2002-02-13February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February
13, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter
F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker 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 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There was no one present from the public who wished to speak at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve/adopt Items 5.1 through 5.4 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining
items as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Whitewood Village Apartments - request for support on application for low income
housing tax credits and designation of complex as revitalization area.
It was noted in the executive summary that the 96-unit complex known as Whitewood Village
Apartments is an expiring Section 8 project with the Section 8 rental assistance expiring in September,
2002. The current owners of Whitewood Village Apartments indicated over a year ago their intention to sell
the property prior to or concurrent with the expiration of the Section 8 contract. On June 7, 2000, the Board
of Supervisors discussed and approved the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program's (AHIP) proposal to
purchase Whitewood Village Apartments. In December 2000, AHIP entered into an option and purchase
contract on the property and closing is scheduled to occur in June, 2002.
As a part of the financial package, AHIP and the Albemarle Housing Associates, L.P. (the proposed
ownership entity for Whitewood) plan to submit an application to the Virginia Housing Development
Authority (VHDA) for Low-income Housing Tax Credits. Current projections would provide approximately
$3.5 million in tax credits to attract private equity financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the
apartments. The application for tax credits requires a local support letter from the CEO of the locality in
which the project is located and a Location Certification indicating the propertys Census Tract and whether
=
the project is located in one of several specific areas. A project located in a specified area may receive
additional points in the scoring for tax credits.
The Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) are highly competitive in the Commonwealth. To be
successful in receipt of the credits, an applicant must maximize use of criteria in the allocation plan to
receive points. The location certification provides for a project to be designated as a local revitalization
area. A designation as a local revitalization area enhances the application and adds twenty points to the
scoring. The designation does not obligate the County to do anything other than recognize the importance
of preserving the affordable housing. Also, the designation does not place any regulations or restrictions on
the project. The tax credit allocation plan provides no guidance on designating revitalization areas. In fact,
many of the applications submitted by nonprofit partners in developments include a designation for the
project site only. This has been acceptable to VHDA. There also is no guidance in the Code of Virginia in
making such local designations.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors 1) support the acquisition and rehabilitation of
Whitewood Village and authorize the County Executive to sign the LOCAL SUPPORT letter; 2) pass the
RESOLUTION supporting the project and designating the project as a revitalization area; and 3) authorize
the County Executive to sign the LOCAL CERTIFICATION letter.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board supported the acquisition and rehabilitation
of Whitewood Village, authorized the County Executive to sign the Local Support letter; adopted the
following Resolution supporting the project and designating the project as a revitalization area, and
authorized the County Executive to sign the Local Certification letter.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING REHABILITATION
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE EXISTING
WHITEWOOD VILLAGE APARTMENTS
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) has entered into
a partnership with Albemarle Housing Associates, L.P. for the purpose of acquiring and
rehabilitating the existing 96-unit residential apartment complex known as Whitewood
Village Apartments within the County of Albemarle to continue to make these units
affordable to the public; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County recognize the need to
preserve quality affordable housing units in the County and is supportive of these efforts
to rehabilitate the units; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to show its support for the
proposed rehabilitation of the affordable housing units in the Whitewood Village
Apartment complex.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County expresses its support for and pledges its cooperation in the efforts by
AHIP and Albemarle Housing Associates, L.P. to preserve and rehabilitate the
Whitewood Village Apartments and does hereby support their application to the Virginia
Housing Development Authority for Federal tax credits in connection with the proposed
rehabilitation and further does designate the Whitewood Village Apartment complex as a
revitalization area.
__________
Item 5.2. Resolution of Support - Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail.
At the request of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), the Board
adopted the following Project Endorsement Resolution:
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT GRANT
VIRGINIA BIRDING AND WILDLIFE TRAIL
PROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board
construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be
received from the local government or state agency in order for the Virginia Department
of Transportation to program a transportation enhancement project in the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District (PD#10); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail will encourage
tourism and appreciation of the natural environment in the Thomas Jefferson Region;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to support the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries application to continue development
of the Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail into the Central portion of the state.
__________
Item 5.3. Authorize County Executive to Execute Extension of Contract for Electrical Service with
Appalachian Power Company.
It was noted in the executive summary that the County's contract for electric service with
Appalachian Power Company ("APCo") currently in effect will expire on June 30, 2002, unless extended.
Retail electric service entails three elements: generation, transmission and distribution to the user.
Historically, all three elements have been bundled together and the bundled service has been provided by a
single supplier, which has been assigned a designated territory in the Commonwealth. In much of
Southwest Virginia APCo has been that supplier, and the County's current contract involves bundled
services.
As a result of deregulation under the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act (the "Act"), retail
customers are granted a "choice" as to whether they will continue to purchase the generation element from
the incumbent supplier. The VML/VACO APCo Power Steering Committee has negotiated a contract
extension with APCo for a five-year term for electrical generation services at terms and rates on file with
and approved by the State Corporation Commission (SCC). The Steering Committee recommends that
member local governments extend the current contract through June 30, 2007 (when under the Act capped
rates and default rates are scheduled to terminate for all customers), in order to protect against rate
increases until such time as a truly competitive market in the APCo-served area exists.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the contract extension
with APCo on behalf of the County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution Authorizing
Electric Service Contract Extension with Appalachian Power Company (APCo):
Resolution Authorizing Electric Service Contract Extension
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
WHEREAS, the VML/VACo-Appalachian Power Company (APCo) Steering
Committee (the "Committee"), comprised of representatives of local governments and
political subdivisions, has for many years negotiated on behalf of such governmental
units within the service area of APCo the terms of standard contract forms which have
included rates for the purchase of electricity supply and delivery service and for the
installation, maintenance and delivery service for street lights by and for said
governmental units from APCo as a single source provider; and
WHEREAS, the most recent such contracts for the period beginning July 1,
2000, will terminate on June 30, 2002; and
WHEREAS, on or about February 12, 2001, APCo agreed with the Committee to
extend the terms of such contracts to December 31, 2003, at rates set forth in the
Company's Schedule 17 on file with the Virginia State Corporation Commission (the
"Commission"); and
WHEREAS, on or about July 24, 2001, American Electric Power Co. ("AEP"),
parent corporation of APCo, filed a proceeding in the Federal Energy Regulation
Commission ("FERC") seeking approval of amendment of its intercompany agreement
which inter alia affects the supply and computation of the price for electricity furnished to
APCo in excess of that produced by APCo, in which proceeding the Steering Committee
and the Town of Wytheville appeared and objected; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the Committee and the Town of Wytheville
agreeing to a negotiated settlement of the FERC proceeding which provides substantial
protection against potential escalation of the fuel factor which is a component of APCo's
total pricing for electricity supplied to its retail customers, including the governmental
units, APCo has granted to the governmental units the election to (1) terminate the
current contracts on June 30, 2002, or (2) extend the contracts at Schedule 17 rates to
December 31, 2003, pursuant to the offer dated February 12, 2001, or (3)(a) to extend
the current contracts through June 30, 2007, at rates contained in APCo's unbundled
Standard Rate Schedules, or any successor or replacement schedules then on file and
approved by the Commission; and (b) to extend street light service at rates as in effect
July 1, 2000, but subject to changes in the fuel factor; provided that election (3) is
conditioned upon the governmental unit so electing, notifying APCo of its election within
90 days of December 18, 2001, that (i) it has chosen APCo to provide generation service
through June 30, 2007, and (ii) that it will not chose a different supplier prior to such date;
and (iii) it will not request the Commission to determine rates and provisions for default
service different from that provided under its contract, as amended by election (3); and
WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended that the governmental units,
including the County, exercise election (3) above, that is, the extension of current
contracts with APCo for electric service and delivery thereof from July 1, 2002, through
June 30, 2007, including street light contracts, at the rates and subject to the conditions
all as set forth in the letter dated December 18, 2001, signed on behalf of APCo and AEP
and on behalf of the Steering Committee and the Town of Wytheville, all by counsel,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporating letters dated February 12 and
February 15, 2001 attached hereto as Exhibits B1 and B2; and
WHEREAS, it appearing to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle
that there is only one source practically available which can and will supply electricity
service and delivery thereof for the entire needs of the County at established rates for
such bundled service or unbundled generation service for the period from July 1, 2002,
through June 30, 2007, as negotiated and recommended by the Committee; and it
further appearing that even if there should develop a truly competitive market in the
APCo area for generation service, it is questionable whether the Virginia Electricity
Restructuring Act (the "Act") provides for capped rates or default rates for public
authorities in the APCo area, and if not could place the County at a disadvantage in the
event it elects to contract with an alternative supplier or if such alternative supplier should
default and be unable to provide the electricity; and it further appearing that notice hereof
has been posted or published as specified in Va. Code 2.2-4303(E) that competitive
'
sealed bidding and competitive negotiation for such services for such period, are not
fiscally advantageous to the public because the procurement process for electric services
in a competitive market, even if there should be such a market, must be of such flexibility
to provide a rapid response to fluctuating market conditions on a daily, or even hourly,
basis; and it further appearing that the contract extensions recommended and agreed to
by the Committee will provide the County with a safeguard against excessive electricity
generation costs both at this date and in the foreseeable future due to a lack of real
competition in this area of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the fact that no other source is practically available for
such electric services for such period, the APCo offer to extend the contracts, being for a
limited time, i.e., ninety (90) days from December 18, 2001, is such that an emergency
does exist inasmuch as such period is not sufficient for the County to correctly assess its
entire needs for electric service, whether for the short term or through June 30, 2007, to
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
prepare and receive requests for proposals and to review, consider and act upon any
proposals which may possibly be received.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that:
(1) The County accepts APCo's offer to extend its current contract for electric
service on a bundled basis, including its street light contract, from July 1, 2002 through
June 30, 2007, as set forth in Exhibit A and as agreed and recommended by the
Committee.
(2) In accordance with the conditions in APCo's offer, the County agrees that (i)
it has chosen APCo to provide generation service through June 30, 2007; (ii) it will not
choose a different supplier prior to such date; and (iii) it will not request the State
Corporation Commission to determine rates and provisions for default service different
from that provided in the contracts, as amended and extended as set forth above.
(3) The County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to execute and
deliver on behalf of the County all documents as shall be deemed appropriate to carry
out the foregoing action.
(4) This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
The Clerk is directed to notify APCo of the aforesaid election and agreements by
transmitting a copy hereof to counsel for the Committee, Howard W. Dobbins, 1021 East
Cary Street, P. O. Box 1320, Richmond, VA 23218-1320, who is authorized to deliver
same to APCo.
__________
Item 5.4. Six Year Secondary Road Priority List.
It was noted in the executive summary that the Board held a public hearing on the Countys Priority
=
List for Secondary Road Improvements and VDOT's Six-Year Secondary Road Plan on January 16, 2002.
The Board approved the Countys Priority List with modifications (Place Corville Farm Road on the Priority
=
List as a Rural Addition at priority #4; move Hillsdale Drive to priority #20). The VDOT Six-Year Secondary
Road Plan required modifications to reflect the changes made in the County's Priority List before it could be
adopted.
There was a public request that a section of White Mountain Road (Route 736) be placed on the
priority list to be paved. White Mountain Road was already on the Priority List as #72. Staff included a
statement on the Priority List to clarify the inclusion of the requested section. The addition of Corville Farm
Road as a Rural Addition did not impact the timing for the completion of other projects already in the
six-year funding cycle. However, future requests to place new projects in the six-year funding cycle may
have an impact on projects scheduled to be advertised for construction.
Although the Board has already approved the County's Priority List of Road Improvements, staff is
including it in this report to show the changes requested. VDOT's accompanying Six-Year Secondary Road
Plan reflects the changes made by the Board to the County's Priority List and requires adoption by the
Board. This document accurately reflects the County's Six-Year Secondary Road Priority List, and staff
recommends that the Board adopt VDOT's Construction Program Estimated Allocations.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted VDOTs Secondary Road
==
Construction Program for Albemarle County for Fiscal Years 2002-2003/2007-2008 (Attachment B to
the Executive Summary on file in the Clerks Office).
==
__________
Item 5.5. Albemarle County Planning Commission - 2000 Annual Report, received as
information.
__________
Item 5.6. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for January 15, 2002, were received for
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2001-049. Thomas Harris (Sign #79). Public hearing on a request to
allow public garage/auto repair shop. Znd RA. TM08, P35A, contains one-half ac. Located at 6929
Markwood Rd one-half mi N of Davis Shop Rd. Znd RA. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on January 28 and February 4, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the request for this permit would allow a public garage to continue operating in
an existing building in the rear of a residence, with a three-bay garage that has been in operation since
1989. That garage and the operation thereof have been issued various notices of violation. The Board of
Zoning Appeals has held hearings, and there have been court hearings. With all of that, the applicant
agreed to submit an application for this special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant initially requested hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday, and also requested that the special use permit allow two employees. He said
the permit can abate the existing violations depending on the conditions attached thereto. If this permit is
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
approved, Mr. Harris has agreed to physically convert a rental unit on this parcel so it will no longer meet
the definition of a dwelling unit.
Mr. Cilimberg said this property is located in the designated Rural Areas. He said these types of
applications are usually considered under one of three types of purposes. For this permit, the purpose is
that of a basic support service to the rural area. The closest similar business is about seven miles away.
He said staff offered conditions of approval to mitigate negative impacts of this business on the rural area,
and on adjacent parcels. Staff did not recommend approval of the scale of operation that has existed on
the site, or the scale desired by the applicant. Staff recommended approval of a lesser operation with
appropriate conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said that initially the Planning Commission heard this request in December, 2001, but
continued the hearing to January 15, 2002, based on not being able to verify that all zoning violations had
been removed on the date of the initial hearing in December. Staff was requested to revisit the property,
and did so on January 7, 2002. They found that with the exceptions of the body repair and paint booth, and
excessive numbers of vehicles and trailers parked outside of the building, no zoning violations that would
not be addressed by compliance with the conditions of approval, along with approval of the special use
permit, would exist. The applicant stated he would have difficulty operating his business with no more than
five vehicles as staff had recommended, and objected to the elimination of the body repair and paint
functions. Both limitation on the number of vehicles permitted to be stored outside, and a condition
eliminating body and paint work, were consistent with other public garage applications in the rural area, and
would serve to limit the scale of the operation. Staff recommended approval with those conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said at the Planning Commissions meeting, and in consideration of those facts, as
=
well as the applicants needs, the Commission recommended approval of the special use permit with a set
=
of conditions different from those recommended by staff. They allowed a greater number of vehicles than
staff had recommended. They also allowed for the possibility of the body repair and paint functions
continuing as long as environmental concerns were addressed.
Mr. Cilimberg said that this week staff has worked to further clarify and improve the recommended
conditions. Those clarifications were sent to the Board members yesterday by Ms. Amelia McCulley,
Zoning Administrator. He said that none of the recommended changes are substantive, and they are
consistent with the Planning Commissions action. The revised language serves to state the conditions
=
more clearly and to establish time frames for making applications for approvals and permits in accordance
with the Commissions intent. A list of the 18 conditions was sent to the Board just yesterday, but late this
=
afternoon the County Attorney made a suggestion for additional language to the end of Condition No. 4 and
a new Condition No. 13. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked that the language to be added at the end of Condition No. 4 be read so she is
sure everyone is looking at the same material. Mr. Davis said the language is on a piece of paper handed
to the Board tonight. The purpose of this language is to put a due diligence date in for pursuing the final site
plan. The original conditions never required the applicant to actually file a final site plan. He said new
Condition No. 13 is a clarification of what was intended by the Planning Commission. It defines what
vehicles are associated with a public garage use, the number of vehicles and where they can be parked.
He said this condition will aid Zoning in enforcement of the condition if it is imposed. He has shown these
recommendations to the applicant's attorney and he can address them if he wishes.
With no further questions for staff at this time, the public hearing was opened, and the applicant
requested to speak.
Mr. Charles Haugh said he represents the applicant. He said Thomas Harris operates and has
operated a repair shop or garage on his property as a part-time job. His regular job is as a mechanic for
the Charlottesville Fire Department. Some time ago he started construction of an addition to the existing
building without obtaining a building permit. It was his idea to increase the size of the interior of his existing
building in order to have more work space. Before completing this addition, he was notified by the County
that he needed a building permit. At that time, he had completed the outside shell but had not incorporated
the addition into the regular building. The Harris then applied for and obtained a building permit for this
=
project. In accordance with local ordinance, the building inspectors came out and inspected the premises,
and determined that additional work would be required, more work than Mr. Harris had planned for this
project in both the new area and the old area. The building inspectors imposed many additional items to be
included in this project. Some of them were rather costly. For instance, he had to have a separate paint
room, use non-combustible lights throughout the building, and have a completely new exhaust system.
Mr. Haugh said after Mr. Harris had completed most of the work, including the work listed by the
inspectors, he was notified that the building permit had been issued in error. He was told to stop work and
obtain a special use permit for the project. Applying for a special use permit presented additional problems
for the Harrises. The most serious was getting permission to construct a commercial entrance, which was
necessary in order to get a special use permit. Both the County and VDOT officials were contacted to
determine what had to be done for the entrance, and who made the decisions on such matters. Time
elapsed, and finally VDOT agreed it was their responsibility. VDOT then determined that because of the
sight distances on this property, it would be necessary to get the speed limit reduced from 55 mph to 45
mph before a commercial entrance could be approved. Mr. Harris prepared a petition to change the speed
limit. He asked his neighbors to sign it so that he could present it to VDOT. He got a lot of signatures and
presented it to VDOT, and VDOT then reduced the speed limit. He said that with this most serious obstacle
solved, this application for a special use permit was filed.
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Haugh said at the hearing before the Planning Commission, they expressed objections to a
couple of the recommended conditions, and made suggestions for changes. They had two objections, one
having to do with the number of cars which could be on the site. The second had to do with the body repair
and paint work feature. They explained to the Commission that if someone brings in a wrecked car, they
want the mechanics of the car repaired, the body repaired and then painted.
Mr. Haugh said they reviewed the actions of the Planning Commission and they can live with all of
these conditions. The applicant has no objections to any of the recommendations. Since the Commission
meeting, there have been a couple of changes made, one to the provisions of Paragraph 8, and they have
no objection to that change which refers to painting. Mr. Haugh said one of the Commission members had
concerns about the wording of Paragraph 8, and whether Mr. Harris could continue to paint until someone
said it would hurt the environment, or whether he could not continue to paint until the DEQ said it would not
hurt the environment. He said that is expressed in Paragraph 8. His only question concerns the language
of new Paragraph 13. This languages defines the outside cars associated with the garage. He does not
object to the definition, but objects to the language vehicles associated with the public garage use include,
A
but are not limited to ..... He does not know what not limited to means. He objects to that language.
@A@
Mr. Haugh said they can live with all of these conditions. He asked that the Board grant the special
use permit with the conditions previously recommended by the Planning Commission and with the addition
of the late changes presented to them.
Ms. Thomas explained how the Board runs a public hearing, and then opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Jones said he lives in Stanardsville and uses Mr. Harris services often. He has a 60-mile
=
commute to work, and he has two vehicles Mr. Harris works on. He has been thinking since the last
meeting that if JRs shop had to close he would have to find another place to go, and he has no idea
A=@
where that would be. This site is really convenient. His main concern is an aunt who depends on him a lot,
and he takes her vehicle to J. R. Harris. He was at the shop about two weeks ago, and he wondered why
nobody at the last meeting brought up the fact that this shop is very far off the road and is not an eyesore to
anyone. The site is very neatly kept.
Mr. Glenn Branham and he and his mother own 30 acres across from Mr. Harris's shop. This
property has been in his family for over 80 years. Mr. Harris's shop is a tremendous asset to the
community. He supports the request for the special use permit. He would like to say that they have never
had a problem with noise, smell or trash or anything. Mr. Harris has been an asset to him and his mother.
The facility is not an eyesore. It is well kept. He asked that the Board approve the request.
Mr. Fred J. Borrelli said he has known Mr. Harris for almost 11 years. He lives about two miles
from the shop. He has four families living on his property, all family members. He read from The
A
Observer saying Mr. Harris is providing a needed service for his community. ... Approving the permit
@A
would not negatively impact the neighborhood or the community. ... We urge the supervisors to approve
the permit and keep Thomas Harris in business. Mr. Borrelli said the location is never an eyesore. If
@
someone wants to see an eyesore of cars just drive up and down Route 29 between here and Culpeper.
He strongly supports Mr. Harris and hopes the Board will approve his request.
Mr. Scott Borrelli said he lives close by. He uses Mr. Harris's service extensively. His wife delivers
the mail, and with over 700 stops a day, it wears on a vehicle. If she comes home at 7:00 p.m. and there is
something wrong with the vehicle, Mr. Harris will take it right in because he knows she has to be ready for
work the next day. He said Mr. Harris has been a real asset to his family.
Mr. Wayne Davis said he has been going to JRs for quite a number of years. He said JR has done
=
a lot for the community that a lot of people would not understand. He explained the circumstances in which
Mr. Harris had helped his daughter after her car was involved in an accident, and the insurance check did
not arrive timely. He said Mr. Harris will help anybody he can. He has helped him a lot. He asked that the
Board grant the permit.
Mr. Rick Morris said he is an adjoining landowner. He supports him in his efforts to get approval for
this site. He said Mr. Harris has been a very good neighbor. He protects a lot of the older people from the
real world because as the owner/operator his expense and overhead are not quite as high, so he is able to
work with some of the people who do not realize what it costs to get cars repaired. Mr. Morris said about
two miles away there was another public garage which closed a couple of years ago when the owner
passed away. This is just replacing something that was already there, this is not adding to anything. He
said JR always keeps the site nice and neat so he has no problem with the way things look across the road
from his house. He supports Mr. Harris in his request for this garage.
Mr. Donnie Rea said he has known the Harris family for almost 30 years. He said the residents of
Northern Albemarle and Greene County depend on JR to keep their vehicles in operation. His wife has
been a member of the rescue squad for over 20 years, and his son has worked with the Stony Point Fire
Department since he was 15 years old, and is now a professional firefighter in the City. He said there has
been many a volunteer who had car trouble and if it was not for JR, they might not have been able to get to
the rescue squad or to the fire department. He urged the Board to support JR in approving this permit.
Mr. Bruce Morris said he was present to stand for JR Harris because of his work and the many
times he has helped him out. Whenever he had a need, he was able to go to JR. This past Saturday he
was at JRs, and JR came across a major problem while looking at his car. As they were fixing it, a wrecker
=
came in and dropped off another car. He said there are many variables with a business, and he mentioned
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
this to show what can happen quickly. JR has no control over what comes in. Mr. Harris is honest and
dependable. He allowed Mr. Morris to work on his own vehicle using Mr. Harris tools. He does not know
=
where you can go anywhere else and get that kind of help. He asked that the Board grant the permit.
Mr. Joel Snow said he owns Snows Store in Dyke, Virginia. He knows Mr. Harris is an honorable
=
businessman. Dyke is the community where Mr. Harris lives and works in his shop. This community has
depended on Mr. Harris for many years. The few parking spaces recommended by the Planning
Commission are inadequate. Mr. Harris personally owns a half dozen vehicles. Customers frequently drop
off vehicles for repairs. Some vehicles may be stored on the property for a long period of time due to hard-
to-get parts or because of a labor-intensive on-going paint and body procedure. It is quite common that as
many as two mechanics, and six customers, along with their vehicles may be present at the Harris garage.
=
The garage is also a good gathering place to talk and see neighbors. He has never seen any evidence to
lead him to believe that Mr. Harris is creating a junkyard or had any permanent inoperable vehicles.
Limiting the parking to a small amount will greatly impede Mr. Harris business. With people coming and
=
going whenever they want, Mr. Harris has no control as to how many vehicles may be on his property at any
given time. With the recommended screening, no one from Markwood Road will be able to tell how many
vehicles are parked at the garage. He said that parking up to 50 vehicles would not overburden the
property, and would serve Mr. Harris adequately. He asked that the Board increase the number of parking
spaces. Mr. Snow said that after Mr. Harris was contacted by the building inspectors office in the mid-90's,
=
many improvements to the paint and body area of the garage were required. Mr. Harris spent a great deal
of money making improvements and was given a certificate of occupancy. The paint and body work
accounts for a great deal of Mr. Harris income at the garage. Not allowing him to have this service would
=
create a hardship for Mr. Harris and the surrounding community. He said the Planning Commission made
many restrictive measures. The Supervisors have the ability to approve this special use application in a
manner that will not be too restrictive for Mr. Harris, and will allow him to continue to run a profitable and
successful business. He asks the Board to treat Mr. Harris favorably.
Mr. Edwin Deane said he supports the garage. He was going to read from The Observer, but Mr.
Borrelli did so first. He said the headline read The community is better served by allowing Thomas Harris
A
to keep his business. Mr. Deane said he has used the garage extensively over the last 12 years. He has
@
always been treated with respect. He agrees with the article which said he is honorable, generous,
A
talented, caring, professional. Mr. Deane said he found this to be true. Also, he is the best mechanic he
@
had to work on his car. He thinks the County is blessed by him being there. He asked that the Board
approve the permit.
Mr. Ronnie Morris said he lives in Albemarle near Browns Cove. He has knows JR Harris for a long
time, and he will make house calls. He (Mr. Morris) has a farming operation on the side, and he had a
tractor problem, and he called Mr. Harris who came to his property to help fix the problem. He wants to see
his business prosper and this permit be approved by the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board has gotten the message from the speakers. She said if
there is no one else who wishes to speak, people in the audience who are present in support of the petition
may indicate that support by raising their hands. There were about 40 people present who indicated
support. Ms. Thomas then closed the public hearing. She told Mr. Haugh that he might make more
comments if he wished to.
Mr. Haugh said he will not take up more of the Boards time. He thinks the Board has heard their
=
position. They are comfortable with the conditions, feeling he can still maintain his part-time employment.
Ms. Thomas said she went out to the site yesterday.
Mr. Perkins said if there is no further discussion, he would move approval of SP-2001-049, subject
to the recommended conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the staff, counsel and the Planning Commission did their homework
A@
on this petition, so the Board was able to deal with it directly.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The public garage use is limited to repairing and equipping vehicles unless
Condition 8 is satisfied and body work and vehicle painting is permitted. In that
case, repairing and equipping vehicles shall be the primary uses, and body work
and vehicle painting shall be conducted only as accessory uses;
2. The permittee shall post and maintain a bond or other form of security, subject to
the approval of the County Attorney, in the amount of ten thousand dollars
($10,000) to address any violation of the uniform building, electrical, fire
prevention or plumbing codes or the Zoning Ordinance on the property. The
County, including its officers, employees and agents, shall have the authority to
enter the property and abate or remove the violation(s) after thirty (30) days
following the issuance date of a written Notice of Violation, using funds from the
security to pay for the cost of abatement;
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
3. Within three (3) months following approval of this special use permit, the
permittee shall apply for a commercial entrance that meets Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) specifications, including all specifications for sight
distance. In order to satisfy the specifications for sight distance, VDOT may
require a sight easement on the adjacent property to the north to accommodate
the relocation of the driveway on the subject property. The commercial entrance
shall be completed to the satisfaction of VDOT within three (3) months following
approval of the site plan or site plan waiver;
4. Within one (1) month following approval of this special use permit, the permittee
shall submit to the County either a site plan or an application for a site plan
waiver and shall obtain preliminary site plan approval or approval of a site plan
waiver. If a preliminary site plan is approved, within one (1) month of that
approval the permittee shall submit for approval the final site plan. If a final site
plan is not approved within six (6) months after the date the preliminary site plan
was approved, the public garage use shall cease until a final site plan is
approved;
5. Within three (3) months following approval of this special use permit, the
permittee shall apply for approval from the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) for storing oil, radiator fluid and other chemicals associated with
the public garage. Storage shall conform to all requirements of DEQ. The
chemicals shall be stored under a shelter with overhead coverage;
6. Within three (3) months following approval of this special use permit, the
permittee shall obtain written approval from the County Department of Fire and
Rescue of a means to contain accidental or incidental spills from storage drums
or containers and a spill containment system;
7. Within three (3) months following approval of this special use permit, the
permittee shall either remove or demolish one of the dwelling units on the
property, or convert it so that it is no longer a dwelling unit within the meaning of
the Zoning Ordinance, as determined by the Zoning Administrator;
8. Within one (1) month following approval of this special use permit, the permittee
shall submit to the DEQ a Form 7 application for an air permitting determination
for the paint operation. The permittee shall comply with all rules and regulations
imposed by DEQ. If a Form 7 application is not submitted or if the permittee fails
to comply with all rules and regulations imposed by DEQ, body work and spray
painting vehicles is prohibited;
9. Gasoline sales are prohibited;
10. The sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment is prohibited;
11. All repairing or equipping of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage,
with the exception of vehicles being repaired on the vehicle lift located adjacent
to the garage;
12. The outdoor storage of parts, equipment, machinery and junk is prohibited;
13. No more than a total of ten (10) vehicles associated with the public garage use
shall be located outside any enclosed structure. All vehicles associated with the
public garage use shall be parked only in the gravel parking area shown on the
plan titled "SP 01-49 Harris Garage Concept Plan," which is made a part of these
conditions. "Vehicles associated with the public garage use" include, but are not
limited to, the vehicles of the public garage customers; and the vehicles of the
owner or occupant of the property, or any other person, that: (a) are inoperable
vehicles within the meaning of Section 3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; (b) are being
or will be repaired, equipped, restored, refurbished, or painted; (c) are having or
will have body work performed on them; or (d) are having or will have their parts
or equipment removed, to be used in the repair or equipping of other vehicles or
to be sold;
14. Within three (3) months following approval of this special use permit, the
permittee shall obtain written Fire Official approval of the garage operation;
15. Within three (3) months following the approval of this special use permit, the
permittee shall apply for Health Department approval of the septic system. The
septic system shall comply with Health Department requirements;
16. Within three (3) months following approval of this special use permit, the
permittee shall obtain written Engineering Department approval of the waste
disposal and collection methods;
17. The hours of operation shall be between 8 A.M. and 8 P.M., Monday through
Saturday. These hours of operation do not prohibit customers from dropping off
vehicles before 8 A.M. on the days of operation; and
18. Within three (3) months following approval of the site plan or site plan waiver, the
permittee shall install and thereafter maintain a minimum twenty (20)-foot deep
landscape evergreen-screening buffer to shield the view of the garage from
adjacent properties and Markwood Road. The screening buffer shall be located
in the approximate area labeled "gravel parking," and between the building and
the street, as shown on the "SP 01-49 Harris Garage Concept Plan." The
spacing and materials used in the landscape buffer shall be approved by the
Planning Director. The permittee shall also submit a landscape plan with the site
plan application.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2001-054. B.C. Spencer Enterprises (Sign #97). Public hearing on a
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
request to allow Home Occupation-Class B (firearms business). TM104, P22, contains 10.0 acs. Loc on Rt
620 approx 0.4 mi from intersec of Rt 620 & Rt 728. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on January 28 and February 4, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request is for a special use permit to allow a shop in an accessory building
used to construct custom firearms. The applicant, in 1980, received administrative approval of a permit for
a Home Occupation-Class A on condition that it be renewed yearly, In 1987, he applied for another home
occupation permit, which was approved with the condition that he not conduct retail sales or store
ammunition. In 1990, he applied for a building permit for an accessory building to be used as a workshop
and garage. He should have been required to obtain a Class B permit before moving the use into this
accessory structure. The applicant has stated that County staff did not notify him of the need for a Class B
permit, and he continued the use in unwitting violation of Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Recently, during the process of obtaining a building permit for an addition to the accessory building (for
storage not related to the home occupation), the applicant was informed that he must obtain a new special
use permit. The current permit application is intended to bring this existing use into conformity with the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the use meets all the standards in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance for
a Home Occupation-Class B, and this is an existing and long-standing use. The one unfavorable aspect is
that this use was moved into an accessory structure without approval and has been operating in violation of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 15, 2002, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-2001-054 with no conditions since the Home Occupation regulations in the
Zoning Ordinance will cover the permit.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Clay Spencer said he is the applicant. He was not notified when he built the building in 1990.
When he went to get another building permit, that is when this came up. Everything has been checked, and
everything is okay. He did not know he had to have the permit.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Spencer has the privilege of being one of the best professionals in his field
dealing with rifles, and boring of rifles. He is nationally recognized as an expert in his field. Mr. Dorrier
commended Mr. Spencer for his work.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2001-054. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA 2001-014. Civil Penalties. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend
'
37.2, Civil penalty, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, to add any violation of Zoning Ord
31.2.1, 31.2.2 or 31.2.3, which regulate use & occupancy when building permits, certificates of
''
occupancy, & zoning compliance clearances are required, respectively, to the schedule of violations subject
to civil penalties; & to make non-substantive corrections to certain Zoning Ord section numbers
cross-referenced. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 28 and
February 4, 2002.)
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, was present to make the presentation. She said this
proposal is to include as civil penalties, zoning violations involving construction without a building permit or
occupying a structure without a certificate of occupancy or a zoning compliance clearance. She said that in
June, 2000 the Board adopted an ordinance which provides for the imposition of civil penalties for certain
zoning violations. Prior to that time, zoning enforcement was done entirely through the courts in a criminal
procedure. The use of civil penalties has proven to be a more expedient means for penalty and compliance
with common zoning violations. While violations such as use or setback violations could be resolved
through civil penalties, the zoning violations relating to building and occupying without the proper permits
remain as criminal violations. This proposed amendment will allow most common cases to follow the civil
procedures. Less staff time is required on the average for an individual civil violation compared to a
criminal zoning violation. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance as advertised.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an Ordinance to amend
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article V, Violation and Penalty, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, by amending
Section 37.2, Civil Penalty.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the recorded vote which follows:
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-18(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE V, VIOLATION AND
PENALTY, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article V, Violation and Penalty, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle is amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 37.2 Civil penalty.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article V. Violation and Penalty
Sec. 37.2 Civil penalty.
Any person, whether owner, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates
any provision of this chapter, or permits any such violation, or fails to comply with any of
the requirements hereof, or who erects any building or structure or uses any building,
structure or land in violation of this chapter or any site plan or other detailed statement or
plan submitted by him and approved under the provisions of this chapter, shall be subject
to the following:
A.
Schedule of violations subject to one hundred dollar ($100.00) civil penalty for
. Any violation of the following provisions of this chapter shall be
first violation
subject to a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation,
and a civil penalty of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for each subsequent
violation arising from the same set of operative facts:
1. Each use of a lot, including the use of any structure thereon, not
authorized either as a matter of right or by special use permit by the
zoning regulations applicable to the district in which the lot is located, in
violation of, as applicable, sections and subsections 10.2, 12.2, 13.2,
14.2, 15.2, 16.2, 17.2, 18.2, 19.3, 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, 21.2, 22.2, 23.2,
24.2, 25.2, 25A.2, 26.3, 27.2, 28.2, 29.2, 30.2.4, 30.3.05, 30.3.06,
30.4.02, 30.5.5 or 30.6.3.
2. The location of a structure or improvement in an area other than a
building site, in violation of subsection 4.2.3.1.
3. The location of a structure or improvement or engaging in land disturbing
activity on slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater, in violation of
subsection 4.2.3.2.
4. The cutting of trees in violation of section 4.3.
5. The placement, allowance of, erection or maintenance of a material
impediment to visibility so as to restrict sight distance in violation of section
4.4.
6. Any violation of section 4.10, which regulates the height of buildings and
other structures, except as provided in subsection (B)(1).
7. Any violation of section 4.12, which regulates off-street parking.
8. Any violation of section 4.15, which regulates permanent and temporary
signs, except as provided in subsection (F).
9. Any violation of section 4.17, which regulates outdoor lighting.
10. Any violation of section 5, which establishes supplementary regulations
for certain uses authorized in the several zoning districts. (Amended
2-13-02)
11. Any violation of sections 31.2.1, 31.2.2 or 31.2.3, which regulate use and
occupancy when building permits, certificates of occupancy, and zoning
compliance clearances are required, respectively. (Added 2-13-02)
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
12. Any violation of section 32, which regulates site plans and development
pursuant thereto. (Amended 2-13-02)
13. Any violation of a proffer, or a planned development application plan,
special use permit, variance, site plan, certificate of appropriateness or
any condition related thereto. (Amended 2-13-02)
B.
Schedule of violations subject to fifty dollar ($50.00) civil penalty for first
Any violation of the following provisions of this chapter shall be
violation.
subject to a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first violation, and a civil
penalty of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for each subsequent violation
arising from the same set of operative facts:
1. The construction, erection or location of an accessory building in a
residential district in violation of subsection 4.10.3.4.
2. Any violation of section 4.11, which regulates uses and structures
permitted in required yards.
3. The use of a major recreational vehicle in violation of subsection 4.13.1.2.
4. The parking of a truck with a gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand
(12,000) pounds or more or a dual-wheeled recreational vehicle in a
residential district in violation of subsection 4.13.3. Each such truck or
dual-wheeled recreational vehicle parked in a residential district in
violation of subsection 4.13.3 shall constitute a separation violation.
5. Any violation of section 4.18, which regulates noise.
6. The failure to maintain or replace recreational equipment in violation of
subsection 4.16.3.2.
7. Any violation of section 6, which regulates nonconformities. (Amended
2-13-02)
C. Each day during which a violation is found to exist shall be a separate offense.
However, the same scheduled violation arising from the same operative set of
facts may be charged not more than once in a ten (10) day period, and the total
civil penalties from a series of such violations arising from the same set of
operative facts shall not exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000).
D. Any person summoned for a scheduled violation may elect to pay the civil
penalty by making an appearance in person or in writing by mail to the
department of finance prior to the date fixed for trial in court. A person so
appearing may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability, and pay the civil penalty
established for the offense charged. A signature to an admission of liability
shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of court. However, such an
admission shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose. If a
person charged with a violation does not elect to enter a waiver of trial and
admit liability, the violation shall be tried in the general district court in the same
manner and with the same right of appeal as provided by law. A finding of
liability shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose.
E. The designation of a particular violation in section 37.2(A) or (B) shall be in lieu
of any criminal penalty and, except for any violation resulting in injury to
persons, such a designation shall preclude the prosecution of the particular
violation as a criminal misdemeanor, but shall not preclude any other remedy
available under this chapter.
F. The designation of a particular violation in section 37.2(A) or (B) shall not be
construed to allow the imposition of civil penalties: (i) for activities related to
land development within the meaning of Virginia Code 10.1-603.2; or (ii) for
'
violation of any provision of the zoning ordinance relating to the posting of signs
on public property or public rights-of-way.
G. Any reference herein to a section of this chapter shall include all subsections
and paragraphs of that section.
(Ord. 00-18(5), 6-14-00; Ord. 02-18(3), 2-13-02)
State law reference - Va. Code 15.2-2209.
''
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Legislative Update.
Ms. Thomas said Ms. Lori Spencer has been working on legislation. Usually the County gets a
request from David Blount, or the ACIR, asking the impact of a particular legislative item. Ms. Spencer has
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
to organize an answer quickly, and often it is Mr. Davis and other staff members who help with the answers.
Albemarle is known as a county which responds to requests for impact statements. The more rural
counties do not have the means to do so. Other counties do not have the interest, so she appreciates the
effort staff puts into this.
Ms. Spencer, Executive Assistant, said the Board met with legislators on December 10, 2001, to
express the Countys interest in legislative items for the 2002 Session of the General Assembly. Staff
=
monitors bills as they go forward through the process. Staff works closely with the Countys Legislative
=
Liaison, David Blount. Staff also does some other things, and she will give a brief update on those things,
and explain what staff has been monitoring in relationship to the State Budget. Also, Mr. Davis will mention
some specific bills.
Ms. Spencer said David Blount is in Richmond and he monitors everything that is going on, and
alerts staff to anything going on which it has not been aware of. In addition, staff sends information to the
local legislators. Sometimes staff goes to Richmond. Ms. Roxanne White went to Richmond with people
from other agencies in this region to talk directly with legislators about the Comprehensive Services Act
(CSA) funding problem.
Ms. Spencer said staff also works with the Commission on Local Government. They ask for the
fiscal impact of certain bills. That is where a lot of staff members get involved. A decision must be made
quickly as to the fiscal impact of a bill, submit that information, and then they compile that information from
lots of different localities to use that information against bills that are damaging financially to localities.
Ms. Spencer said a lot of local agencies think the Charlottesville/Albemarle community could lose
over $2.271 million in funds for services to the most troubled and needy children in the region. Staff has
been looking at Governor Warners amended budget, and there are potential impacts of $1.8 million to
=
Albemarles General Government budget and School Board budget. That is a significant impact to local
=
government budget. Staff is monitoring that, and taking revenue projections into account while putting
together the local budget for FY 2003.
>
Ms. Spencer said Mr. Davis looks at the details of a bill, and the reason a bill is proposed. He finds
details that can be damaging, and when he finds those things he alerts David Blount and others who work
behind the scenes. She asked Mr. Davis to talk about some of the bills.
Mr. Davis said the number of bills proposed is staggering. There have been 2710 bills and
resolutions introduced. Of those, 1090 passed from the House to the Senate yesterday, 789 passed from
the Senate to the House, so there are more than 1800 bills which are still alive and need to be monitored
for the rest of the Session. The staff does a good job of monitoring those bills which affect Albemarle
County. An example of one which Albemarle caught related to the sales tax. In Albemarle there is a meals
tax, and in the meals tax legislation, the total amount of the meals tax is limited to eight and one-half
percent when it is added to the general and local sales tax. The general and local sales tax is four and
one-half cents and the local meals tax is four cents. The sales tax bills did not change that cap so if the
sales tax had been increased statewide, Albemarle would have had to lower its meals tax and that would
have caused a significant local revenue loss. That flaw was discovered by staff who was successful in
having an amendment added to that bill to protect counties like Albemarle.
Mr. Davis said when the Board met with the legislators last December, there were five specific
requests that Albemarle was interested in advancing. One was the photo-red legislation. He said none of
the House bills survived that permitted photo-red for Albemarle County. He said S.B. 41 is still alive and it
includes Albemarle County. However, it has been placed into an unfavorable House committee which
previously killed such a bill. The sponsor is not optimistic that the bill will survive.
Mr. Davis said another bill introduced on behalf of Albemarle is the affordable housing ordinance
bill. That bill has passed out of the Senate in a 40:0 vote and appears to face little or no opposition on the
House side. The other three requests discussed in December had to do with VDOT road standards, a
scenic areas bill and a budget amendment regarding Social Services. Bills were not introduced in those
areas. He said groundwork is being done to introduce those issues, probably next year.
Mr. Davis said there were a large number of bills monitored in the land use area. There are two
bills which have passed out of the House which are of concern to many local governments. One is a notice
bill that is proposed to require personal mail notice to every parcel owner in a district which is affected by a
zoning text amendment which reduced density. That means that if there is ever a down zoning proposed,
that would require notice to every parcel owner. Now that is not required in a text amendment, only in a
map amendment. In localities like Loudoun, which have gone through down zonings, it would cost
hundreds of thousands of dollars to mail these notices for the various hearings. Staff feels that these types
of amendments are widely known and do not require that type of notice to get the public out to speak. This
is viewed as an attempt to try to discourage government from having these types of down zonings by
making it more difficult. It is being opposed by most localities.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is possible that things the Board would not regard as a down zoning could
still affect density, and trigger this requirement. Mr. Davis said yes. Mr. Tucker said he understood that
A@
bill had died. Mr. Cilimberg said it was modified. Mr. Davis said it was modified to make it better, but it is
still alive. The other bill being followed by staff is a cluster bill which has passed and it mandates that any
cluster zoning be by right and be approved administratively by staff. As it currently exists, this bill would
have a significant impact on existing zoning regulations for rural preservation districts in the rural areas.
Now, the County has a provision for by-right approval for clusters in the rural areas up to 20 lots, but over
20 lots requires a special use permit. This bill would require the County to amend that process
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
substantially. The Planning Commission could no longer approve the clusters of 20 lots or less, it would
have to be done by staff. A special use permit would not be permitted for clusters of greater than 20. This
bill has gone through many different stages, but it appears it is moving forward with a lot of momentum. It
passed out of the House with a 96:4 vote.
Mr. Martin said he thought as the Board reviewed new rules for the Rural Areas, it might move
more in that direction. Ms. Thomas said the problem is not when this is allowed by right, which is what is
done up to 20 lots. The Board distinguishes what can be done by right, but this bill would say that
everything has to be done like that. Albemarles ordinance says that when the development is over 20 lots,
=
the developer gets into a situation where the rural character may be changed, so the Board and Planning
Commission should be able to look at that proposal, and the public be allowed to comment. It cuts off a
level of discussion.
Mr. Bowerman asked what affect that would have on clustering provisions in the watershed for
additional lots. Mr. Cilimberg said the County no longer has that provision in the ordinance.
Mr. Davis said he went through the bills today trying to identify other bills that are favorable to local
governments, and he did not find any. This has not been a Session which is friendly to local government.
There are a number of unfavorable bills related to land use. Mr. Greg Kamptner and some of the planners
went to Richmond and spoke to a committee about seven or more bills, and fortunately, most of those bills
did not pass. However, there are some really bad land use bills, in addition to the ones discussed today.
There were some bad procurement bills, some bad taxation bills, and some bad condemnation bills that did
not survive after a lot of work by local government people monitoring those bills.
Mr. Davis said there are two additional bills which are important to Albemarle. There is one sales
tax bill which is still alive, S.B. 170, which proposes a one cent increase in the sales tax. One-half cent
would be used by the State for transportation issues. The other one-half cent would be used to fund local
government capital costs for schools. The funding formula for that one-half cent going to local
governments would be based on the percentage of school-aged population children, and the other one-half
would be based on point of origin. That would be a favorable bill for Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this would be by referendum. Mr. Davis said it is proposed to be a
referendum this coming November, and the tax would not be effective until the following July. Mr.
Bowerman asked if it is a state referendum, not a local referendum. Mr. Davis said that is correct. He has
heard various opinions as to whether this bill will advance. There are two other bills which are still alive.
There is a Senate bill and a House bill dealing with motor registration fees. The House bill would dedicate
the money to fire and rescue. The Senate bill would dedicate the money to the terrorism fund the Governor
has requested. It is unlikely that both bills will pass. If both bills passed, it would increase the motor vehicle
registration fee by $4.00. He understands the Senate is not willing to do that. The positive impact on local
government is that it would give some flexibility in raising the local decal fee, if the locality chose to do so.
Mr. Rooker asked how the fire and rescue money would come back to the locality. Mr. Davis said
the money would come back based on the same formula as that used at the present time. He is not sure of
that formula. It is a significant revenue source.
Mr. Martin asked if the localities would be helped by the terrorism part. Mr. Tucker said that money
would primarily be for use by the State.
Mr. Rooker said there have been several pieces of Federal legislation proposed for additional funds
for fire and rescue. It is classified under anti-terrorism bills. Each time he has read a summary of those
bills, it mentions money going back to the states and localities. He asked if staff has looked at any of that
legislation to see if money might filter down to local fire and rescue and police. Mr. Tucker said he has not
seen those articles. Staff does know that the County will get a reduction in 599 Funds for the Police
Department.
Mr. Rooker said some of those bills are in the multi-billions of dollars, so the money is going
somewhere. Mr. Davis said he thinks they are establishing some grant type programs where the locality
would have to apply for the funds. He knows the fire department is looking at what moneys may be
available.
Ms. Thomas said in terms of grants, she forwarded to the legislators this afternoon, the information
received from the Office on Children and Youth about the impact of the Governors proposed budget on
=
childrens programs. She said Delegate Landess, who serves on the House Appropriations Sub-committee
=
on Health and Human Resources, said he thinks there will be even more cuts than those identified by
Albemarle. She read from a memo from David Blount where he said, he (Landess) anticipates that some
A
of the various pots of prevention type money will be lumped together and then local, regional programs
would have to apply for grants. He felt like some of these programs in his district, Charlottesville,
Albemarle, Staunton, Augusta, Waynesboro, would fare okay that way because they have strong existing
programs and would have very competitive grant applications. She said that is bad news, but is a small ray
@
of hope for well-organized groups.
Mr. Martin said when talking about the funds used to fund human service needs, especially juvenile
delinquency and education, a lot of it is driven by State mandates. If those State mandates were changed
slightly, each localitys need for finances would be reduced by hundreds of thousands of dollars,
=
particularly in relation to special education students. If the identification process changed slightly, there
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
would be ten fewer students in each school. That would amount to a great deal of money in each locality,
each year. If these cuts continue, next year there will need to be some change in wording to some of the
mandates.
Ms. Thomas said she wanted to mention the bill having to do with the State Corporation
Commission (SCC) in electric-generating facility decisions. She said that recently the Board got a copy of
Mark Grahams (Albemarles County Engineer) memo about what he found in relation to the cumulative
==
effects of power plants going right on Albemarles borders. She said the SCC did what it is supposed to do
=
which is to look at the cumulative impact, and this so alarmed the industry that they quickly got Legislators
to propose to remove the SCC from having any role in these decisions. That breaks a promise that was
made when the State went to deregulating electrical power supplies. One reason why deregulation went
through easily was the promise that the SCC would continue to have a role in those decisions. It is a major
break of a promise to a lot of different organizations that went along with deregulation. That has not
bothered hardly anyone in the General Assembly, and the bill is moving right along.
Mr. Rooker said part of that idea was that the DEQ would be the only agency that would look at
environmental impacts and they only looked at each application on an isolated basis.
Mr. Bowerman said it is too bad that local government cant form PACs and give money so it has
==
equal footing with special interest groups.
Ms. Thomas said there might be one useful bill. It is called Rural Rustic Roads. Some legislator
looked at VDOTs Pave-in-Place policy and said it was basically useless, and came up with a new definition
=
called rural rustic roads. This might actually turn out to be useful for Albemarle.
A@
Mr. Dorrier asked the future of the TransDominion Express. Mr. Martin said it is not good. Mr.
Dorrier asked if it is still before the General Assembly. Mr. Tucker said yes. He does not know its status.
A@
Ms. Thomas said Ms. Meredith Richards works on that, and she was feeling fairly optimistic. She
said they are taking some legislators to Seattle and Portland, Washington. They will travel on its prototype
there.
Ms. Thomas said she wanted to mention VDOTs road standards. They have promised to do a
=
study of their road standards this year. It is hoped that they will actually do that, because the County needs
a change in order to put DISC into effect. There is also a bill requiring that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board develop a pedestrian policy. The MPO just had a public hearing where a lot of people
spoke about the lack of pedestrian facilities. If there is a pedestrian project, the locality has to pay 50
percent of that cost. If there is a roadway project, the locality pays only about three percent.
Mr. Bowerman asked if anyone knows how administration (Governors Office) feels about any of
=
these bills, in terms of possible vetoes. Mr. Spencer said she had not heard anything. Mr. Davis said he
does not think the Governor has publicly expressed that he will veto any bill that has been advanced.
Mr. Martin said in the way of mandates, one thing that would save millions of dollars each year
would be to reduce the mandatory age for school attendance from 18 to 17. He said that in Albemarle and
Charlottesville, there are probably 50 students who are 17 years old who do not want to be in school, the
school does not want them there, and the County is paying thousands of dollars each month to place them
in special schools. There are a lot of kids who should not be in school. Ms. Thomas said this idea might be
included in the legislative package next year.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff needed any guidance from the Board as to legislative items. Ms.
Spencer said she is currently working on a draft letter on the budget impact which will be sent to the
legislators mentioning what the impact will be on Albemarle County and county schools.
Mr. Tucker said this next weekend is when the House and Senate budgets will be completed. Mr.
Davis said the amendments to the Governor's budget will be announced this weekend, so this is an
important weekend to know what the impacts really are to the local government budget.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: August 8, September 27(A), October 3, December 5
and December 10(A), 2001.
Mr. Martin said he had read the minutes of December 5, 2001, and found them to be in order.
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, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier announced that he will not be present for the meeting on February 20, as he is having
knee replacement surgery. He will be back at Board meetings as soon as he is able.
__________
February 13, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Martin said he would like to mention Item 5.4 on the Consent Agenda. Route 736, White
Mountain Road, was moved up on the priority list to No. 72. Staff was to include a statement on the priority
list to clarify the inclusion of the requested section. He could not find that clarification. Mr. Tucker said he
will be sure that statement is included before he signs the priority list for VDOT.
Mr. Martin said he would like to know where the project had appeared on the list previously. If it
was not on that list at all, and then it comes in as No. 72, he would like to see some kind of rationale for its
inclusion. He does not like the concept of the Board at a public hearing making a snap decision to put
something on the priority list just because someone is in the audience that night. He thinks that sets a
dangerous precedent.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it was already on the list. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Mr. Perkins said No.
72 is so far down the list, there is no possibility that it will happen in the foreseeable future. Mr. Martin said
when his constituents call, he likes to be able to tell them how they can get a road paved, and then stick
with that accepted procedure. He does not want to set up a situation where the Board members are all
competing with each other to get constituent requests moved up on the list.
Ms. Thomas agreed. She thought the road was already on the list at No. 72, but looking at the
map, people thought it was a different section of White Mountain Road than the section people in the
audience were talking about. Staff then put in a parenthesis which was supposed to be the clarification of
the actual section. It does not really clarify which section of White Mountain Road is the proposed project.
Mr. Rooker said he believes Mr. Martins question is how the project got on the list. Mr. Perkins said
=
the section is listed as Route 636 to the dead-end. Mr. Martin said if the intention was that the project was
to also include this other section, that is one thing, but if the Board added a section just because someone
in the audience made the request that night, he thinks that will cause a lot of headaches in the future.
Mr. Rooker said he had the impression that was the intention all along. Mr. Martin said when the
Board left the meeting, it was not sure. If that was the case, that is fine. But, if the Board extended the
scope of the project, he thinks that will cause the Board problems in the future.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he noticed that the minutes of August 8 and December 10 (A), 2001, were still
listed for approval, and he thought the Board had voted on those minutes. He has read those minutes. Ms.
Carey said she would check on this question. (Note: The minutes were approved by Mr. Dorrier on
February 6, 2002.)
__________
Mr. Perkins said he got his Environmental Impact Statement today on the Route 29 Western
Bypass. Ms. Thomas asked if it came by mail. Mr. Perkins said he believes it was sent by special delivery.
Mr. Tucker said VDOT indicated all Board members would receive a copy, while staff only received two
copies. Staff is asking VDOT to put copies in the libraries, and send more copies for staff.
__________
Mr. Perkins said he and Mr. Tucker have been working with the railroad in trying to keep the rail
crossing in Crozet open so it might be used as an emergency crossing in case there would be blockage
under the railroad underpass. VDOT has proposed that the two crossings be closed. One is a private
crossing, and the landowner has said he has a 150 year old deeded right-of-way because his family owned
property there before the railroad. First, he talked with someone in Jacksonville, Florida, and now with
someone in Richmond. He has talked with Mark Spicer about meeting with the railroad people to either
gate that crossing and have it only for emergency use, or sign it. It is critical that it be kept for an
emergency closing. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Perkins has been helpful because staff was not sure how to deal
with the problem.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 03/20/2002
Initials: EWC