2001-08-15 Afternoon & NightAugust 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 1)
An adjourned/regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on August 15, 2001, beginning at 5:30 p.m., in Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from August 8, 2001.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 6:00 p.m.), Ms.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 5:50 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,
Senior Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne
Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
Also present at this time for Agenda Item No. 2 were: Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley, Deputy
County Attorney, Mark Trank, Director, Emergency Operations Center, Tom Hanson, and E-911 Projects
Coordinator, Wayne Campagna.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Closed Session. At 5:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman
that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under
subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for a regional public safety facility; and under
subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring the advice of
legal counsel relating to the acquisition of property for a regional public safety facility and relating to the Ivy
Landfill. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened in Room 241 at 7:00 p.m.
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. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
(Note: At this point, the Chairman called to order the regular meeting of the Board scheduled for
7:00 p.m.)
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.
There was no one from the public who wished to speak.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Martin, to approve Items 7.1 through 7.4 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda for
information (Note: Conversation concerning specific items will be shown with that item). Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 7.1. Resolution approving filing of application to the Virginia Public School Authority for loan in
principal amount not to exceed $20,330,000.
It was noted in the executive summary that funding for the FY 2001-02 Capital Improvement Budget
anticipated the issuance of $20,332,000 in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for
various school projects. Participation in the bond issue requires both the School Board and Board of
Supervisors to pass a resolution authorizing application to VPSA. It is anticipated at this time that the
School Board will pass the resolution at its meeting on August 9, 2001, and the Board of Supervisors on
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 2)
August 15, 2001. The required application will be submitted to VPSA by the September 4, 2001, deadline.
A number of actions (resolutions, public hearings, approvals) will be required between now and November,
2001 to meet the requirements of VPSA and to maintain the time schedule. The required documents will
be submitted as received by the Director of Finance from the Countys bond counsel.
=
Proposed projects to be funded with the VPSA issuance are:
* Brownsville Additions$ 240,000
* Burley Addition/Renovations$ 6,995,000
* Jouett Addition/Renovations$ 315,000
* Northern Area Elementary$10,544,000
* Southern Area Elementary$ 1,225,000
* Maintenance/Replacement$ 1,013,000
$20,332,000
Staff requests approval of a resolution authorizing the County's application to the Virginia Public
School Authority for $20,332,000 in bond revenues.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution Approving
the Filing of an Application with the Virginia Public School Authority for a Loan in a Principal
Amount Not to Exceed $20,330,000:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FILING OF AN
APPLICATION WITH THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN A
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,330,000
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County,
Virginia, (the "County"), in collaboration with the Albemarle County School Board, has
determined that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake various capital
improvements for its public school system:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the filing of an application with the Virginia Public
School Authority for a loan to the County in a principal amount not to exceed $20,330,000
to finance various capital improvements for its public school system. The County
Executive, in collaboration with the other officers of the County and the Albemarle County
School Board, is hereby authorized and directed to complete an application and deliver it
to the Virginia Public School Authority.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
__________
Item 7.2. Conveyance of surplus police cruisers by the Albemarle County Police Department to the
Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy.
It was noted in the executive summary that the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training
Academy in Waynesboro is in the process of attempting to acquire a fleet of vehicles to use in its basic and
in-service training to police agencies in Central Virginia. Albemarle County is a founding and charter
member of the Academy, and the Police Department has two surplus police cruisers that it would like to
convey to the Academy as part of the County's contribution to the operations of the Academy. The vehicles
would be used for Albemarle County police officers and other agencies, and would permit the County to
avoid having to bring cars from its operational police fleet during mandated training sessions. The County
would have priority usage of the vehicles when County police officers are attending training at the Academy.
Virginia Code 15.2-1748 authorizes the County to convey the vehicles to the Academy in furtherance of
'
its purposes and mission. Staff recommends that the Board approve the conveyance of two surplus police
cruisers to the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy and authorize the County Executive
to execute the necessary documents to finalize the conveyance.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the conveyance of two surplus
police cruisers to the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy and authorized the
County Executive to execute the necessary documents to finalize the conveyance.
__________
Item 7.3. Authorize County Executive to execute new seven-year contract with Dominion Virginia
Power for electrical service to Albemarle County.
It was noted in the executive summary that the VML/VACO Virginia Power Steering Committee has
negotiated a new agreement with Virginia Power for a seven-year term for electrical service to local
governments to be effective from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2007. Major areas of the new contract include a
rate reduction effective January 1, 2001, to reflect tax law changes; a rate reduction effective July 1, 2001,
to reduce allocation of purchased capacity cost; a fixing of base rates otherwise throughout the seven-year
contract; and a variety of other changes that the Steering Committee recommends as favorable to local
governments. The County and School Division are participating to a limited extent in a short-term pilot
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 3)
program for customer choice of electricity suppliers through a joint powers agreement of limited duration
and purpose. The new seven-year contract with Dominion Virginia Power does not affect the County or
School Division's ability to participate in the pilot program. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the
County Executive to execute the Agreement on behalf of the County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute
an agreement with Virginia Dominion Power on behalf of the County for the period January 1, 2000,
to June 30, 2007.
AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF
ELECTRIC SERVICE TO MUNICIPALITIES
AND COUNTIES OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
This Agreement, made this 25th day of July, 2001, between Albemarle County, a unit of local
government of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the “Customer” and Virginia Electric and
Power Company, hereinafter called the “Company,” provides that in consideration of the mutual covenants
and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto contract and agree with each other as follows:
A. PURCHASE AND SALE
1.Purchases From the Company
The Customer will purchase from the Company and the Company will sell to the
Customer, pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement and the Terms and Conditions For
The Provision of Electric Service to Municipalities and Counties and the applicable
schedules of charges, attached hereto and made a part hereof, the services requested by
the Customer (including the service being furnished on the effective date of this
Agreement) within the territory served by the Company in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Under this agreement, “electric service” shall include the provision by the Company to the
Customer of the delivery of electricity and, to the extent provided by the Company, electric
energy and utility services.
2.Purchases From the Customer
The Company will purchase electricity from the Customer's generating facilities under a separate
agreement in accordance with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the
Federal and Virginia rules that implement PURPA, if the generating unit qualifies for such
treatment. The Customer may participate in any formal Company solicitation for capacity and
energy based on the Company's needs. The Customer also may contract for the sale of electricity
to the Company in accordance with the availability, pricing, and terms and conditions of the
Company's Virginia Schedule 19 and applicable terms and conditions of contracts for the sale of
electricity to the Company, except that sales of electricity from the Company to the Customer shall
be made in accordance with this Agreement. The Company's Virginia Schedule 19 is on file with
the State Corporation Commission (“SCC”) as part of the Company’s Terms and Conditions and
Schedules for Supplying Electricity.
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, if PURPA is repealed, or if other changes occur to the
laws or rules affecting the Company's obligations to purchase electricity or the conditions of sale
related thereto, the Company shall revise its practices to be consistent with such changes and may
at its option elect to no longer enter into agreements for the purchase of electricity from the
Customer to the extent permitted by applicable law and rules.
B.TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2007.
C.RATES AND CHARGES
1)The schedules of charges applicable from July 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, are
attached hereto as Attachment A. The schedules of charges applicable from January 1,
2001, through June 30, 2007, are attached hereto as Attachment B and reflect the
elimination of the Gross Receipts Tax and the implementation of Virginia State Income Tax
effective January 1, 2001. Any use of electricity for which no schedule of charges is shown
will be supplied in accordance with the Miscellaneous Light and Power Schedule 100.
2)The Terms and Conditions of service applicable throughout the term of this agreement are
attached hereto as Attachment C.
3)The distribution/wire charge rate schedules will be developed through negotiation between
the VML/VACO Virginia Power Steering Committee (or successor organization bargaining
collectively on behalf of local governments within the Company's service area), hereinafter
called the “Steering Committee” or its authorized representative acting on behalf of the
Customer, and the Company; and, unless the Company and Steering Committee agree
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 4)
otherwise, in the same manner as the distribution/wire charge rate schedules approved by
the SCC for Virginia jurisdictional customers. Pursuant to Paragraph E.3. of this
Agreement, the distribution/wire charge rate schedules will be effective on the later of: (a)
January 1, 2002, or (b) the termination of all contracts awarded to a competitive service
provider in the Retail Access Pilot Program (Pilot), which shall be no later than August 31,
2002; provided, however, that if no contracts are awarded under the Pilot, then the
distribution/wire charge rate schedules will be effective January 1, 2002. The Steering
Committee shall notify the Company in writing no less than sixty days prior to the effective
date of the distribution/wires charges.
The Company will provide its proposed distribution/wires charge rate schedules to the
Steering Committee, with all work papers, within 30 days of the final order by the SCC for
distribution/wires charge rates for Virginia jurisdictional customers, but no later than
December 1, 2001, with the stipulation that the proposal can be revised to comply with any
SCC rulings that affect the calculation, development and/or implementation of
distribution/wires charge rate schedules for Virginia jurisdictional customers. The
distribution/wire charge rate schedules will be calculated using a transmission component
that is based on the then FERC approved transmission service rates, which may change
from time to time.
4)For qualifying individual accounts the Customer may elect companion load management
rate schedules or riders as follows: Schedules CSCM, SGCM, SGCM-1, and Rider J-CM.
These load management rates and rider will be revised from time to time as approved for
other retail customers in Virginia, however, throughout the term of this Agreement the
payments provided under Schedule SGCM-I shall remain at $4.50 per kW during the billing
months of November through April, and $8.00 per kW for the billing months of May through
October. For accounts participating in the Pilot program or full customer choice, such load
management rate schedules and riders are not available during such participation.
5)The terms of service unique to specific connection points may, as applicable, be
enumerated in Attachment E. Other service points may be identified, in writing, for
inclusion under this Agreement at such times as the need for service develops. Nothing in
this Agreement shall be construed as precluding the parties hereto from entering into a
separate contract for services of a special nature.
D.RETAIL ACCESS PILOT PROGRAM (PILOT)
1)As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
a.“Bundled rate schedule” - Any of several rate schedules that include both the sale
of electric energy and the delivery of electric energy to the mutually agreed point of
delivery, using the Company's transmission and/or distribution system(s) as the
means of delivery.
b.“Bundled service” - The provision of both electric energy and delivery service by
the Company under a “bundled rate schedule.”
c.“Distribution/wires charge rate schedule” - Any of several rate schedules which
include only charges for the distribution of electric energy to the mutually agreed
point of delivery and the “wires charge” as defined in § 56-583 of the Code of
Virginia (or its successor); and which exclude charges for electric energy; and
where the account of the Customer purchases electric energy from a licensed
competitive supplier.
d.“Full customer choice” - An environment under which any account of the Customer
may purchase electric energy from a licensed competitive supplier without regard
to any limitations established under a “pilot” program.
e.“Pilot” - A program under which a limited amount of kilowatt-hours may be
purchased from licensed competitive suppliers by local governments (in
aggregate), with such program being of a definite time period and having the
purpose of testing and refining the methods and procedures for allowing
purchases in a “full customer choice” environment.
2)A metered account served under Schedules 100, 110 or 130 can participate in the Pilot
through August 31, 2002, pursuant to Section VI of the Terms and Conditions and subject
to the limitation that the total kWh available under the Pilot to all municipalities or counties,
or boards, agencies, or authorities thereof does not exceed 117 million kWh. The Steering
Committee will be responsible for the selection of the accounts participating in the Pilot.
A customer account participating in the Pilot will purchase distribution service and pay any
applicable wires charges under Schedule 100P - Pilot Miscellaneous Light and Power
Service; Schedule 110P - Pilot All Electric Building Service and Dual Fuel Systems or
Schedule 130P - Pilot Large Miscellaneous Light and Power Service provided in
Attachment D. The applicable Pilot rate schedule for a customer account will be as
determined under Section VI of the Terms and Conditions for the Provision of Electric
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 5)
Service to Municipalities and Counties - Virginia. The Retail Access Pilot Program General
Rules and Regulations are provided in Attachment D.
3)The transmission and market prices used to calculate the price to compare and the base
wires charge will be fixed for the Pilot and determined through negotiations between the
Company and the Steering Committee and unless agreed otherwise shall be consistent
with the methodologies established by the SCC for the Virginia jurisdictional pilot, while
recognizing any unique characteristics of the County and Municipal customers.
4)If and when the Pilot extends beyond January 1, 2002, the Terms and Conditions
applicable to the Pilot will be the Terms and Conditions that are established for the phase
in for full customer choice.
5)For customers who have authorized the release of their usage information by a
communication received by the Company from the Steering Committee, their usage and
interval data will be accessible via the Company's secured website to licensed suppliers
and aggregators that have completed all registration requirements with the Company.
6)Usage, billing information and, where applicable, interval data will be accessible to
Customers through either the Company's Customer Service Online website or through the
Dominion Key Customer website. Customers must sign up in advance for access to
information through either site.
E.FULL CUSTOMER CHOICE
1)Full customer choice will be phased-in for all local government customers in a manner
consistent with the phase-in for large commercial and industrial Virginia jurisdictional
customers approved by the SCC, which is one-third of kWh on January 1, 2002; two-thirds
of kWh on September 1, 2002; and all kWh on January 1, 2003. Should the SCC revise
the phase-in of full customer choice for large commercial and industrial Virginia
jurisdictional customers, the phase-in for local government customers, unless agreed to
otherwise, shall be in the name manner as that approved by the SCC for large commercial
and industrial Virginia Jurisdictional customers.
2)Effective January 1, 2002, an additional increment of County/Municipal annual kWh will be
eligible for choice so that, in total, the pilot eligible usage and the additional increment will
equal the proportion of the first phase approved by the SCC for Virginia Jurisdictional
customers.
3)The base wires charge and the transmission and market prices used to calculate the price
to compare for the incremental customers phased-in beginning January 1, 2002, and billed
on either Schedule 100P, Schedule 110P or Schedule 130P, will be the same as those
used for the pilot customers until the new distribution/wire charge rate schedules take
effect on or after January l, 2002, as set forth in Paragraph C.3. above.
4)After January 1, 2002, the Company and the Steering Committee shall seek to coordinate
adjustments to base wires charges with changes to market prices and transmission rates,
but in no case shall such adjustments occur more frequently than annually. Such
adjustments shall be determined through negotiation and unless agreed otherwise will be
consistent with the methodology and data approved by the SCC for Virginia Jurisdictional
customers.
5)Customer information will he made available to customers and licensed suppliers or
aggregators in accordance with Paragraphs D.5 and D.6.
F.AGREEMENT REVISIONS
Upon the effective date of this electric service agreement, the Customer through the Steering
Committee or the Company may request that the other party consider revising the agreement,
according to the following principles, however, any revisions to the agreement shall only be as
mutually agreed between the Company and the Steering Committee:
1)If the Company separates the ownership of its transmission or distribution assets from its
generation assets, any such renegotiations shall be limited to good faith renegotiations to
change the present provision for recovery of fuel and purchased power costs to some
other provisions designed not to cause customers to pay more for fuel, purchased power,
and non-fuel rates than they would have paid under the current fuel adjustment provisions
if the ownership had not been transferred, and designed to require the generation
company to assure performance of the capped rates provisions of this Agreement;
2)When the Company offers competitive metering and/or billing options for its GS-3 and
GS-4 Virginia Jurisdictional customers, then it shall offer such options for all County and
Municipal accounts with interval meters. When it offers such options for its smaller
jurisdictional customers, it shall offer such options to all County and Municipal accounts
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 6)
with non-interval meters. Before such options are offered to County and Municipal
accounts, the Company and the Steering Committee shall negotiate for a further
unbundling of capped rates to isolate charges related to the newly competitive metering
and/or billing services and, unless agreed otherwise, this further unbundling shall be in a
manner consistent with the methodology implemented for jurisdictional customers;
3)If the Company's jurisdictional rate schedules and/or Terms and Conditions are revised to
require a new methodology for calculating line extension payments, then, after the
adoption of such revisions by the SCC, the Company and the Steering Committee, unless
they agree otherwise, shall negotiate in good faith to adopt a new methodology for
calculating line extension payments that is consistent with the methodology adopted by the
SCC for jurisdictional non-residential customers while preserving (to the extent feasible)
any unique characteristics of the line extension policies of the County and Municipal
customers.
4)Termination of the Company's capped rates by the SCC under § 56-582 of the Virginia
Code.
5)The General Assembly's material amendment of § 56-590 of the Virginia Code regarding
the functional separation of generation, retail transmission and distribution of electric
utilities.
6)The General Assembly or SCC's approval of a methodology for recovery of fuel or
purchased power costs that differs from the current methodology under § 56-249.6 of the
Virginia Code.
7)The Customer through the Steering Committee or the Company may seek to renegotiate
an adjustment for rates for any tax law changes. Such adjustment, unless otherwise
agreed to, shall be consistent with the methodology approved by the SCC for Virginia
Jurisdictional customers.
8)Unless otherwise agreed to by the Company and the Steering Committee, the Company,
upon a finding of financial distress beyond the Company's control by the SCC that allows
adjustments to Virginia jurisdictional base rates, shall adjust the rates for County and
Municipal customers within 90 days following a final order of the SCC finding financial
distress. Such rate adjustment shall be, unless the parties agree otherwise, in the same
manner as that approved by the SCC for jurisdictional customers, while recognizing any
unique characteristics of the County and Municipal customers.
G.GENERAL
1)Unless otherwise specifically agreed to in writing, this Agreement cancels and supersedes
as of its effective date all previous agreements including supplemental agreements
between the Customer and the Company for electric service covered by this Agreement.
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors or assigns
of each of the parties hereof.
2)This Agreement shall be binding upon the Customer and the Company only when
executed by their duly authorized official or authorized representative, and shall not be
modified by any promise, agreement or representation of any agent or employee of the
Company or Steering Committee except in writing and executed by such a duly authorized
official or officer.
3)The obligations of the Company and the Customer for service under this Agreement are
subject to appropriations by Customer's governing body to pay for such service.
4)In the event any provision, or any part or portion of any provision of this Agreement shall be
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, invalid, void or otherwise
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be severable and remain
enforceable. Only the provision (or part or provision thereof) so declared shall be
considered unlawful, invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable.
__________
Item 7.4. Proclamation recognizing the week of August 28, 2001, through September 2, 2001, as
"Albemarle County Fair Week".
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following resolution:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK
WHEREAS,for the past 20 years, the Albemarle County Fair has entertained tens of
thousands of guests during its annual production; and
WHEREAS,the Albemarle County Fair is unique in many ways, founded by a group of
community spirited people who wanted something special for their
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 7)
neighbors and friends to enjoy and enrich their lives. The theme has
always emphasized the County's agricultural and forestal heritage; and
WHEREAS,the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation operated by
dedicated volunteers, officers and directors; and
WHEREAS,the Albemarle County Fair offers an atmosphere conducive to families and
their children. A friendly, safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark of the
event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local
non-profit organizations as an opportunity for them to raise monies for their
worthwhile programs; and
WHEREAS,the Albemarle County Fair supports agricultural and rural lifestyles, offers
exhibits of home-art skills, crops, large livestock, small livestock and
poultry, with competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills, and
nightly entertainment for all to enjoy;
NOW, THEREFORE,I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board
of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of
AUGUST 28, 2001, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2, 2001
as
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK
and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and
programs sponsored and supported by the more than 275 volunteers, public
and area businesses.
(Ms. Thomas read the proclamation, and then presented same to Ms. Ann Tucker who was present
representing the Fair Board.)
__________
Item 7.5. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes of July 17, 2001, was received for
information.
__________
Item 7.6. 2001 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development, was received for information.
__________
Item 7.7. Copy of letter dated August 6, 2001, from Mr. Philip A. Leone, Director, Joint Legislative
Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., re: review of existing system for
funding highway construction and mass transit.
It is noted in the letter that JLARC has directed its staff to review the existing system for funding
highway construction and mass transit. The current system for the allocation of highway construction funds
is based on a study conducted by JLARC staff in cooperation with VDOT almost 20 years ago.
Modifications based on the JLARC study were made to the allocation formulas in 1985, and the formulas
have remained unchanged since that time. As part of this study, JLARC is interested in receiving input from
local governments regarding transportation funding in the State, so comments may be submitted on issues
pertaining to transportation funding.
(Ms. Thomas commented that Mr. Kevin Lynch was invited to participate in a discussion which
JLARC held. He represented this area. The MPO was able to give him ideas for the discussion. She noted
that during the Local Government Officials Conference (LGOC), she attended a meeting by James Atwell
from the Commonwealth Service Company concerning transportation funding and needs. He said VDOT
notes that they have a $2.5 billion shortfall every year and will have for the next 20 years. She is concerned
that the JLARC study not conclude that local governments make up the difference between the two tax
sources which VDOT accesses. She asked if staff should draft some comments because the Board has
been invited by JLARC to submit comments. Mr. Tucker said he has asked Planning staff to look at this
question and submit written comments for the Boards review at the September 5 Board meeting.
=
Ms. Humphris said there is a need for another funding category. It is mentioned often at the MPO
that the Primary, Secondary and Urban funding categories do not meet the needs for the Countys urban
=
roads such as the proposed Southern Connector, etc. Since this project does not fit into one of the existing
categories, VDOT will not fund it.
Mr. Martin said he thinks VDOTs Pave-in-place policy should be mentioned, as well as traffic
=
calming measures. Ms. Humphris said Pave-in-place has been done. Mr. Martin said that is true, but the
County has not been able to use the policy. Ms. Humphris said she understands the 2001 Session of the
General Assembly changed the ruling on Pave-in-place so that roads could be paved without having to
widen the right-of-way. Mr. Martin said it can still be brought to JLARCs attention.)
=
__________
Item 7.8. Copy of notice from the Department of Environmental Quality of a public hearing
scheduled to consider an application from Old Dominion Electric Cooperative to construct and operate a
simple cycle combustion turbine station bordered on the north by Route 860 and on the east by the CSX
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 8)
Railroad. The site is approximately 1.5 miles south of the town of Gordonsville in Louisa County, Virginia.
(Ms. Humphris asked how the County is to know what effect such a facility would have on
Albemarle, and should there be a response to the notice. Mr. Tucker said staff would need to request a
draft copy of the application in order to get additional information.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2001-017. Merrie Meadows (Sign #69). Public hearing on a request to
allow a church in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. SDP-01-036, a request for a prel site plan
waiver, has also been submitted. TM 48, P 15A contains 37.55 acs. Located at 2746 Merrie Meadows
Lane, on the N sd of Rt 20 N & 300' NE of Stony Point Elementary School. Znd RA. Rivanna Dist. (Notice
of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 30 and August 6, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report. He said the applicant is requesting a special use
=
permit for construction of a church on the site of an existing building which is scheduled for demolition. The
new building would have an assembly area of 4418 square feet and a footprint approximately 695 square
feet larger than the existing structure. A portion of the proposed building would be two-story. The existing
church is a non-conforming use. Church services have been conducted on the property prior to adoption of
the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed expansion requires a special use permit to bring the church into
compliance with the ordinance. There was a private school approved for this site in 1981, but it has not
been in operation for 15 years. The applicant has requested that the Board vacate that special use permit
(SP-81-18).
Mr. Cilimberg said the property is located on the west side of Route 20 North, south of Route 640 in
the Stony Point area. The property is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Areas, and it is also
within the Southwest Mountains Historic District. He said it is in a neighborhood of mixed residential, farms
and forested parcels. The former village also has an elementary school, fire station, a service club and a
church in close vicinity to the proposed church. In its history, the property also has an approved special use
permit (SP-85-35) for four cabins for weekend outing lodging/camping two times a year. The applicant
plans to continue that use. There was a request for expansion of the camp facilities in 1997 (SP-97-04), but
the application was withdrawn. He said the building to be demolished has no historic significance and its
removal would not compromise the historic district standing on the National Register for the Southwest
Mountains Historic District.
Mr. Cilimberg said church uses are of greater intensity than residential or agricultural uses within a
rural area zoning district, therefore, staff has recommended greater setbacks for the side and rear of the
new structure. The rural setback of 75 feet would be maintained for the front, but the same setbacks as
those for commercial districts for side (50 feet) and rear yards (50 feet) would be a condition of approval.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has advised that children play outside of the church when the
service ends at 9:30 p.m. There have been concerns expressed by neighbors about nighttime noise and
the disturbance that creates. The applicant has, therefore, voluntarily offered to prevent noise-generating
activities, such as bouncing a ball against a wall, from occurring at night. There is a condition proposed
which would require all outdoor activities to cease after 10:00 p.m. This would be consistent with a
condition approved recently for another church in the Rural Area, Northside Community Church.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Engineering Department, in conjunction with VDOT, has recommended a
condition of approval requiring that the entrance be improved to a VDOT commercial entrance standard. A
condition is also recommended to require that all Health Department regulations must be met prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the new building. The Health Department has no record on file for this
property. The septic system installations may predate modern record keeping at the Health Department.
Mr. Cilimberg said that originally staff recommended six conditions of approval, but the Planning
Commission, at its meeting on July 17, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of SP-2001-017,
subject to eight conditions.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Health Department approvals being required before issuance of the
building permit would be related to the number of people using the facility. Mr. Cilimberg said the septic
systems are already sized for the activity level of the use.
Mr. Martin asked if the Planning Commission discussed the number of seats (capacity) in this
facility. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission discussed having Condition No. 8 developed before the Boards
=
meeting. There is difficulty in trying to place a cap on the number of seats because the septic system
permits will be based on maximum capacity for the facility.
Ms. Humphris noted wording in Condition No. 8 saying Evergreen trees, such as white pine, shall
A
be installed between the access road and the adjacent parcel. ... She asked if there also needs to be a
@
condition that these trees would need to be replaced if they died, etc. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a
requirement which runs with the zoning of the property. Mr. Davis said approved landscaping plans have a
maintenance requirement.
Ms. Humphris asked if it is understood that SP-95-35 will remain in effect, which is the special use
permit for the use of four cabins two times a year. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a separate special use permit
which remains in force.
Ms. Thomas asked about the campground use which was noted in the Commissions minutes as
=
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 9)
having expired. Mr. Cilimberg said in 1997 the church asked for expansion of the camping facilities, but that
request was withdraw. Camping is allowed under the special use permit granted in 1985. Ms. Thomas said
that was for four cabins to be used twice each year. Mr. Bowerman said there are then no campgrounds.
Mr. Davis said that was a nonconforming use that was abandoned for more than two years, so it is no
longer permitted.
Ms. Thomas asked if the type of events that neighbors may have regarded as campground use, if
they are church-related activities, will be permitted by this new special use permit? Mr. Cilimberg said only
to the extent that they are normally associated with church use.
Ms. Humphris said she needs to understand proposed Condition No. 6 (All outdoor activities shall
cease after 10:00 p.m.). Does this mean that outdoor camping no longer exists on that piece of property,
unless the four cabins are used the two times a year? Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct under the special
use permit which was granted in 1995.
Mr. Martin said that probably needs to be clarified.
Mr. Dorrier asked why 10:00 p.m. was chosen instead of 11:00 p.m. or midnight. Mr. Cilimberg
said that time was based on an offer by the applicant that there would be no activities in the evening.
With no further questions for staff, Ms. Thomas invited the applicant to speak.
Mr. Joe Cotton, representing the church, said he purchased Merrie Meadows in 1963. He began
having meetings there in 1964. There were periodic meetings and also camp meetings over the popular
holiday weekends. When the Zoning Ordinance was adopted, he was informed that he needed a special
use permit in order to continue and it was suggested that it be a campground type of permit.
Mr. Cotton said the facilities have been used for other than just the camp meetings. There has
been no need for a special use permit. Recently, it was decided to remove the old building which had many
additions to it over the years. It was decided to build a new building, but when they applied for a building
permit they were informed they could not get a permit under the existing special use permit. It was
suggested that a request for a church facility was the most appropriate due to the way the facilities are
being used.
Mr. Cotton said there are 37.5 acres in the parcel, and the facilities are located basically in the
center of that acreage. The setbacks proposed by the Commission are fine because they are 250 feet from
each side property, and over a 1000 feet from the front property line. He said the facilities are located in the
woods, although there is a barn in the pasture which is used for activities such as basketball, etc. They did
not know there was a problem with noise until a complaint was made at the Commission meeting. There
was a problem in trying to write a description (condition) to cover the complaint, and the description is not
correct since this is not an outdoor activity. The activity causing the noise is in the barn. They have
terminated that activity, and set limits at 10:00 p.m. so there will be no more activities in the recreation/barn
area after that time. Over the years, there have been no complaints about noise, although they understand
from the neighbors that there were problems, but they never let him know about them.
Mr. Cotton said they are just Christians meeting and they do not have a denominational name. He
has owned the facility and used it in that way all these years. They look forward to continue meeting
together and would like to remove the old building and build the new building. He believes it will be a good
addition to the community. There have never been any problems with the road, but the commercial
entrance that is recommended is a good addition. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many people presently use the facility. Mr. Cotton said their regular
meetings draw approximately 100 - 125 people, about half of which are children. There are regional
meetings about six times a year which might draw about 350 people for an all-day meeting.
At this point, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Runser, owner of the property adjacent to Merrie Meadows, said he also represents another
neighbor (Mrs. Savery) who agrees with all the things in his letter of August 6 addressed to the Board
members. He is very frustrated because he feels closed out of the whole process as far as the Planning
Commission is concerned. He said at the Commission meeting, reference was made to two camps per
year, but in the application, Mr. Cotton references four or five camps per year bringing in between 300 and
350 persons each time. In the public hearing, they talked about having a facility which could hold up to 600
people. The other thing is that in 1985, when the special use permit was granted, it was required that they
have annual Health Department inspections. The Health Department has no record of this ever occurring.
He questions the sanitary situation on the property and does not feel a permit should be granted without
checking out these basic things first.
Mr. Runser said they are deathly afraid of a radical religious cult getting hold of the property. It is
set back in the woods. There is no sign in the front. They are able to live with the situation with the current
owners. He has discussed the matter with Mr. Martin and they came up with an agreement which would
give them some degree of protection.
There was no one else from the public who wished to make comments on this application.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Cotton would like to make further comments. Mr. Cotton said a permit
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 10)
was received to put in the initial septic system and well on the property. They drilled a second well, and
they were requested to have water tests made, and they have been done. He thinks that Mr. Runser
probably looked for information under the name "Merrie Meadows", but they were done in his name
personally. They have permits for the septic system and for both wells, and have had water tests made,
and everything meets all the requirements of the Health Department. There is no problem with the new
building meeting any of the health requirements.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Cotton talked about limiting activities in the barn to 10:00 p.m. He then asked
Mr. Cotton if he would agree to that as a condition of the special use permit. Mr. Cotton said he sees no
problem with that being a condition.
Mr. Martin said the condition which says there shall be no outdoor activities after 10:00 p.m. is of
concern. There will be two meetings a year in the four cottages, but the campground permit has ceased to
exist. Church use is not usually defined as camping. Mr. Martin said he wants to be sure the campground
A@
use has ceased to exist so the church use would not be expanded to include what most consider
campground use.
Mr. Cotton said initially he said the property was used for this type of meeting. He anticipated they
would be able to continue that use. The permit was terminated because he transferred the property from
his name to a trust so the property will pass to his children at his death. He was told that because the name
changed on the property, he had to reapply for the special use permit. He said the camping is not in a
campground as such. People come and put up tents and spend the night. They have their meals together,
so the building is designed with a kitchen, etc. It is not a camping facility as such, only an accommodation
for people with camp trailers, motor homes, tents, etc. to come to for a holiday weekend. That is what they
call a camp.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Cotton about proposed Condition No. 6 (no church activity outside after 10:00
p.m.) in terms of the campers. Mr. Cotton said that condition is not correct. The planner who
recommended that condition was incorrect. It needs to say the activity in the barn where the noise is
created, will cease after 10:00 p.m., rather than ceasing all activity. Sometimes their meetings continue
past 10:00 p.m. and the children go out and use the sliding boards which are located down over the hill in
the woods. No one can hear that activity. There is noise at the barn which echoes to the neighbors. That is
why Condition No. 6 should be reworded to say that the activity in the barn will be terminated after 10:00
p.m..
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are revivals at the church. Mr. Cotton said yes. They do not call them
A@
revivals; their camp meetings could be called revivals.
Mr. Martin said he met with Mr. and Mrs. Runser, and then talked to Planning and Zoning staff.
Staff walked the property to be sure none of things he had heard might be there, were there. That included
a swimming pool without appropriate septic fields, as well as a large amount of cabins. Staff found nothing
that was not in compliance with the permits. Mr. Martin said he contacted the Runsers again, and they
suggested placing a time limit on construction of the building. There are actually two lots. One lot has a
house on it near the road and it is presently for sale. The Runsers were concerned that property would be
sold, and then the church built. They wanted to connect those two events. He talked with the County
Attorney and he then asked Mr. Davis to address his issues.
Mr. Davis said this special use request is for the 37+ acre site. If they subdivided off the front parcel,
they could not convert it to a different use without being in violation of the permit because the request is for
the entire site. The front site cannot be used for any use other than an RA use or as part of the overall 37+
acre use under this permit, if approved. The permit would run with the land, and would be applicable to
both parcels.
Mr. Cilimberg said as a point of clarification, the front parcel already exists as a separate parcel, so
is not part of the 37+ acres. It would not be covered by the permit. Mr. Davis said he stands corrected, that
parcel is not before the Board tonight. The second issue concerns the restrictions which can be placed on
a special use permit. The Board is limited in its review to the land use impacts associated with the use.
Further restriction on this application is a Federal Law adopted in 2000 called The Religious Land Use and
A
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000." That Act adds a level of scrutiny to land use regulations which apply
to religious uses. It basically says there must be a compelling governmental reason to regulate them, and
the least restrictive means must be used. That does not prohibit the Board from having land use review, or
a special use permit process, but any reason they are regulated must be a land use reason.
Mr. Martin said one thing requested was to put a time limit on when the church would actually be
built. The neighbors do not want them to wait for many years into the future to build the church. Mr. Davis
has told him that is impossible because, for all practical purposes, they have already started work on the
church.
Mr. Davis said the use of this property already exists, which is a nonconforming church use.
Typically, when the Board grants a special use permit for a use which is not established, the applicant has
to establish that use within 18 months or the special use permit, by ordinance, expires. In this instance, that
is not applicable because the use already exists. If the Board found a valid reason to say the church must
be built in a certain amount of time, that could be a legitimate condition. Since the use already exists, and
the special use permit would not expire, such a condition might prohibit them from building. He is not sure a
reason has been identified at this point to set such a condition.
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 11)
Ms. Humphris said she read this staff report very carefully. She understands the applicant has
applied for a special use permit for a church in the rural area. The applicant would construct the new
building. Then, in reading the history, she thought the idea of the camping was limited to SP-85-35, but
now, for the first time, she understands the applicant is proposing to have a rather substantial campground
part of the time. She wonders how the campground fits with the use as a church. Since its use as a
campground seems to be rather large at times, how does the Health Department know what the
requirements for the septic system and the well need to be. Mr. Davis said he was not aware of the
proposed camping use, prior to this evening. Mr. Cilimberg said he was not aware of it in terms of open
camping, unencumbered.
Mr. Bowerman said that is what the applicant said is happening now. Mr. Cilimberg said it is
happening now in association with the church. The real question is whether the level of camping
associated with the church is permissible under a special use permit for a church.
Ms. Humphris said the way this was presented, she thought clearly that the construction of the new
church was going to extinguish the campground use. Mr. Cilimberg said there is no permitted use as a
campground.
Mr. Martin said it is camping under church use. Mr. Cilimberg said it is one of the churches
=
activities. It is not a campground under the Zoning Ordinance definition. It is a nonconforming use as a
church, and the church activities include the camping that occurs periodically throughout the year. Now,
they are asking for a special use permit. Therefore, the real question is, can that overnight camping aspect
of the churches activity be regulated. He does not know the answer to that question.
=
Mr. Davis said there are two issues. One is whether camping is part of the religious activities of the
church. Mr. Martin said if it is, the County cant do much in the way of limiting that use. Mr. Davis said the
=
land use reasons why it is inappropriate on this site would have to be articulated. That would be under strict
scrutiny. Staff needs to look at that issue from a land use perspective and analyze its impacts.
Ms. Thomas said the normal implications considered by the Board include traffic impacts and the
applicant is being required to have a commercial entrance. They are also being required to get all Health
Department approvals. Now that it is known that it is not just a church building, she does not know if the
condition can be worded differently. The Board can consider the impact of the proposal on the character of
the community; staff has covered some of that in its report. She said the Board can decide if this adds a
new element staff should look at since they had assumed they were dealing with the enlargement of a
nonconforming building
Mr. Martin said several years ago there was a request where a church was running a printing
operation. The Board concluded that it was part of that church's mission, so was part of the church usage.
He asked Mr. Cotton if a delay in acting on this petition until the Boards next meeting in September would
=
create a hardship. Mr. Cotton said they do have camp scheduled for Labor Day weekend, as they have
done for over 30 years. Their schedule is to get the necessary permits this fall, and start construction next
April.
Mr. Davis said Planning staff needs to get some additional information about those activities and
give a recommendation on the parameters under which they should operate, giving a land use evaluation.
Based on what the applicant has said tonight, it seems there is a limited number of activities occurring now.
It might be reasonable to place a limitation on those events and the activities which occur after 10:00 p.m.
The Health Department needs to look at what health facilities need to be in place for these types of
camping activities. There are very specific Health Department regulations for campgrounds. Whether
those regulations should apply to these activities needs to be decided. He does not think staff can construct
any conditions tonight to cover these items without additional information.
Mr. Cilimberg said he will have to ask the Zoning Administrator to determine what level of activity
that has been occurring is considered to be accessory to a church.
A@
Mr. Perkins asked if grandfather privileges apply in this case. Mr. Davis said if the activities were
A@
established prior to the Zoning Ordinance, and they have continued without any cessation for more than two
years, they would be nonconforming at the degree to which they have continued. Mr. Martin asked if there
would be a problem with the upcoming Labor Day weekend activity. Mr. Davis said no.
A@
Mr. Dorrier said camping is an outdoor activity, so that would extend past 10:00 p.m.
Ms. Thomas said that is why the applicant suggested the condition read All activity in the barn shall
A
cease after 10:00 p.m. recognizing that no one could promise that all outdoor activities would cease at that
@
time. She said Condition No. 3 should be expanded to include the activities which take place on the
property, and not just for the church structure itself.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff needs to make sure that whatever conditions are appropriate are land use
based regarding any overnight activity, have Health Department approval, in addition to the building permit
being issued at the Health Department.
Mr. Martin said he is not in favor of limiting church activities. That is why he brought out the fact that
he supported a church in the Keswick area which was running a printing press because they were sending
missionary material overseas. Some people on the Board felt that went beyond church activities, and some
felt it did not. With this issue, the camping adds an aspect to it where some Board members see that as
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 12)
ceasing, when it actuality what is being requested is to continue to do what they have always done. That
includes a church activity, which under the wording used so far, would stretch the Countys definition of a
=
church activity, and how it works with the Health Department.
Ms. Thomas said the Boards decision has to be based on land use issues, and not whether this is
=
a church. She asked for a motion to defer this petition.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to defer SP-2001-017 until September 5, 2001. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2001-019. Child Development Center (Signs #34 & #35). Public hearing
on a request to allow day care in accord w/Sec 18-10.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ord. TM 108, P 27, contains 3.49
acs. Located on Covesville Rd just E of intersec w/ Rt 29. Znd RA. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 30 and August 6, 2001.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report. He said the applicant proposes to open a child care
center for 25 children in an accessory building to the Cove Presbyterian Church in Covesville where the
church had a day care center in the past. The property is located just north of the intersection with Route
29 and Covesville Lane. The impacts of this use would be mainly from traffic (for drop-offs and pick-ups)
and some noise. The traffic impact is not considered significant at this location, and the additional traffic
created by this use can be dealt with through on-site improvements.
Mr. Cilimberg said this use is not expected to have any negative impacts on the Rural Areas, and
will not significantly impact the historic resources on the property. The day care buildings, and its play area,
are near an active rail line. The established State licensing process for day care centers includes detailed
plans for playground safety. The applicants facility will be regulated through this process. If the
=
State process determines that fencing is needed for safety, the applicant will be required to install that
fencing.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff noted the following favorable factors to this request: A similar use has
existed on the site in the past; and, this use provides a community service with minimal impacts to public
facilities. An unfavorable factor is: The location of the play area next to an active rail line raises safety
concerns. However, the State licensing process will apply a consistent safety standard to this facility. He
said staff recommended approval with three conditions. The Planning Commission heard this request just
last night and supports the staffs recommendation for approval subject to three conditions.
=
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board has to approve the site plan waiver request. Mr. Cilimberg said that
will he handled by the Commission. Ms. Thomas noted that there would only be two conditions which need
approval by the Board. Mr. Davis said that is correct; only Condition No. 2 and Condition No. 3 apply to any
approval by the Board.
At this time, Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Marcie Orr, Pastor of Cove Presbyterian Church, said she is the co-director of the Covesville
Child Development Center until it is in operation. She offered to answer questions. They hope to open on
September 4.
Mr. Dorrier said a child care center involves a lot of State control. He asked if this applicant has
met all of their requirements. Ms. Orr said they were a licensed Head Start Center from 1987 until 1996 so
they have the proper well and septic system. They are aware of the licensing issues, but cannot meet all of
them until the center is open. It is a very needed facility in the Covesville area.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jeff Werner said the staff involved with this center are great teachers. This is a land use
decision, but he just wanted to say that he strongly supports the application.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2001-019 subject to Condition No. 2
and Condition No. 3 as 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. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1.The applicant shall not commence operation of the day care center before
securing a Certificate of Appropriateness for this use from the Architectural
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 13)
Review Board; and,
2.Enrollment in the day care center shall be limited to 25 children.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Soccer Organization of Charlottesville-Albemarle (SOCA) request to amend
the service (jurisdictional) boundary areas for sewer service to proposed soccer field complex, Discussion
of request by.
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request for public sewer service for the SOCA soccer field complex now
under construction on Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C. This site is located on the south side of Route 643,
Polo Grounds Road, approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29. The property is bordered on the north by
Route 643 and on the south by the South Fork Rivanna River. The property is zoned Rural Area, and is
designated Rural Area in the County's Land Use Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board approved water and sewer service for Parcel 22 on February 12,
1992, for service to a church building only (800 seat) approved under SP-90-35 for the Covenant Church of
God. The Board approved a Special Use Permit (SP-98-18) on September 9, 1998, for the SOCA soccer
field complex, but denied a request for sewer service to the soccer complex. The Board's action was based
on the request's inconsistency with the County's policy for extending public utilities in the Rural Area. The
Boards policy states: "Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas
=
in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health and/or safety is in
danger." He said a sewer line does cross the property. However, there is no current health or safety
concern on the site. The request for public sewer service for this site is made in order to alleviate the need
to construct drainfields. Due to the topography of the site and the existence of a significant flood plain,
there is limited area on-site to locate adequate-sized drainfields to support the use. The drainfields would
need to be located in, or along the fringe of, the flood plain and would be more prone to leaching with
inundation, or located at an elevation above the proposed building requiring the
installation of a pumped system. He said approval of this request may be preferable from a public
perspective for the ultimate health and safety at the site as a soccer complex.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff included in its report comments made by Mr. David Hirschman, Water
Resources Manager, regarding various alternatives to public sewer. It was his conclusion that the public
sewer is the best technical solution from an environmental perspective. From a land use perspective, the
soccer field complex generally maintains the open space character of the area and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The two properties contain most of the developable land between the Urban Area
and Hollymead. Therefore, the provision of sewer service to this property would not encourage
development inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said that given those circumstances, staff opinion is that providing sewer service for
this use on this site can be appropriate. Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing to amend
the service (jurisdictional) area to provide sewer service to the soccer complex (Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and
22C) only as approved under SP-98-18 and SP-98-22 which have already been granted.
Ms. Thomas asked for comments from the Board.
Ms. Humphris said she read all of the history concerning this request. It is interesting to see how it
unfolded, with the understanding that this area would still remain the buffer it was intended to be. She has
to agree with staff that it would be better to have sewer service for the soccer field than the alterna-tive.
However, she is determined that this area shall remain a buffer, and no one will come along in the future
asking for service by saying there is already sewer service in the area.
Mr. Martin said there is a concern about whether or not the Board would be setting a precedent.
Even though this request appears to be air tight, maybe it is not. Given the fact that the County has a very
A@
educated public, if there is something that has not been considered, someone from the public will bring that
to the Boards attention at a public hearing.
=
Ms. Humphris said she hopes that will happen. If there is anything lurking out there, the Board
A@
needs to know about it.
At this point, Mr. Martin moved that this request to amend the service (jurisdictional) boundary
areas to provide public sewer service to the proposed soccer field complex on Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and
22C, only as approved under SP-98-18 and SP-98-22 be set for a public hearing on September 12, 2001.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: March 21(A), April 18, April 25, May 9, June 6, June 20
and July 11, 2001.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of June 20, 2001 (Pages 1 - 13 ending at Item #7) and found them
to be in order.
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 14)
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of June 20, 2001 (Page 13 beginning at Item #7 to the end) and
found them to be in order.
Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of July 11, 2001 (Pages 17 beginning at Item #11 to the end)
and found only one typographical which she brought to the Clerks attention.
=
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of April 18, 2001, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of June 6, 2001 (Pages 1 - 18 ending at Item 6a), and found
them to be acceptable.
Motion to approve the minutes which had been read was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said that she, along with Ms. Humphris and Mr. Perkins, attended the recent LGOC
meeting. She serves on the Finance Steering Committee and they were faced with a comment from the
Governor referring to the car tax payments now being received from the State, as being a windfall to local
A@
governments. There was also a comment that local governments already receive about one-half of the
States General Fund, and they have relied too heavily on the States generosity and real estate taxes to
==
fund local services. That left them to wonder what other methods are available to fund local government.
Ms. Thomas said there has been another commission appointed to look into the issue of totally
doing away with personal property tax on automobiles, and how to get that into the Constitution. This
comes on the heels of another commission established in the last two years on which no member from
local government served. Everyone was worried about what this commission would come up with. In fact,
it came up with very strong statements about the needs of local government. They said there was more
funding needed from the State, six percent of the income tax revenues, equality between cities and
counties, holding firm to the real estate tax for local governments, and increasing transportation funding at
the State level. If anyone would like to be uplifted they might read that commissions report which was
A@=
released in December, 2000 by a group which had no connection to local government, but which came up
with good recommendations.
Ms. Humphris said the Commissions report is entitled Report on Virginia State and Local Tax
=A
Structure for the Twenty-first Century. She was part of a VACO/VML Task Force which was invited to be
@
support for that commission. Members attended all of the meetings, and VACO/VML staff were extremely
active as consultants to the commission. She said it was through this staff help that the report turned out to
be as excellent as it is. She said the people on the commission were genuinely interested in getting to the
root of the problem and making meaningful recommendations.
__________
Ms. Humphris said that in all of the LGOC conferences she has attended over the years, there was
one thing that stood out this time, and that was Ed McMahons presentation. It was about the value of good
=
design to a community and how developers need to understand they will make more money if everything
looks as if it belongs in the place where it is put down. He showed examples from all over the east coast
where Taco Bells had been put in existing buildings and dont look like they do on Emmet Street, the same
=
with McDonalds and banks. Commercial enterprises can better itself and its income if it were a place
=
where people really enjoy going. She said she had never seen this happen before, but when he had
finished his presentation, he got a standing ovation.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she attended a seminar on strategies concerning passing a bond referendum.
Among other things, they said courthouse bond referendums are probably the most difficult to get passed.
Henrico County just passed a very large bond referendum and they have put all their information on a CD,
so she will give her information to staff. They also hold what they call a bond referendum college and the
A@
next one is in February. She suggested that County staff attend.
__________
Ms. Thomas said John Knapp, from the University of Virginia, spoke on his predictions for the
Virginia economy. They are gloomy in terms of State revenue partly because the State has had such a
booming revenue increase in the last few years, and partly because of the way it handles capital gains
which are taxed as regular income. The stock market boom brought in a tremendous increase in the
States revenue, but with the stock market no longer producing those types of capital gains, the fall in State
=
income tax revenues will be steeper than the regular economy would lead one to believe.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the High Growth Coalition will be meeting with what is called the shelter industry
A@
in the coming week, and is interested in any topics that might be discussed at that meeting. She said DISC
is an issue the planners and developers can come to an agreement on, if she thinks the shelter industry in
general might find it is an area where they can come to agreement with local planners. She said if the
Board members have other ideas, please send them to her before this meeting.
August 15, 2001 (Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 15)
__________
Mr. Perkins said in the VACO legislative package there is a proposal that counties be given the right
to regulate silviculture activities. He feels that counties are not aware of, or taking advantage of, what the
Department of Forestry can offer them. He asked Forestry to bring in someone to speak. Mr. Buck Cline,
who is in charge of water quality standards in this region, came in and talked. He said there is a lot of
misunderstanding about what is silviculture and what is logging for development. The County has the right
to regulate development, but he thinks the Department of Forestry has the expertise to regulate silviculture
activities. The problem is where to draw the line when developers say it is silviculture, and they are really
building roads for development, or clearing for a large store, etc.
Ms. Thomas said the legislative proposal says that after clearing it has to be converted to bonafide
agricultural use or improved pasture. She said all of that happens afterward, and there is no way to put
those trees back. Mr. Perkins said it is in the package and will be reviewed again at the Homestead. His
problem with counties regulating silviculture is that there would be 95 different ordinances regulating
silviculture.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is VACOs position that they ask for more power for counties over
=
silviculture. Mr. Perkins said that is right. A lady from Loudoun County talked about the problems they are
having, but those are development problems, and not forestry or silviculture problems. Those needed to
be addressed, but if the locality wants people to practice forestry, these people have to be helped and the
practice made easier for them. If this is made more difficult, they will sell their land for development.
__________
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wanted staff to pursue establishing staggered terms for the
members of the Agricultural/Forestry District Advisory Committee. At this moment, there are no set terms
for the members. Since there was no consensus among Board members that this should be done, staff
was asked to bring some information about this question to the September 5, 2001, Board meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 8:37 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 10/03/2001
Initials: LAB