done on a regular schedule. Mr. Bowler said he believes it is just the Health Departments guidance, and
=
not something which requires a formal report. He asked Mr. Loth if there are any pretreatment conditions,
or any maintenance conditions that should be applied, and he felt the nature of the system is adequate
enough that no extra measures are needed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if these are essentially toilet facilities. Mr. Bowler said the system is for hand
washing and toilets. That is why the design criteria are based on 15 gallons per day per person.
Ms. Thomas asked if there were a different usage, is there anything that would change the permit in
that situation. Mr. Bowler said he is not familar with all of the Countys ordinance, so he does not know. Mr.
=
Cilimberg said this change gives them the basic, maximum discharge; if they use part of that dis-charge for
activities rather than employees, they would have to reduce the number of employees they could have.
Mr. Jim Morris, a manager of the old Cooper site, said they have a lot of unused office space and
intend to lease that space. Someone did approach them about opening a health club, but they do not
believe it is a viable business on this site.
Ms. Thomas asked if there will be any more expansion of the site to bring in more truck traffic. Mr.
Morris said no. Also, Technicolor left the site and moved to the ComDial Site on Route 29 North.
A@
Hopefully, they will be getting UtiliServ which will have only seven people, and no particular truck traffic. He
said this site is zoned for Light Industrial, and although they have not specifically tried to alter the truck
traffic, it is happening anyway.
Mr. Bowerman said he knows Mr. Morris is sensitive to the fact that the building is in a rural area.
As long as he continues to use some stewardship in terms of what is put there, it will be good. Mr. Morris
said they are trying to be good neighbors. The trucks from Technicolor did cause a little stir, but he did
A@
not realize they would have that much truck traffic. He said it is a huge facility which was authorized, and
otherwise, it would have just sit there abandoned as it had been for many years. It is a quiet, low-key
operation, and they anticipate that their rental of office space will be the same.
Mr. Bowerman then offered motion to approve the central sewage system expansion subject to the
following condition: Approval is for the proposed septic system capacity of 420 total users per day (4200
A
gallons per day), as designed by the Health Department. Future expansions must be re-approved by the
Board of Supervisors.
@
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public hearing on proposed FY 2001 budget amendments. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3, 2001.)
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive said this proposed FY 01 Budget amendment
>
totals $2,266,367.21, as set out below:
ESTIMATED REVENUE
General Fund/Other Funds
Local Revenues$ 84,450.16
Local Grant Revenues177,707.00
State Revenues6,083.50
Federal Revenues271,552.66
General Fund/Other Fund Estimated Revenue$ 539,793.32
Education Funds
Local Revenues$ 6,748.14
State Revenues17,639.60
Federal Revenues10,166.75
Transfer from School Fund7,500.00
Fund Balances10,514.45
Education Funds Estimated Revenue$ 52,568.94
Tax Reserve Fund
Investment Earnings$ 69,761.47
Fund Balance1,190,979.38
Tax Reserve Fund Estimated Revenue$1,260,740.85
Capital Improvement Fund - General Government
Local Revenue$ 401,500.00
Fund Balance11,764.10
Capital Fund Estimated Revenue$ 413,264.10
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
Total Estimated Revenue$2,266,367.21
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Operating Fund
Public Safety$ 20,350.32
Human Development519,443.00
General Operating Expenditures$ 539,793.32
Education Operating Fund$ 52,568.94
Tax Reserve Fund$1,260,740.85
Capital Improvement Fund - General Government$ 413,264.10
Total Estimated Expenditures$2,266,367.21
APPROPRIATION #20040, $519,443.00, United Way Child Care Program. The United Way
Childcare Scholarship Program helps low and moderate income working families in the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District maintain employment through direct fee-subsidies to pay for child care. The program
promotes quality childcare for children, especially "at risk" children, by allowing the parent to select a
licensed or certified provider. Scholarships are awarded based on a sliding scale fee with parents paying a
portion of the cost.
APPROPRIATION #20071, $3167.00, EMS Development Block Grant. The Virginia Department of
Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant providing funds to purchase an
Automated External Defibrillator. The purchase is funded by a $1583.50 Office of Emergency Medical
Services grant. There is a $1583.50 local match that will be funded from current operations. There are no
additional local funds required.
APPROPRIATION #20072,$8,183.32, Bulletproof Vest Grant. The Federal Bureau of Justice
Assistance has recently started a program to subsidize the purchase of bulletproof vests. The County
Police, Sheriff, and Regional Jail have applied for and received approval to purchase bulletproof vests with
reimbursement at 50 percent. The Bureau of Justice Assistance grant is $4091.66. The Police
Department's local match of $2577.75, Sheriff's Department's local match of $937.81, and the Regional
Jail's local match of $4667.76 will be funded from current operations.
APPROPRIATION #20073, $9,000.00, EMS Development Block Grant. The Virginia Department
of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant providing funds to purchase
three additional Automated External Defibrillators. The purchase is funded by a $4500.00 Office of
Emergency Medical Services grant. There is a $4500.00 local match that will be funded from current
operations. There are no additional local funds required.
APPROPRIATION #20074, $18,252.96, Donations.
Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $1500.00. This
donation will assist in the purchase of laptop computers for use by teachers and staff.
Burley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1500.00 from Litton Industries. This
donation is to be used for the science department at Burley Middle School.
Sutherland Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1,500.00 from Litton Industries.
This donation will be used to purchase instructional books on tape.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $15.36 from the Target
School Fund-Raising Program. Target designated their favorite school to receive donations equal to one
percent of purchases made when shopping at Target or on-line. Through the School Fund Raising
Program, Target has donated more than $27.0 million to eligible K-12 schools across the country. This
donation is to be used to purchase educational materials for the school.
Special Education. The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
mandate that special education and related services are provided to all eligible students including those
who are incarcerated. The Albemarle County Schools will provide compulsory special education to eligible
inmates housed in the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. The Virginia Department of Education will
reimburse the School Division for the cost associated with these services.
Purchase of Laptop Computers. Reappropriation of $24,000 from the School Board Reserve to
purchase laptop computers for School Board Members.
APPROPRIATION #20075, $34,315.98, Donations.
Red Hill Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $274.78 from the Giant/Super G
Bonus Bucks Program. This donation is to be used to purchase educational materials for the schools.
Carl D. Perkins Vocational Grant. The Carl D. Perkins Vocational Grant has a fund balance of
$10,514.45. It is requested that these funds be appropriated for FY 00-01 to help cover expenditures for the
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
grant.
Title VI Grant. Title VI Grant was not fully expended in FY 99-00. The grant carryover amount of
$6937.15 retained by the State may be appropriated for FY 00-01. These funds will help pay for teacher
salaries.
Adult Basic Education Program. The Adult Basic Education Program, which provides educational
opportunities to adults and assists them in preparing for the General Equivalency Diploma exam has
received additional revenue in the amount of $294.00 from book sales to their students. These funds will
pay for instructional materials.
Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized
needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement existing
classes. The School Division received additional revenues in the amount of $1664.00 in tuition fees for
English as a Second Language class. These funds will be used to help pay for teacher salaries.
Eisenhower Grant. The Eisenhower Grant was not fully expended in FY 99-00. The grant
carryover amount of $3229.60 retained by the State may be appropriated for FY 00-01. These funds will be
used to provide professional development activities in mathematics and reading.
The Project Return II Grant services both local students and students in Nelson County. Since
mileage has increased significantly for both teachers, it is requested that $7500.00 be transferred from the
Extended Learning Time funds to the Project Return II account so remaining expenditures can be
adequately covered. In addition, State funding for Project Return II was increased by $3902.00 from the
original budget amount of $43,599.00.
APPROPRIATION #20076, $1,260,740.85, Transfer from 2000 Tax Reserve to 2001 First-Half
Real Estate Tax Revenue. The FY 2001 budget was adopted in April, 2000 based on a $0.76 real property
tax rate for calendar year 2000. At that time, it was anticipated that the rate would generate an approximate
$1.2 million of unbudgeted revenue in FY 2000 because of the collection of taxes based on the higher than
budgeted tax rate for the first half of calendar year 2000. The Board directed that the unbudgeted revenue
be reserved in a separate account. To return the unbudgeted revenue, the first half 2001 real property tax
rate was reduced to $0.72 using the $1.2 million reserve to offset the reduction in real property tax
collections for the first half of 2001. The actual unbudgeted revenue generated from the 2000 first half
collection was $1,190,979.38. Investment income was earned on this revenue in the amount of
$69,761.47. The actual FY 2001 revenue reduction was $1,350,892.34, exceeding the unbudgeted
revenue and investment earnings by $90,151.49.
APPROPRIATION #20077, $413,264.10, KIMCO, Inc. Land Acquisition. In December 2000, the
County of Albemarle purchased property from KIMCO, Inc. A portion of the purchase price of the property,
$401,500.00, was in the form of a charitable contribution from KIMCO, Inc. to the County. The County's
audit firm, Robinson Farmer Cox Associates, has reviewed this transaction and requires the County to
recognize the full purchase price of the land inclusive of the charitable contribution. Expenses relating to
this land acquisition, including recordation costs, survey and appraisal fees totaled $11,764.10.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Martin immediately moved to approve the budget amendment by adopting Appropriation
Resolutions Nos. 20040, 20071, 20072, 20073, 20074, 20075, 20076 and 20077. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Perkins asked if this is going to be a regular occurrence. Ms. White said most of these
appropriations are for moneys which came in subsequent to approval of the budget. They were not
anticipated during the year.
Mr. Martin said some of these are due to decisions the Board made earlier. Mr. Perkins asked how
old the Virginia Code section is which allows for only one percent. He said that needs to be amended at the
State level. Mr. Davis said as the jurisdiction becomes larger, the $500,000 becomes a very small figure as
compared to the overall operation of the County. It generates the need to have more and more of these
public hearings. It is a very old Code section. Mr. Tucker said some of the larger localities have these
budget amendments at every meeting. Ms. White said staff will try to do this only once each month. She
said it might be good to add this as a request to the legislative proposals for the next session of the General
Assembly.
__________
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20040
FUND: UNITED WAY
Purpose of Appropriation: FY 2000-01 United Way Day Care Program
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 1550 53110 390056 Adm Fee$23,550.00
1 1550 53110 567910 Day Care Grant243,911.00
1 1550 53110 580025 County Share74,275.00
1 1550 53110 580026 City Share101,226.00
1 1550 53110 580027 United Way76,481.00
Total$519,443.00
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1550 33000 330014 HSS Pass-through Grant$243,911.00
2 1550 33501 160502 City101,226.00
2 1550 33501 160525 United Way76,481.00
2 1550 51000 512004 County74,275.00
2 1550 33000 160510 HSS Adm Fee23,550.00
Total$519,443.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20071
FUND: GRANT
Purpose of Appropriation: Fire/Rescue AED Grant Funding
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 1555 32015 800100 Machinery & Equipment$3,167.00
Total$3,167.00
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1555 24000 240000 State Grant$1,583.50
2 1555 51000 512004 Trs From G/F1,583.50
Total$3,167.00
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20072
FUND: GRANT
Purpose of Appropriation: Grant for Purchase of Bullet Proof Vests
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 1241 31013 601000 Police Police Supplies$2,577.75
1 1241 31020 601000 Sheriff Police Supplies937.81
1 1241 33024 601000 Jail Police Supplies4,667.76
Total$8,183.32
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1241 33000 330001 Federal Grant$4,091.66
2 1241 51000 512004 Trs from G/F4,091.66
Total$8,183.32
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20073
FUND: GRANT
Purpose of Appropriation: Fire/Rescue AED Grant Funding
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 1555 32015 800100 Machinery & Equipment$9,000.00
Total$9,000.00
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1555 24000 240000 State Grant$4,500.00
2 1555 51000 512004 Trs from G/F4,500.00
Total$9,000.00
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20074
FUND: SCHOOL/SPECIAL ED
Purpose of Appropriation: Funding for School Programs
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 2215 61101 800700 ADP Equipment$1,500.00
1 2251 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies1,500.00
1 2255 61101 601200 Books/Subscriptions1,500.00
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies15.36
1 3212 61102 112100 Salaries-Teacher6,728.60
1 3212 61102 210000 FICA515.00
1 3212 61102 221000 VRS870.00
1 3212 61102 230000 Health Ins550.00
1 3212 61102 232000 Dental Ins20.00
1 3212 61102 241000 Group Life Ins54.00
1 3212 61102 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies5,000.00
1 2410 60100 999981 School Board Reserve(24,000.00)
1 2410 62110 800700 ADP Equipment24,000.00
Total$18,252.96
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation$4,515.36
2 3212 24000 240116 SP ED - Jail Pgm13,737.60
Total$18,252.96
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20075
FUND: SCHOOL
Purpose of Appropriation: Funding for School Programs
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 2207 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies$274.78
1 3207 61190 580500 Staff Dev10,514.45
1 3102 61311 132100 Salaries6,444.17
1 3102 61311 210000 FICA492.98
1 3115 63322 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies294.00
1 3116 63348 132100 Salaries1,545.75
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA118.25
1 3203 61311 580500 Staff Dev3,229.60
1 2113 61161 580000 Miscellaneous(7,500.00)
1 2113 93010 930000 Fund Transfer7,500.00
1 3122 63349 112100 Salaries3,340.46
1 3122 63349 210000 FICA561.64
1 3122 63349 550100 Travel-Mileage7,500.00
Total$34,315.98
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation$274.78
2 3207 51000 510100 Appro Fund Balance10,514.45
2 3102 33000 330105 Title VI Grant6,937.15
2 3115 16000 161233 Misc Revenue294.00
2 3116 16000 161206 Tuition-Adult Education1,664.00
2 3203 33000 330200 Eisenhower Grant3,229.60
2 3122 24000 240500 Grant Revenue3,902.00
2 3122 51000 512001 Transfer-School Fund7,500.00
Total$34,315.98
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20076
FUND: GENERAL
Purpose of Appropriation: Adjustment of 2001 First Half Tax Revenue to Be Offset from
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
2000 Tax Reserve
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 1001 93010 930009 Tax Reserve Tnsfr to Gen Fund$1,260,740.85
Total$1,260,740.85
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 1001 15000 150101 Tax Reserve Interest Earnings$69,761.47
2 1001 51000 510100 Tax Reserve Fund Balance1,190,979.38
2 1000 51000 512024 Gen Fund Tnsfr fm Tax Reserve1,260,740.85
2 1000 11000 110101 Gen Fund 2001 Tax Revenue(1,260,740.85)
Total$1,260,740.85
_____
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20077
FUND: GENERAL-C.I.P.
Purpose of Appropriation: To Recognize Contribution from Kimco, Inc. on Land
Acquisition and Fund-Related Expenses
Expenditure
CodeDescriptionAmount
1 9010 11010 800750 Land Acquisition$413,264.10
Total$413,264.10
Revenue
CodeDescriptionAmount
2 9010 18100 181118 Contribution - Kimco$401,500.00
2 9010 51000 510100 Fund Balance11,764.10
Total$413,264.10
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 17, Water Protection, of
the Albemarle County Code, pertaining to persons holding Certificates of Competence overseeing land-
disturbing activity. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July
2, 2001.)
Mr. Tucker said 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 compe-
tence. 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. It would also require that the certificate holder
be in charge of and responsible for carrying out land-disturbing activity under the plan or agree-ment. The
certificate holder may be anyone from the owner's project or development team. The Virginia Department
of Conservation and Recreation (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 recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance after holding the required public hearing.
The public hearing was opened. There was no one from the public to speak. Therefore, the public
hearing was immediately closed, and the ordinance placed before the Board.
Mr. Martin offered motion to adopt Ordinance No. 01-17(1), An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 17,
Water Protection, Article I, Erosion and Sediment Control, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
by amending: Sec. 17-203, Erosion and sediment control plan; Sec. 17-205, Agreement in lieu of a plan;
and Sec. 17-211, Duty to comply, maintain and repair.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 01-17(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, ARTICLE I,
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 17, Water Protection, Article I, Erosion and Sediment Control, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 17-203 Erosion and sediment control plan.
Sec. 17-205 Agreement in lieu of a plan.
Sec. 17-211 Duty to comply, maintain and repair.
Chapter 17. Water Protection
Article I. Erosion and Sediment Control
Sec. 17-203 Erosion and sediment control plan.
Except as provided in section 17-205, each owner subject to this article shall submit
to the program authority for review and approval an erosion and sediment control plan as
provided herein:
A.The owner shall submit a completed application on an application form
provided by the program authority, the fee required by section 17-209, an erosion and
sediment control plan that satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (B) and (C), and a
certification stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with.
B.The plan shall include specifications for temporary and permanent controls of
soil erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the program authority shall deem
reasonably adequate, considering the nature and extent of the proposed land disturbing
activity, and a statement describing the maintenance responsibilities of the owner to
assure that the land disturbing activity will satisfy the purposes and requirements of this
article. The plan shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the handbook,
including the criteria, techniques and methods set forth in section 50-30-40 of Title 4 of
the Virginia Administrative Code. The plan shall identify the person holding a certificate
of competence, as described in Virginia Code 10.1-561, who shall be in charge of and
'
responsible for carrying out the land disturbing activity.
C.The program authority may require additional information as may be necessary
for a complete review of the plan.
D.In lieu of paragraphs (A), (B) and (C), if the land disturbing activity involves land
also under the jurisdiction of another local erosion and sediment control program, the
owner may, at his option, choose to have a conservation plan approved by the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Board. The owner shall notify the program authority of such plan approval by such
board.
E.If land disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction
work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission and approval of a
plan shall be the responsibility of the owner.
( 19.3-11, 2-11-98; 7-3, 6-18-75, 5, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92;
'''' 7-4,
6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-87,
6-18-75,'
12-11-91, 3-18-92; Code 1988, 7-3, 7-4, 19.3-11; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-17(1),
''
7-11-01)
State law reference--Va. Code 10.1-563.
'
Sec. 17-205 Agreement in lieu of a plan.
A.If the land disturbing activity is for the purpose of establishing or modifying a
single family dwelling unit, the program authority may allow an agreement in lieu of a
plan for the construction of such a dwelling unit; provided:
1.The single family dwelling unit is located on an individual lot which is not
part of a division of land; or
2.The single family dwelling unit is located within a residential development
or division of land, and the individual lots are being developed by different property
owners; or
3.The single family dwelling unit is located within a division of land which no
longer has an active erosion and sediment control plan; and
4.The agreement in lieu of a plan identifies the person holding a certificate of
competence, as described in Virginia Code 10.1-561, who shall be in charge of and
'
responsible for carrying out the land disturbing activity.
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
B.In determining whether to allow an agreement in lieu of a plan pursuant to
paragraph (A)(1), (2) or (3), the program authority shall include as part of its conside-
ration the potential threat to water quality and to adjacent land resulting from the land
disturbing activity, and whether the land disturbing activity is within the mountain overlay
district.
C.Except as provided in sections 17-203 and 17-204, all other references in this
article to an erosion and sediment control plan shall include an agreement in lieu of a
plan, and the program authority and the owner shall have all of the rights, responsibilities
and remedies set forth in this article as though such agreement in lieu of a plan was an
erosion and sediment control plan.
( 7-4, 6-18-75, 6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-91,
''
3-18-92; 19.3-13, 2-11-98; Code 1988, 7-4, 19.3-13; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord.
'''
01-17(1), 7-11-01)
State law reference--Va. Code 10.1-563.
'
Sec. 17-211 Duty to comply, maintain and repair.
Upon approval by the program authority of an erosion and sediment control plan,
each owner shall:
1.comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan when
performing, or allowing to be performed, any land disturbing activities or activities to
correct an erosion impact area;
2.maintain and repair all erosion and sediment control structures and systems to
ensure continued performance of their intended function;
3.comply with all requirements of this article ; and
4.have a person holding a certificate of competence, as described in Virginia
Code 10.1-561, in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land disturbing activity.
'
(2-11-98; Code 1988, 19.3-19; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-17(1), 7-11-01)
'
State law reference--Va. Code 10.1-566.
'
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-2001-010. Afton Farm Market (Sign #65). Public hearing on a request to
allow on-farm sales in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.45 of the Zoning Ord. TM 69, P 13, contains 11.51 acs.
Located on Rt 151, approx one-quarter ml from intersec of Rt 151 & Rt 637. Znd RA. White Hall Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request is for a special use permit to allow on-farm sales in accordance with
Section 10.2.2.45 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant, who is now leasing the property, intends to
purchase the property and run a cooperative that will sell plants, foods, flowers, etc. produced on the farm,
or grown elsewhere locally and prepared on this property. There is already an approved wayside stand on
the property. Because of the variety of products to be sold on the site eventually, and the desire to make
use of existing structures on the site, the applicant is requesting that the limitation to one sales structure be
waived and that the arrangement shown on a sketch plan attached to the staffs report be approved.
=
Mr. Cilimberg said staff felt that the sketch plan presented by the applicant met the intent of the
ordinance for a site plan, and a site plan would not further the purposes of the ordinance given the scale
and character of the use. He said the applicant requested waivers of the Countys limitations on number of
=
structures in use and area of sales operations. No new structures are to built, and approval of this
application would allow the continued use of several existing rural structures. Staff does recommend that
the Board waive the site-plan requirement, and that the request be approved subject to one condition.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 19, 2001, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-2001-010, subject to the one condition recommended by staff.
Ms. Thomas asked where it is shown that the Board is granting a waiver for the number of
structures. Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Davis if that will require a separate action. Mr. Davis said it is implicit in
the wording of the condition.
Ms. Humphris asked the defintiion of locally. Mr. Cilimberg said that term was never defined in
A@
the ordinance. Ms. Humphris asked if it refers to Albemarle County. Mr. Cilimberg suggesting asking the
applicant where their goods/produce will come from. Ms. Humphris said there was no discussion by the
Planning Commission of this term. She also needs to understand if it makes a difference that this will be a
co-op and not just one individuals enterprise. (Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 7:05 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg
=
said it would not make a difference as far as land use is concerned. The application runs with the land.
Ms. Thomas invited the applicant to speak. Ms. Borgman was present, but had nothing to add.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Davis said the waiver was actually granted by the Commission, so it does not require any action
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
of the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not believe it is clear in the Commissions minutes that they took
=
that action. He said it is stated in the ordinance that based on the submitted information, the Board may
A
then waive the requirement of a site plan. He thinks the Board needs to take action on the request, not the
@
Commission.
Ms. Humphris said the Commissions minutes state that Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the
=A
three waiver requests. Mr. Davis said it was accomplished by the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff
@
report says the action must be taken by the Board. Mr. Davis said he will check the ordinance to be sure.
Ms. Thomas asked what was meant by the term locally produced items. Ms. Borgman said they
A@
have no specific limitations as to what they are looking at as local. At this point, they have people from
Stuarts Draft to Buckingham County contributing to the consignment of produce and farm products. They
would like to bring in more from Albemarle and Nelson, but it will take time to work out the systems
necessary to bring in the smaller farmers.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is mostly plants, or things in jars such as preserves. Ms. Borgman said it is
anything grown or produced on a farm. They are also providing an inspected kitchen so the smaller
farmers can bring their farm products in and prepare them so they can be sold commercially.
Mr. Cilimberg said the definition of farm sales in the Zoning Ordinance does not restrict the
A=
produce to local items. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 7:10 p.m.) He said that under Section
5.1.3.5 (c), Farm Sales, it says the Board of Supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site
A
development plan. He said that is an unusual provision, but it is in the ordinance.
@
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board should take action. Mr. Cilimberg said yes. Mr. Davis
A@
suggested the Board take action so the record will be clear.
Ms. Humphris asked for the wording of the motion. Mr. Davis said the action would be that the site
plan requirement would be waived upon finding that the schematic is adequate for the purposes of the
ordinance.
Ms. Thomas said her question had to do with waiving the restriction on the number of structures. If
Mr. Thomas and the Planning Commission moved the approval of three waivers, that would be acceptable.
Mr. Davis said yes, the Commission had taken care of those waivers.
A@
Mr. Bowerman said he believes this type of activity should be encouraged.
At this time, Mr. Perkins moved for approval of SP-2001-010 subject to the condition
recommended by the Planning Commission and a second condition stating: The site plan requirement
A
shall be waived upon finding that the Schematic of Afton Farm Property is adequate for the purposes of
A@
the Zoning Ordinance.
@
Ms. Humphris offered second. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.Sales shall not occur in areas labeled "no public access" in the sketch plan packet
entitled "Schematic of Afton Farm Property", dated 21 May 2001 and signed by
Cheryl Borgman; and
2.The site plan requirement shall be waived upon finding that the "Schematic of Afton
Farm Property" is adequate for the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2001-013. Tanager Woods (Signs #77 & 78). Public hearing on a
request to allow Rural Preservation Development in accord w/Sec 10.3.3.3 b & 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ord.
TM 19, Ps 18, 19, 31 & 31C. Located on S sd of Buffalo River Road (Rt 664) approx 0.15 mls W of intersec
of Rt 664 & Rt 604. Znd RA. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2001.)
The applicant was not present at this time, so the Board proceeded to discuss Agenda Item No. 14.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-2001-014. BB&T (Pantops)(Signs #62 & 67). Public hearing on a
request to allow installation of drive-through ATM at an existing bank, in accord w/Sec 25.2.2.(1) of the
Zoning Ord. TM 78, P 61, contains approx 1 ac. Located on W sd of State Farm Blv (Rt 1117) approx 350
ft S of intersec w/Rt 250 E. Znd PD-MC. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicants proposal is to replace an existing automated teller window (ATM)
=
that was installed without approval of a special use permit. The new ATM would be installed below the
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
existing canopy, in the same lane as the one which is being replaced. Although this proposal will require
some structural changes in creation of the new pad for the taller ATM unit, no changes to the travelway or
the size of the canopy are necessary. He said this is the location of an existing drive-through bank. There
are no changes proposed in the approved traffic configuration, and there are no increases in traffic
anticipated as a result of the request. Staff recommended approval subject to one condition.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 19, 2001, unanimously
recommended approval subject to the condition recommended by staff.
Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Bourne was present, but did not care to speak.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Martin offered motion to approve SP-2001-014, 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: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.)
1.The permittee shall continue to provide the unobstructed by-pass lane in order to
allow the unobstructed passage of vehicles around the drive-through lanes.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-2001-016. Toys-R-US (Signs #70 & 75). Public hearing on a request to
allow outdoor display of playground equipment in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2b of the Zoning Ord. TM 61Z, Sec
3, P 12. Located at intersec of Rt 29 & Branchlands Blvd. Znd PUD. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant proposes to display playground equipment to include swing sets,
play houses and climbing apparatus in a 2430 square foot area currently occupied by 15 parking spaces at
the south side of the parcel along Branchlands Boulevard. Currently, where a total of 255 parking spaces
are required, the site provides 270 including six for disabled visitors. A temporary fence con-structed from
concrete block and timber will surround the display area. Due to the existing vegetation along the perimeter
of the site, the proposed display area has limited visibility from beyond the site during the spring and
summer months. Also, the combination of topography and distance helps relieve the impact that this
display would have on the Entrance Corridor and adjacent properties. The potential impact of the use on
the character of the district has been addressed by the Architectural Review Board and they expressed no
objection to the use, with conditions, based on Entrance Corridor guidelines. The conditions of the ARB are
incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for this special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission did change two of the staffs recommended
=
conditions. In No. 2 regarding height of items, they increased the height to ten feet, rather than nine feet.
They also added No. 7 regarding vegetation to screen the display area from U.S. Route 29 and
Branchlands Boulevard. He said the Commission, at its meeting on June 19, 2001, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-2001-016, subject to seven conditions.
Ms. Thomas invited questions from the Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the temporary concrete block construction would be reviewed by the
Engineering Department in terms of safety and design. Mr. Cilimberg said it would be inspected by the
Zoning Inspectors. Ms. Humphris said the applicant had offered the design which is shown on Page 13 of
the staffs report. She has the same question because it does not appear to be safe. Mr. Cilimberg said
=
from a zoning standpoint, any type of fencing has to meet safety requirements.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there had been any discussion of which month (March or April) would be
the beginning of outdoor display. Mr. Cilimberg said no.
A@
Ms. Thomas asked if the 15 parking spaces which will be given up is the maximum which can be
given up. Mr. Cilimberg said there are a total of 270 parking spaces on the site now, and they are required
to have only 255. They will be eliminating all of the spaces which they can give up.
Mr. Perkins asked if this is just for display or can potential customers actually play on the
equipment.
Ms. Thomas invited the applicant to speak to this question.
Mr. Ron Humbert, Store Director, said the picture included with the staffs report is a temporary
=
setup used to give the Board an idea of how it will appear, but the blocks are laying down, one on top of
each other, so they are laid in the safest way. He said the K-mart Lawn and Garden section has basically
the same setup. He said the displays are not intended as play equipment, and are not there for anybody to
use. They will provide some signage to help discourage such an activity. They are concerned about that in
terms of the liability factor. He said they have normally put equipment outside each year, and there has
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
never been any issue with that.
Ms. Thomas said she asked about the parking spaces because they are actually using 17 spaces
now, but they can only use 15. However, that makes the display area end before the treed island. Mr.
Humbert said that is not an issue, and they will work with whatever the Board decides. Ms. Thomas said
she hates to be arbitrary about this, but it seems that is the only way the request can be approved. Mr.
Humbert said the 15 is not an issue. He said their busiest time of the year falls in November and
December, which would be the only time they would need those spaces, but there will be no equipment
outside at that time of the year.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Toys-R-Us shared their lot with the Old Country Buffet. Mr. Humbert said that
facility has closed, but he understands that the Wood Grill is taking over the facility. Mr. Dorrier asked if that
will cause more spill-over into their lot. Mr. Humbert said he does not know what the recommenda-tions
were for that building because he did not attend that public hearing. He said there has never been a
problem with parking caused by having the two businesses use the same lots. He said they will work with
whatever the Board decides. This is an important case category for Toys-R-Us.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Humbert has visualized the Planning Commissions recommendation for
=
screening. Mr. Humbert said they will base that screening on the types of bushes/shrubbery recommen-
ded by the County. It will not require much in the way of height.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was
closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked who recommends the type of vegetation. Mr. Cilimberg said the Design
Planner will review for screening from Route 29 and Branchlands Boulevard.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion to approve SP-2001-016 subject to the seven 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: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The display shall be limited to the paved area of the fifteen (15) parking spaces
located at the southeastern corner of the parking lot;
2.The height of the items being displayed shall be limited to ten (10) feet;
3.Revise the current site plan to reflect these conditions;
4.No additional lighting shall be introduced to the site for the purpose of illuminating
this display;
5. The display shall be permitted on an annual basis only between the dates of March
1st through September 30th;
6.Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the
ARB for the site plan; and
7.The area between the display area and the Branchlands Boulevard right-of-way
shall be landscaped in a manner, approved by the Countys design planner, so that
=
the display items are screened from view from the Entrance Corridor and
Branchlands Boulevard.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. ZMA-2001-002. Western Ridge - Phase 5C (Signs #90 & 91). Public
hearing on a request to rezone 26.560 acs from RA & R-4 w/proffers to PRD to allow residential uses. TM
56, P 93D, TM 56E, P 2-C & portion of TM 56E, P 1A, which is also described as a P Y intended as Open
Space on recorded plat of Western Ridge Phase 5B. Located off Lake Tree Lane (Rt 1251). The site is
adjacent to the C&O Railroad. (The Comp Plan designates this property as neighborhood density, 3-6
du/ac in the Crozet Community.). White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the rezoning for this addition of 18 lots adjacent to the Western Ridge
Subdivision would rezone the property from RA and R-4 Residential to PRD. About 26.858 acres are
involved in the rezoning. Approximately 0.3 acres are open space platted as part of Western Ridge Phase
4B. This would extend the Western Ridge development east along a knoll and approximately 18 acres
would be preserved as open space extending down critical slopes to a stream and to the Lickinghole Basin.
The lots are proposed for single-family detached homes and range in size from 0.30 acres to 0.65 acres.
A pedestrian path is proposed along both sides of the rural cross-section street which is a continuation of
the existing cross-section street, and a path to the Lickinghole Basin is also proffered. Environmental
features on the property include locally important stream valleys and adjacent critical slopes, streams and
wooded lands and wetlands as shown on the Countys Open Space Plan. The applicant is avoiding all
=
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
sensitive areas. The property is accessed through Lake Tree Lane which will be extended an additional
800 feet.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission discussed the fact that the pedestrian path has not yet
been constructed in Western Ridge. That is a subdivision violation, but staff was made aware today by the
owner of Western Ridge that they will be installing that path soon. That path is needed to make the
connection into this pathway system. He said a proffer of $5000 has been provided by the applicant toward
transportation improvements. He provided to the Board members tonight a copy of the signed Proffers
dated July 5, 2001. He said all of the questions raised at the Commissions meeting have been addressed.
=
Based on these proffers, staff and the Commission recommend approval of this rezoning.
Ms. Thomas said the small wording in the proffer says including water and sanitary sewer lines so
A@
the critical slopes can be disturbed for moving trees, grading, construction of Lake Tree Lane and the water
and sanitary sewer lines. Mr. Davis said that is consistent with what could be done by-right to the critical
slopes areas. There is an exception in the critical slopes provisions for roads and water and sewer lines.
The intent of this proffer was to guarantee that no trees would be removed except for where the necessary
improvements go through the critical slopes areas.
At this time, Ms. Thomas invited the applicant to speak.
Mr. Bruce Keyes, the applicant, was present, but had no comments to make.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was
closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Humphris asked if staff knows that the asphalt path which has not been built, will be built. Mr.
Cilimberg said it is a violation, so it is an enforceable situation. Today, the owner/developer notified staff
that they intend to build the path.
Mr. Dorrier asked how long the path will be. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know the length, but it
connects back into other paths which have been built in Western Ridge. Mr. Perkins said it follows
Lickinghole Creek all the way to Crozet.
Ms. Thomas said the staff report was written before the proffers came, and it has a lot of comments
about various things which need to be done. She asked if staff is satisfied that the proffers handed out
tonight meet those needs.
Ms. Humphris said the report states that location of the path to the basin will be done either on the
Application Plan or through the proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said the trail is referred to under Proffer No. 3. Mr.
Davis said he believes the location is identified in the Application Plan.
Mr. Perkins offered motion to approve ZMA-2001-002, subject to the proffers received by the
Board tonight dated July 5, 2001, and which are set out in full below. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: July 5, 2001
ZMA # 94-14 and 01-002
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 56E-A1 and 56-93D
26.5 Acres to be rezoned from RA to PRD
and
.297 Acres to be rezoned from R-4 to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner(s), 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.
Development of the parcels shall be in general accord with the application plan entitled
"Western Ridge Section 5C, Preliminary Plat (ZMA 2001-002 Application Plan) dated
February 8, 2001 and last revised June 4, 2001.
1.No grading or removal of trees greater than six inches in diameter at six inches
above the ground, except for dead or diseased trees, shall occur on the critical
slopes areas shown on the Application Plan, except for grading and tree removal
necessary for the construction of Lake Tree Lane including water and sanitary
sewer lines. This proffer shall also be set forth in the covenants recorded for this
subdivision.
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
2.A 5-foot wide pedestrian path consisting of 4 inches of 21-B stone base material and
2 inches of SMA-2 asphalt shall be installed in the right-of-way for Lake Tree Lane
on both sides of the road along the frontage of all lots in Western Ridge Phase 5C
and completed before release of the performance bond. The trail shall be
conveyed to and maintained by the Western Ridge Homeowner's Association.
3.A Class A or Class B trail, as described in the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan (see attached pages), shall be constructed for pedestrian access to the future
Lickinghole Creek Greenway. If a Class A trail is used, it shall be a maximum of 5
feet wide and consist of 4 inches of 21B stone base material and 2 inches of SMA-2
asphalt. If a Class B trail is used, it shall have a graded width of 4 - 5 feet and have
a surface of stone dust or other material approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Development. The owner shall have the discretion to choose a Class A
or Class B trail. Boardwalks, rolling dips, and other devices approved by the
Director of Planning and Community Development shall be used, where necessary,
to cross swales, ravines, or environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands, as
determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development.
The trail shall be installed in the open space that abuts Phase 5B and Lots 17 & 18
as shown on the Application Plan. If necessary to achieve walkable grades and
prevent erosion and sedimentation, as determined by the Director of Planning and
Community Development, changes to the boundaries of Lots 17 and 18 and the
open space shall be made. The trail shall be shown on and bonded with the first
final plat for Western Ridge Phase 5C. The trail shall be completed before release
of the performance bond. The trail shall be conveyed to and maintained by the
Western Ridge Homeowner's Association.
4.Recreational amenities for the development shall include use of the clubhouse,
pool, and tennis courts in the existing Western Ridge development.
5.By not later than December 31, 2001, Keyes Development Company, Inc. shall
provide to the County an off-site improvement contribution of $5,000.00 for a
proposed stoplight located at the entrance to Western Ridge or the construction of a
Route 240-250 Connector Road (to be determined by the County). Should the
stoplight or connector road not be installed within the next 10 calendar years from
the approved proffer date, it shall be refunded to Keyes Development Company,
Inc.
(Signed) Hunter E. Craig 7-6-01
Signature of Owner: Printed Name of Owner Date
Highlands West L. P.
(Signed) Bruce A. Keyes 7-6-01
Signature for Printed Name of Date
Helen A. Keyes E.T.S. Attorney-in-fact
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Albemarle County Code 3-207,
'
Batesville Agricultural/Forestal Dist, for the proposed addition of one parcel totaling 50.120 acs described
as TM 70, P 40. This district is located in the vicinity of Batesville on the S sd of Rt 637, approx
three-quarters of a ml E of the intersec w/ Rt 691. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this proposal is for an addition of 40+ acres in one parcel to the district which
currently contains about 672 acres in 21 parcels. It has been recommended for addition by both the
Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. He said staff is now
working on having the right kind of letter to send people to tell them that they are still in the district, or have
been added to the district.
The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was
closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Perkins moved that the Board adopt Ordinance No. 01-3(2), An Ordinance to Amend and
Reordain Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 3-207, Batesville Agricultural and Forestal
District.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 01-3(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By amending:
Sec. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of
the following described properties: Tax map 70, parcels 40, 40A; tax map 71, parcels
23A, 23C, 24B, 24C, 24C1, 26, 26A, 27A; tax map 84, parcel 35A; tax map 85, parcels 3,
3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31; tax map 85A, parcel 1. This district,
created on May 2, 1990 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 19, 2000,
shall next be reviewed prior to May 2, 2010.
(Code 1988, 2.1-4(s); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 00-3(3),
'
9-13-00; Ord. 01-3(2), 7-11-01)
_______________
Ms. Thomas said it is now 7:35 p.m., and the applicant for Agenda Item No. 13 is still not present.
Ms. Humphris said the Board has been going ahead even if the applicant were not present. Mr. Tucker
noted that there is also no one from the public present at this time. Ms. Humphris said she has several
questions, and if they can be answered, she would prefer that the Board continue.
At this time, the Board went to Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2001-013. Tanager Woods (Signs #77 &
78). Public hearing on a request to allow Rural Preservation Development in accord w/Sec 10.3.3.3 b &
10.5.2 of the Zoning Ord. TM 19, Ps 18, 19, 31 & 31C. Located on S sd of Buffalo River Road (Rt 664)
approx 0.15 mls W of intersec of Rt 664 & Rt 604. Znd RA. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing
was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request is for a Rural Preservation Development, and it requires a special
use permit because it exceeds 20 lots. He thinks the staff may have over done it in its report, and that
A@
caused some confusion among the Planning Commission members. The regulations are intended for
requests in excess of the number of development rights permitted.
Ms. Humphris said she found the staffs report very helpful because she had been asked the
=
question by somebody who lives in the area, and she could not explain it because she does not read the
law as the staff does.
Mr. Cilimberg said to clear this point, this is a special use permit request because it is a Rural
Preservation Development in excess of 20 lots. The applicant is not requesting any additional lots than
could be done conventionally. Staff has verified that the number of development rights exists to allow the
rural preservation development. There is a preservation tract of less than 78 acres in association with the
development. The applicant intends to cluster the development lots into a smaller area close to Route 664
which will reduce the amount of roads and utility extensions and preserve a large tract for agricultural
and/or forestal uses.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff noted that there are prime, locally important, and unique soils distributed
across the subject property. The development plan proposed by the applicant reduces the impact on these
soils, the impact of which would be more widespread with conventional development. While several of the
development lots include critical slopes, the applicant has chosen building sites that avoid these areas.
Staff recommended a condition that would keep building sites off of the critical slope areas. Staff also talks
about the two historic houses on the site, one on the preservation tract and one on Lot 7. There are also
two outbuildings and a cemetery on the preservation tract. He said the house on Lot 7 is designed for
demolition. It is a house in poor condition, so that restoration or adaptive use appears to be expensive and
unlikely. Prior to demolition, the house and its associated outbuildings should be documented and that
documentation kept in County files.
Mr. Cilimberg said the house on the preservation tract was surveyed by the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources in 1980. It was in poor condition at that time and, of course, it has not improved in
condition. Given that condition, restoration or adaptive use of this house also appears to be difficult and
unlikely. The plan is to demolish the house or to allow the house to stand as it is. The documentation
described for the house on Lot 7 should also be completed for this house and its outbuildings and property.
The erection of an historical marker to commemorate the significance of these structures, the families who
built them, and the surrounding area may be appropriate. This is an added condition which came out of the
Planning Commission.
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Cilimberg said the orientation and size of Lots 23 and 24 is the result of a compromise reached
between staff and the applicant. In order to access Lots 23 and 24, a driveway was extended over a dam
which creates a lake. Originally, the applicant proposed a road in this location to three development lots.
Staff recommended that all of the development lots be on the north side of the stream, thereby eliminating
the need for the road and dam, and increasing the size of the preservation tract and significantly reducing
the size of the lots. The applicant proposed a compromise which eliminated one of the development lots
across the stream, thereby reducing the road standard to what amounts to a shared driveway and
increasing the size of the preservation tract.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposed development is also adjacent to a parcel in the Jacobs Run
=
Agricultural/Forestal District which was reviewed by the Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee. They
expressed some concerns regarding this relationship but staff believes those concerns are satisfied with the
conditions of approval as proposed and existing erosion/sediment control ordinances.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of the special use permit subject to three
conditions, and the Planning Commission recommended a fourth condition which would require the historic
marker commemorating the significance of the historic structures. The Commission did strike the sentence
Upon review of this material, staff shall determine appropriate provisions for the maintenance of the
A
cemetery and the headstone from staffs recommended Condition No. 3.
@=
Mr. Cilimberg then pointed out some features of the plan using the site plan posted on the wall. He
noted location of the preservation tract. Mr. Perkins asked if that parcel retains one development right. Mr.
Cilimberg said a right for a house can be retained, and in this case they are showing a structure. He
believes that is the existing structure. Ms. Thomas asked if that tract has access. Mr. Cilimberg indicated
the access to this tract.
Mr. Bowerman asked that Mr. Cilimberg point out the applicant's proposal, the staff's recommen-
dation and the compromise. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out these items on the map.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a disadvantage in having a smaller lot size. Mr. Cilimberg said the
applicant feels there is a disadvantage.
Mr. Perkins asked if the roads shown in black are state-maintained roads. Mr. Cilimberg said there
has been no request for private roads.
Mr. Perkins asked if the road across the dam will be private. Mr. Cilimberg said it will be a shared
driveway to two lots.
Mr. Perkins asked if the green area shown is a buffer. Mr. Cilimberg said the lighter shade of green
indicates an undisturbed buffer being provided adjacent to the Huckle property which is in an
Agricultural/Forestal District.
Mr. Dorrier said 25 lots on 193 acres is not dense development. He asked if the site is problema-tic
because of the lay-out. Mr. Cilimberg said the biggest factor driving the way the area is being put into lots is
that they are retaining one, 21-acre lot in the cluster.
Ms. Thomas said when listening to lectures on rural clustering and preservation in the rural area by
clustering houses, the goal often is to preserve in active agriculture or active forestry, the best land, letting
the houses be on less desirable land. She said the Countys ordinances do not require that, and staff is not
=
required to do that. She asked how staff would characterize the preservation tract. Is it good farm soils?
Mr. Cilimberg said it has an abundance of the more important soils. The Countys ordinance does say
=
these should be created with the purpose of meeting one of the intents of the rural areas. That can be
water protection, it can be agricultural/forestal lands. Not all of the important, unique soils are on this tract,
but there are a predominance of those on the tract.
Ms. Humphris said the staffs report acknowledges the value of the soils, and says that staff found it
=
is not reasonably practical to completely avoid these soils because they are scattered over the site. She
A@
said that on Page 7 of the staffs report, it is noted that VDOT recommends a road taper improve-ment.
=
She never saw that mentioned anywhere else in the paperwork. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be handled
during the subdivision process. Ms. Humphris asked if that will be required as recommended by VDOT.
Mr. Cilimberg said yes.
A@
Ms. Thomas said staff recommended that appropriate provisions be made for the maintenance of
the cemetery and the headstone. That does not appear in any of the conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the
applicants do not own the cemetery. That was pointed out at the Planning Commission meeting. Under
Virginia law, the cemetery has to be maintained, but the responsibility falls to the owner.
Ms. Humphris asked the status of the Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committees recommenda-
=
tions on Page 29 about construction of a pond to catch the silt prior to any construction and that adequate
bonding be posted to insure the erosion control measures. She asked what effect that Committees report
=
has. Mr. Cilimberg said it was not necessary to reflect most of that in the conditions because that is
normally the way it would be addressed under soil erosion control with the Engineering Department.
Ms. Thomas asked about a sentence on pages 9 and 10 saying However, the pond shown on the
A
plan (which is not required for runoff control) will require inspection and maintenance to prevent failure and
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
to deal with siltation. She asked who will do that. Mr. Davis said under the new ordinance adopted tonight,
@
there will be a certified program person on site, and also the Countys soil and erosion control inspector will
=
also inspect to be sure it is adequate.
Ms. Thomas said this is not required for runoff, it is a pond for longer term control. She said that is
one of the identified weaknesses on one end of the reservoir. There are not presently long-term
inspections and maintenance. Mr. Davis said that during construction, when there is a silt event, what he
said will take place. After the erosion and sediment control permit is released and it becomes a storm-
water basin for the subdivision, there will be an agreement which requires the Homeowners to maintain the
=
basin privately. It gives the County the right to go in and perform inspections and to require the work to be
done. It has been County policy not to require a bond for those types of facilities because it is over such a
long period of time. It is a burden on the Homeowners to renew and maintain that bond. The County does
=
have the right in a recorded document to put the obligation on a homeowners association or the developer,
=
depending on who retains ownership of the basin, which gives the County the right to inspect and to require
improvements.
Ms. Humphris asked if that automatically occurs. Mr. Davis said yes. Ms. Humphris asked at
A@
what stage that will occur. Mr. Davis said prior to recordation of the final plat.
Ms. Thomas said it is stated in the staffs report that this pond is not required for runoff control. Mr.
=
Davis said if it is not required as a stormwater improvement, then it probably would not be required at all. It
is only for required stormwater facilities that this is done. Ms. Thomas said that is what she is worried about.
Mr. Cilimberg said he knows staff talked to the Engineering Department about all of those points. He does
not know if it was qualified that it is not a stormwater facility.
Ms. Humphris said the report states on page 9 that After consulting with the Water Resources
A
Manager, staff finds that the requirements of Chapter 17 can be met without devices as described above.
However, the pond shown on the plan (which is not required for runoff control) will require inspection and
maintenance to prevent failure and to deal with siltation. She said the Board wants to require mainte-
@
nance and prevent failure and deal with siltation, so how will that be achieved?
Mr. Bowerman said the Board has started to notice that a lot of these ponds or basins have a
forebay, which is easy to maintain, easy to access. He asked if as part of devices such as this, they will
become part of the requirement or are they simply an addition to the requirements in the urban area where
it is necessary for the County to get into these devices to maintain them. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not
know the answer to that question.
Mr. Perkins said this pond will serve as the sedimentation pond, but he thinks it is not the same as
some of those on Route 29 North. Mr. Davis said this is largely just an amenity. Mr. Perkins said the
applicant will need approval from the Corps of Engineers if wetlands are being impacted. Also, if the dam
is a certain size and backs up a certain amount of water, then the applicant has to go to the Virginia Dam
Authority, or whoever is in charge of this, so there is a Federal and State agency involved if the water is over
a certain area. Mr. Bowerman asked if that regulation is involved during the planning and construc-tion
phases? Mr. Perkins said if he just wants to build a pond, he would have to go through that process. Mr.
Davis said all of that will be reviewed during the Site Plan process.
Ms. Humphris said in a letter dated June 14, the applicant states that he has obtained a permit from
the Army Corps of Engineers for this water impoundment. Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Davis if a condition
should be added to be sure that in the longer term the lake is maintained.
Mr. Martin said the County has layers and layers of staff. As people go through this process they
have to go through each layer. When Mr. Cilimberg said he went to the Engineering Department with these
issues and was told it was squared away he does not feel he is wise enough to question all of the people
A@
who have been involved in these particular issues. He feels that as presented to the Board, this matter has
been looked at thoroughly by staff.
Mr. Dorrier said there are a list of things in the staffs report which the Engineering Department is
=
supposed to do including A stormwater management/BMP plan .... and A completed stormwater
A@A
management facilities maintenance agreement and fee.
@
Mr. Perkins asked who will own the pond after the project is completed. Mr. Cilimberg said that
usually these facilities are under common ownership. Mr. Davis agreed.
Ms. Thomas said the Board does not take action on SUB-2001-078 (where the stipulations read by
Mr. Dorrier are set out) because that action has already been taken by the Commission. Mr. Tucker said
because this is a special use permit, if the Board feels the question is not adequately covered, they could
add that to their action.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had originally proposed a by-right development. Mr. Martin
said that is what he thinks the County should move toward. He would like to see such requests as by-right
uses since these are the types of things which the Board wants more than the kinds of things which are
allowed by right now.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees that to cluster the lots and have the preservation lot is a great
improvement to the ordinance. Mr. Martin said he understands a lot of people do not bring these requests
to the Board because it is easier for them to do by-right developments, as opposed to doing battle over what
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
the Board would actually prefer them to do.
Mr. Dorrier said the applicant states that it is his goal to create a more desirable neighborhood and
to reduce road construction significantly.
Ms. Thomas said no one is suggesting that this proposal will be denied. Her question was one
about a particular runoff problem and it was not clear in the paperwork that it had been handled. It is being
learned in the Rivanna Reservoir that it is the failure of long-term maintenance of runoff control that is
contributing to the siltation of the reservoir. This land lies in another watershed, but she just wanted to be
sure that one thing did not require an action so the Board did not make another mistake such as some that
have been made in the past.
Mr. Martin said he was not questioning Ms. Thomas. He was just saying that to him the best way to
deal with this question is to tell Mr. Cilimberg that by next week it is in or not in, because the engineers are
not present and the answers lie with them. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know what it means in very
specific terms, but during subdivision approval, the Commission included in Condition No. 1, a variety of
water quality management elements, including A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations.
A
Computations must include water quality, and detention routings for the one-year and 50-year storms. He
@
said that is greater than what the Engineering Department had recommended. Whether or not that applies
to the pond he is not sure, but it does apply to the site. He thinks it has been covered.
Mr. Davis said if the pond is part of the required stormwater management facilities, it is covered by
the maintenance agreement. If the Board wants the pond to be included as part of that, a condition could
be added saying: The maintenance of the pond shall be included within the required stormwater
A
management facilities maintenance agreement. He said that would assure that it is covered, and he does
@
not believe the applicant would have a problem with that condition.
Ms. Thomas said she would feel better if there were an addition to the conditions of approval.
Ms. Humphris said she also would feel better given past experience. She thinks the Board should
be learning from these experiences. Even though this request is in a different watershed, there is the same
problem because it drains into Chris Greene Lake. She said the County knows enough to require the
maintenance of ponds like this that lie upstream.
Mr. Martin recommended that the Board wait until next week to take action. Mr. Tucker said there
is no Board meeting next week. It would have to go to the meeting on August 1.
Mr. Cilimberg said one of the things to remember is that the problems mentioned were intended to
be addressed by the Water Protection Ordinance. That ordinance is putting in a whole new level of
requirements. Whether or not this pond is included, the requirements on how sites are drained are
included. Even if the pond is not technically covered, the issue is covered. Even if they do not do it on the
pond, they have to do it in the system that is discharging water downstream. For surety, including the
language suggested by Mr. Davis in the special use permit conditions of approval would not hurt. Mr. Davis
said maintenance should not be a major issue.
Mr. Perkins asked what the Board should do. Mr. Tucker said there was some language spoken by
Mr. Davis that could be added as a fifth condition regarding the pond. Mr. Perkins asked if the Board could
approve the permit tonight. Mr. Davis said yes. He suggested that adding a condition saying the
A@
maintenance of the pond shall be assured by its inclusion under the stormwater management facilities
maintenance agreement.
Mr. Davis said the Clerk has indicated that no public hearing has been held. Ms. Thomas said
since the applicant was not present, she did not call for a public hearing. She then opened the public
hearing. With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the
Board.
Mr. Perkins moved approval of SP-2001-013 subject to the four conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission and with a fifth condition reading: The maintenance of the pond shall be assured by
A
its inclusion under the Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement.
@
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.Subdivision and subsequent development of the subject property shall be as shown
on plans entitled Preliminary Subdivision Plans for Tanager Woods Rural
Preservation Development, dated May 8, 2001. This shall include, but is not limited
to, stream and lake buffering, undisturbed buffers, and building sites and road
locations;
2.The location of structures, other than accessory structures, shall be restricted to
within the building sites shown on the plan entitled Preliminary Subdivision Plans for
Tanager Woods Rural Preservation Development, dated May 8, 2001;
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
3.Prior to demolition, the existing houses on Lot 7 and the preservation tract and their
associated outbuildings should be fully documented in photographs (black and
white, and color). A full written description of the architecture and the history of the
house and property should be prepared. The description should be accompanied
by a sketch of the property showing the location of the house in relation to its
outbuildings and original property lines. The historical information should detail the
connections between the house/property and the nearby cemetery;
4.Upon analysis of the historic information gathered in condition number three, staff
shall designate which sites shall have an historical marker to be placed on site, with
staff's advise as to location and design; and
5.The maintenance of the pond shall be assured by its inclusion under the
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments. Ms. Thomas said the Board has not discussed these
appointments in a closed session as it often does. Some of these appointments have only one applicant for
the position.
Ms. Humphris said she would prefer that these appointments be discussed in closed session
unless some Board member has a magisterial district appointment to make tonight.
Mr. Martin suggested the Board finish all other business before it goes into closed session.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Approval of Minutes: March 21(A), April 4, April 18, April 25, May 2, May 9
and May 16, 2001.
Mr. Martin had read April 4, 2001, pages 20 to the end. He had no significant changes to
recommend. He offered motion to approve these minutes. The motion was seconded by Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said she has received a request that the County look at its ordinance regarding the
covering of trucks. When police have cited people for littering from the truck, there have been disagree-
ments in court. She wondered if the Countys ordinance could be made stricter, or if this is one of the things
=
where the County is limited by the State? Mr. Tucker said staff is aware of that potential. He did not know
there had been any court cases where the judge had a difference of opinion about the Countys ordinance.
=
Ms. Thomas said in private conversations, the police officers have said they feel they are just wasting their
time because as the ordinance is written, it is hard to prove that items are secured properly. Mr. Davis said
the State Code says the truck has to be secured so as to prevent spillage. That becomes a factual
question under the State Code section. The County Code mirrors the State Code in that regard. He said
staff will look at the issue to see what options are available to the County.
__________
Mr. Martin asked for an update at the next meeting about Preddy Creek and some of the things
which Greene County may, or may not, be doing. At the time, it was suggested that staff look into the issue
and bring the Board some concrete information.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. David Hirschman looked at that issue. He asked Mr. Davis if he had looked at
anything proposed by Greene County that might impact Preddy Creek. Mr. Davis said he has talked with an
attorney representing a developer in Greene. He said his staff has looked at it from an environmental
standpoint on the impacts to the Creek. There are other land use implications involved.
Mr. Martin said he assumes the Board will soon get something in writing about his question.
Ms. Thomas said she had asked many people about their interest in this subject, and heard from
only a couple of people. It was not evident that there is interest. She has not heard from Greene County.
She explained that there was an informal request that this Board meet with the Greene County Board of
Supervisors and discuss Preddy Creek. Albemarle owns property on Preddy Creek in both Greene County
and Orange County. Both of those counties are regarding this Creek as an area for a sewage treatment
plant, or a water impoundment. This Board has not formally asked staff to come up with anything for
discussion.
Mr. Martin said he was not talking about a meeting with Greene County. He thought this Board had
indicated that it would at least get more information and have it put down on paper.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that would be a good idea. She asked how that fits with the interests of
the other Board members.
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Tucker asked if there are specific items that Mr. Martin would like to have addressed, other than
potential impacts upstream.
Mr. Martin said this Board cant get into the business of the Greene Board, but he thinks it would be
=
good for this Board to know what that business is going to do to Preddy Creek in Albemarle County.
__________
Ms. Thomas said with the indulgence of the Board, a member of the audience would like to bring
the Board some good news.
Mr. Jeff Werner said two members of the Albemarle High School Boys Lacrosse team were
=
selected as 2001 All-Americans for the Northwest Region of the Virginia High School League. Travis
Williams and Casey Bannister will both be attending the University of Virginia. He asked the Board to
recognize the great season the team had and for this outstanding honor.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked for a motion to have a Closed Session.
At 8:14 p.m., Mr. Bowerman offered motion that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant to
Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and
commissions. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
At 8:45 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge
=
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments.
Mr. Martin recommended the following:
Reappoint Mr. Mark D. Kindler to the Commission on Children & Families, with said term to expire
on June 30, 2004.
Appoint Mr. Jeff Bialy as the Chair of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory
Committee and as a member of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, to replace Ms. Lisa Briskey who has
resigned. Term will expire on December 31, 2001.
Appoint Ms. Ellora Young to the Jordan Development Corporation, with said term to expire August
12, 2002. This appointment is to replace Mr. David Paulson whose term expired on August 13, 2000.
Appoint Ms. Bettina K. Ring to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements Committee, with said
term to expire August 1, 2004. This appointment is to replace Mr. Tim Tigner whose term expires on
August 1 and who did not wish to be reappointed.
Appoint Mr. Jeffrey B. Werner, as the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) representative on the
Fiscal Impact Committee, with said term to expire July 8, 2002. This appointment is to replace Mr. Peter G.
Hallock who had resigned.
Appoint Mr. Fred W. Hudson as the at-large representative on the Industrial Development Authority,
with term to expire January 19, 2003. This appointment is to replace Mr. Charles Trachta, Jr., who had
resigned.
Mr. Perkins recommended the appointment of Mr. Robert C. Larsen to the Albemarle County
Service Authority, as the White Hall District representative, with said term to expire April 16, 2004. Mr.
Larsen replaces Mr. David A. Moyer.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
July 11, 2001 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 10/03/2001
Initials: LAB