HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-05 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of June 5, 2002
June 20, 2002
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
1. Call to order,
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. John Martin spoke about the importance of
protecting the County's water supply.
5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation.
Ms. Thomas presented a certificate of appreciation to Mr. James
Eddins in recognition Of his years of service on the Historic
Preservation Committee.
6.1. Approval of minutes.
APPROVED as written: 2/20 (pgs 21-23), 3/20, 2/6 (pgs 27
#12-end), and 3/6 (pgs 1-16 thru #10)
6.2. Extension of Street Light Agreement with American Electric
Power (AEP), formerly Appalachian Electric Power Company.
AUTHORIZED County Exec to s'~n letter (Attachment A).
6.3. Adopt Resolution of Appropr'~3tions for FY 2002/2003 Budget
and Resolution of Off'~ial Intent for use of VPSA Bond
Proceeds (Attachment B). ADOPTED.
6.4. CPA-202-01. Neighborhood Model Amendments to the Land
Use Plan (continued from 511/02). DEFERRED until 7~3~02.
6.5. Resolution (Attachment C) to accept responsibility for
maintenance of "auxiliary sidewalks" and authorize County
Executive to execute auxiliary sidewalk agreements
(Attachment D) on behalf of County. ADOPTED and
AUTHORIZED CE to sign agreements.
6.6. Funding for Southern Urban Area "B" Study. APPROVED.
(Note: Ms. Thomas noted that E2 should say "...public and
private...".)
6.7. Support of The Appalachian Trail Work Camp.
6.12. Intemet Access to Real Estate Records. DISCUSSION.
7.a. Discussion: Closing of passing lane on Route 250 West.
DISCUSSION.
7.b. Discussion: Revised Six Year Secondary Road Improvement
Plan. DISCUSSION.
7.c. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda:
Mr. Bryan distributed a handout showing the change in
advertising dates due to utilities work that must be done. He
added that the City's plan is moving forward well.
Mr~ Perk!ns gave Mr. Bryan a letter from a citizen named
ASSIGNMENT
Meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the
Chairman, Sally Thomas. BOS members present'.
Dorrier, Thomas, Perkins, Rooker, and Bowerman.
Off~7,ers/staff: Tucker, Davis, Cilimberg, and
Bentley.
Clerk: Obtain Chairman's signature and file in
minute books. Update reading list.
Deputy Clerk: Obtain C.E.'s signature and retum to
AEP. S~nd original to AEP, cc Paul Muhlberger,
file copy.
C~rk: Sign Resolution of Appropriation.
Deputy Clerk: File original resolutions and provide
copies to Melvin Breeden, Roger Hildebeidel, and
Kevin Castner.
Clerk: Place on 7/3/02 agenda.
Clerk: Sign resolution.
planning Staff: Prepare appropriation to be
presented to the Board.
Housing Director: Write letter of welcome for
Chairman's signature. Advise Board of the camp's
opening ceremony..
Communib/Relations Manager:. Meet w/Melvin
Breeden and Bruce Woodzell to discuss further.
Mr. W. S. Figgatt regarding complaints'directed at the Zoning
Administrator and VDOT.
Mr. Dorrier asked about a citizen's request to have VDOT place
an obelisk on Carter's Bridge. Mr. Bryan said VDOT would
fund and install it once VDOT receives a Resolution from the
Board. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board could see the design;
Mr. B3yan said he would provide it.
Mr. Rooker mentioned a citizen's request regarding the
resurfacing of lnglewood Dr resurfacing. He said he would give
a copy of the letter to Mr. Bryan, and requested follow-up.
Ms. Thomas said c'rtizens living on Kimbrough Circle had asked
that VDOT do more to handle erosion of road edges in that
neighborhood. Mr. Bryan said VDOT is currently working on
the problem.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that staff had mailed letters regarding
traffic on Morgantown Road to trucking companies. Mr. Bryan
said VDOT is addressing the matter.
8. Discussion: Mapping Resources. DISCUSSION. CONSENSUS
to have staff place Color copies of maps on CD and black &
white .copies in the Board packets.
9. Discussion: Public Meeting Room Renovations. DISCUSSION.
DEFERRED to 7~3~02 so that Engineering staff can reconsider
and prioritize needs.
10. Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
PRESENTATION made.
11. An ordinance (Attachment E) to amend Chapter 1, General
Provisions, of the Albemarle County Code, to amend § 1-119,
Additional court costs, to increase the costs in criminal and
traffic cases in which the defendant is convicted. ADOPTED.
12. Proposed FY 2002 Budget Amendments. APPROVED.
13. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. HELD.
14. Certify Closed Session. CERTIFIED.
15. Appointments. APPOINTED:
- Alan N. Culbertson to the Chadottesw]le/Aibemarle
Foundation Governing Board, with term to run from 7/1/02
- 6/31/05.
· Paul HoWard to fill the balance of Cynthia Dupree's term on
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory
Committee, which will expire 12/31/03.
· Carole Wemstein to the Region Ten Community Services
Board, with term to run from 7/1/02 - 6130105
16. SP-2000-057. St. David's Anglican Church (Signs #89&90).
Public hearing held. APPROVED w/7 conditions (Attachment
, F). (Note: Mr. Rooker voted against the application.)
17. ZMA-1999-13. Young Amedca (Sign # 70).. Public headng .
Mr. Dottier.: Draft Resolution.
Clerk: Place on 6/19/02 consent agenda.
Clerk: Advise departments who submit copies of
items to be placed on agenda.
Clerk: Place on 7/3/02 agenda.' '
Engineerin~ Staff: Prepare further information to
be submitted to the Board on 7~3~02.
Clerk: Sign ordinance.
Deputy Cl.erk: Forward signed copies of ordinance
to Melvin Breeden and Marsha Davis.
Legal Services Assistant, Include in next update of
County Code.
Clerk Sign appropriations.
Deputy Clerk: Prepare letters of appreciation to
donors for Chairman's signature. Forward signed
appropriations to Melvin Breeden, copying
appropriate individuals.
Deputy Clerk: Prepare appointment and
appreciation letters to applicant and candidates for
Chairman's signature. Update Boards and
Commissions records.
Planning ,Staff:
Include a potential left-hand turn
lane in revised Six Year Secondary Plan.
Planning Staff: Obtain signatures on proffers.
held. DEFERRED until staff obtains signed proffers.
18. SP-1999-059. Young America (Sign #67). (see agenda item
#17)
19. ZTA-2001-06. Fill and WaSte. Public hearing held.
CONSENSUS to hold work session on 7/3/02.
20. Discussion: Compensation for Constitutional Off'~,ers' Staff.
DISCUSSION. APPROVED Option 1. (Note: Ms. Thomas
voted against this item.)
21. Review of Strategic Planning and Visioning Goals. DEFERRE[
to 7/3/02.
23. Recess and Reconvene in Meeting Room 235,
25. JOINT MEETING W/SCHOOL BOARD called to or .d~er AT 4:!5
p.m. All BOS members present except Martin. School Board
members present: Steve Koleszar, Ken Boyd, Pamela
Moyniham, Diantha McKeel, Gary Grant, Charles Ward, and
Gordon Wheeler.
25-a. Discussion: ClP Plan and Comprehensive Plan Process.
DISCUSSION.
26. From the Board and SchOOl Board: Matters Not Listed on The
.. Agenda. (None.).
(BOS Reconvened in Rm. 241 at 5:30 p.m.)
22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda:
Ms. Thomas
Noted that she attended the National Trails Day
celebration.
Noted that she attended a VML/VACO Tea-21 workshop.
· Advised the Board that she has been contacted about
emergency procedures as they pertain to disabled persons.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Herman Key is serving on a 911
committee to address this issue.
· Noted that the Board will discuss the emergency drought
situation at its 7/3/02 meeting.
· Asked if anyone from the BOS will attend the NACO
meeting in New Orleans. If not, she suggested submitting
a form to give another locality the County's proxy.
Noted that Adelphia Cable is raising its rates.
Commented that because the state sent to bid Medicaid
non-emergency transportation services, the quality of the
services is now compromised.
· Thanked all persons who attended "UN JAM~. The City and
the County will meet to discuss the entire Rt. 29 corridor.
· Advised members that the TJPDC is celebrating its 30th
anniversary.
· Mentioned that she has heard lots of good comments about
the ACE program. She added that Maryland is going to
take the County's sliding scale to their counterpart to the
Virginia Outdoor Foundation for c, onsidemtion
· Advised the Board that she wrote a letter on behalf of the
Board in support of affordable housing for the elderly.
Clerk: When rec'd, put on consent agenda fOr
approval.
(See agenda item #17)
Plannin(3 Staff: Provide information on, but not
limited to, the following: number of existing fill
areas, compaction, preview of sites for standards,
how sites will be tracked, how landowners will be
notified their site may be affected, effects of
previous use of asphalt, and the possibility of
creating a recycling plant.
Community Relations Manager: Draft a resolution
to be presented to the TJPDC.
· Informed the Board that she is now president of the Virginia
Transit Association.
Mentioned that the applicant for the cell tower on Tilman
Road has asked to meet with Wayne Cilimberg, Amelia
McCuiley, and her. She said she advised the applicant that
it is the Board's consensuS that it does not approve of the
current tower.
Mr. Rooker
Asked that staff provide information regarding how the
County is addressing the threat of sabotage to water
treatment facilities. Mr. Tucker said a presentation is
forthcoming.
Mr. Tucker
· Advised the Board that he received a letter from Ms.
Frances Lee Vandell, representing the English as a Second
Language Council. The volunteer group asked the Board
for $500 in start-up funds from both the County and the City
in order to put on a festival at Mclntire Park this Saturday.
Consensus was that the Board cannot provide public
money on such short notice. Ms. Thomas added that the
Board received a request asking that the County help
finance Mclntire Park f~'eworks on the Fourth of July, but
the County has not financed the fireworks in the past.
27. Adjourn. At 5:55 p.m. to a closed session at 5:30 p.m. on
6/19/02.
Attachment A
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of ,19m, by and between APPALACHIAN
POWER COMPAHY", and BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, hereafter called the "Customer".
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties
hereto agree with each other, as follows:
1. Throughout the term of this agreement, the Company agrees to provide and maintain a street lighting
system for the Customer, consisting initially of the number of lamps of the size and type set forth below,
together with electric energy sufficient to operate said lamps continuously from one-half hour after sunset
until one-half hour before sunrise every mght, approximately 4,000 hours per annum.
NO. OF SIZE
UNITS IN LUMENS TYPE
79 7 000 OVH. - MV- WOOD POLE
8 11,000 OVH. - MV - WOOD POLE
It is agreed that the minimum number of lamps provided and maintained by the Company throughout the
term of this Agreement shall not be less than the he total number of lamps set forth above.
2. The Customer agrees to accept the service herein specified during the term of this Agreement and to
pay therefore at the rates, for the periods, and under the Special Terms and Conditions of Service set
forth in the attached Exhibit A, or any subsequent revision thereto. The rates and rate periods provided
for in this Agreement shall be subject to revision for street lighting service rendered on and after July 1,
1987, and periodically thereafter. The revisions wil be those established for street lighting in Virginia
through the Company's negotiations with the Customer or those authorized to negotiate on the
Customer's behalf. The rates charged pending completion of such negotiations shall be those proposed
by the Company and such rates shall be collected by the Company subject to refund (with interest at the
rate then being paid by the Company on its customer deposits in Virginia) in the event that the rates
ultimately agreed upon by the Company and the Customer are lees than the rates proposed by the
Company.
3. Upon receipt of a written notice from a duly authorized representative of the Customer, the Company
agrees co install additional lamps. Such lamps shall be provided by the Company and paid for by the
Customer 'n accordance with the rates and Special Terms and Conditions of Service set forth in the
attached Exhibit A, or any subsequent revision thereto. Whenever additional lamps are so ordered; the
minimum number of lamps to be furnished throughout the remainder of the period covered by this
Agreement shall be increased accordingly. Temporary lamps, if ordered, shall be furnished under
separate agreement.
4. The Company reserves the right co renegotiate the Corms of this Agreement whenever the Customer
requests a significant (10% or more} increase during any twelve-month period in the number of lamps
provided pursuant to this Agreement.
5. Ail bills shall be rendered monthly and shall be due upon presentation and payable at the main or
branch offices of the Company. On all accounts not so paid, a charge of I-1/2% per month will be applied
to any account balances not received by the Company by the next bill data. The Company shall mail all
bills to the address designated from time to time by the Customer. Such designation shall be made by
written notice mailed or delivered by the Customer to the Company at the following address: P. O. Box
1000 or 800 Main St., Lynchburg, VA.
5
6. All materia furnished by the Company shall remain the property of the Company and may be removed
at the termination of this Agreement, if the Company so desires.
7. The Company shall keep each end every lamp herein specified in operation and shall attempt to relight
any lamp or lamps on the business day following the day of its receiving written notification from the
proper officers of the Customer of the outage of such lamp or lamps. Company shall also use its best
efforts to repair reported outages from other sources during the business day following its knowledge of
the outage.
8. If the Customer shall default in the payment of any bills as hereinbefore provided, the Company may at
its option, after having given ten (10) days' written notice of its intention to do so, discontinue the service
herein specified and continue to withhold the supply of electric energy for street lighting .until such time as
the Customer has made payment for all bills in which it is in arrears. Any such suspension of service by
the Company shall not terminate this Agreement 'unless Company so elects.
9. The Customer, as a further consideration for the promises and agreements made by the Company
herein set forth, hereby grants to the said Company the privilege of the of the use of the streets, alleys
and 'public places of said Customer for the purpose of placing its poles and equipment for providing this
service. Such permission, however, shall not be deemed in any manner to amount to a franchise awarded
pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
10. All and singular the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
be nefit of the parties hereto, their respective successors and/or assigns.
11. This Agreement cancels and supersedes all previous Agreements relating to the supply of the service
described herein.
12. The effective date of this Agreement shall be June 1, 1990, and it shall terminate on May 31, 2000.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed in triplicate by
their duly authorized officers the day and year first above written.
AttaChment B (see next page)
7
2mmv:
10
:J)t~YI'ION MINI) a
!Tml OlIIVEI~ 5AFEW FUIID Immumes ava~a~le fl~ ~_l.,~ar W~ ___
OPEN DOORS FUND
12
14
~ed~ul~l~ OF CDNSERV&TION EA~;GIdEitT~
i
i
IJllLilY II~PFtOVEMENT~
available for fisc~ _~r_ end'~mg,limo 30, ~U)I)3:
$tl~flgf,DDD
DIVISJOH CAPiTAl. ]IdPROVEMENTS FUND for die ~h~me~ig e~.~l_ to bF q~p.~oaed ~s
F
~rew~'~lle ,~Tdit itm
Juno 30, ZOO3:
SO,730,000
rasomr, as aveilobfo for iiscai~ar ending_dime ~O, ~: ~
STOflMWATER CI~PiTAL IMPKOV~MEHTS FUHD in~ thn p~o_ses~lm~r_e_in_specified in__b~ _
~L4~aimd as Follows for foe fiscal yea~ endtn~ Jimn 30, 2003:
15
J
SERVICE to be a. plm rlioned ~ follows fr~m he GEN£P. AL GOVERIIIIE~I'
FI~D and ~e NOIOOL DM$1Oll DL~T ~ E4tViCi~ FUND f~ ~e Frm~l y~ar
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEDT SERVICE aj~lP_mjdatloes fer~
i ~ R~o~I ~mcm{_ raedbr from General Fun
{ ~,~emm from Lam:al ~m~__[Tmmm~r frmm~ Sm:haul Fund)
Total SOiOOL DIVISION D_EBT SERVICE reseume~ available for fiscal
: from I:ocal SauT~raaa~m from General
1Z
~ r~eurces available fnr
~etM ~-I~i~lT SER'WlCE mmeumces available for Ibcal
L
SeCtion I~eral Fund
~her School Funds $1{3~3~
:gect~nV_ ). General_ Govemmont C-al~'~Fund~ $11~
: _. --~e_g'_m_n_.V~,.~_~to~.m'2~w:~e_ff_C~a~lm~LnA,'emenl~ Fund
__~[ Fu~ to ~o~ Fund
_ : Gen~/FU~ to ~t ~ce F~
~c~l R~e F~ds 10 ~eml Fund
GRA~ID TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
16
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer
monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not
in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation
resolution.
SECT, ION IX
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections ! through VIII are
appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection
with said terms and those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Melvin A. Breeden) and Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors (Ella W. Carey) are hereby designated as authorized signators for ali bank
accounts.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualirmations in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be
maximum, conditional end proportionate appropriations-the purpose being to make the appropriations
payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate
revenues collected and available dudng the fiscal year for wflich the appropriatiOns are made are
sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise. the.said aDDropriati0ns shall be deemed.to be payable Jrt.such proportion as
the total ~um of all realized revenue of the respective,funds iS to the.total amount of
r;evenue estimated to be available in the said tis. ca! year by the. Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph TWo
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included in its
estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not
be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the
Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures
which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose
may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of
Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items
exempted by the Albemarle County PurchaSing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no
requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be
required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency,
or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing
Agent shall be responsible for secudng such competitive bids on the basis of specifmation furnished by
the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said
contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
17
Any obligations incurred contr'~y .to the put~-,h, asiri,q proc~ures prescribed in the
Albemarle CounN Purchasin.q Manual shall .not be considered, obl~ations of the County,
and the Direh--tor of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such ob!, ,,igations,
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County
departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers
and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and emplOyeeS of their personal
automobiles in lhe discharge of their off'~ial duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by
the St. ate of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like
rates.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed
or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be
and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and two.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Project
Endorsement Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 5 to 0,
as recorded below, at a meeting held on June 5, 2002.
Ci~rk,' Board of County suPervise'rs ......
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman x
Mr. Martin .... (Absent)
Mr. Perkins ~ ..,
Mr, Rooker _._X__X .......
Ms. Thomas ~ ......
18
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County'), intends to
undertake various improvements to its public school system as described on Exhibit A
attached hereto (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project pdor to the issuance of the Bonds,
as hereinafter defined, and to receive reimbursement for such expenditures from
proceeds of the sale of the Bonds;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
(1)
The County intends to finance the Project through the issuance of bonds in an
amount not to exceed $8,700,000 (the "Bonds').
(2)
The County intends to receive reimbursement from proceeds of the sale of the
Bonds for costs of the Project paid by the County prior to the issuance of the
Bonds.
(3)
The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as "official
intent" within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated
under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
!, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Project
Endorsement Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle CoUnty by vote of 5 to 0,
as recorded below, at a meeting held on June 5, 2002.
Clerk, BOard of county SuperviSOrs" '"
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman ~
Mr, Dorrier ........ x
Mr. Martin ~., (Absent)
Mr, Perkins x
Mr. Rooker ~. x .....
Ms. Thomas ~ ......
19
Exhibit A
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED SCHOOL PROJECTS
FY 200212003
Descdpfion
I ADA Structural Changes
2 Brownsville Addition
3 Jouett Addition/Renovation
4 Monticello High School Addition Design
5 Post-High House
6 Southern Elementary School
7 Walton School Addition
8 School Maintenance/Replacement Projects
Amount
$50,000
$2,386,000
$2,318,000
$933,000
$250,0O0
$20,000
$100,000
$2,643,,000
$8,700,000
Attachment C
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUTURE REPAIR AND
REPLACEMENT OF AUXILIARY SIDEWALKS
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle encourages and/or requires sidewalks to be constructed as
part of residential developments for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and, in part, due to the
public costs incurred for retrof'~ing pedestrian systems into established communities; and
WHEREAS, sidewalks are proposed or constructed as part of a development within (or within a
portion of) the public rights-of-way and are approved by the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, sidewalks that do not meet the Virginia Deparffnent of Transportation (~VDOT")
sidewalk maintenance eligib~ity criteria are "auxiliary sidewalks"; and
WHEREAS, VDOT will not accept publiC streets with auxiliary sidewalks into the State Secondary
Road System until the local governing body has adopted a resolution accepting responsibility to
administer the future repair and replacement of auxiliary sidewalks (VDOT "Subdivision Street
Requirements", 24 VAC 30-90-170 D); and
WHEREAS, each developer will be required to execute an "agreement for the maintenance of
auxiliary sidewalks~ ('Agreement"), prior to approval of a final subdivision plat, or in the case of a
previously approved development, prior to the acceptance of the roads into the Slate Secondary Roads
System; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Agreement is to pass the obligation for sidewalk maintenance and
repair to the developer, and its successors in interest, as well as provide the Board assurance that funds
will be available for the continuing sidewalk maintenance and repair;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County does
hereby accept responsibility to administer the future repair and replacement of auxiliary sidewalks as
required in VDOT ~Subdivision Street Requirements", 24 VAC 30-90-170 D).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County
Executive to execute auxiliary sidewalk maintenarm, e agreements on behalf of the County, including any
amendments to the model agreement deemed necessary by the County Attorney.
21
Attachment D
AGREEMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF AUXILIARY ,SIDEWALKS
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of ,2002, by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of V'a'ginia, hereinafter the
"County", and ........... a Virginia corporation [or a.,
Corporation, licensed to do bt~sineSS'i~ the Commonwealth of Virginia], hereinafter the "Developer".
WITNESS. ETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of certain real property described as
as recorded by deed in the land records of Albemarle County, Virginia
(Tax MaP~Parcel Number) Deed Book Page . , hereinafter called the ~Property".
WHEREAS, the Virginia Departmen{ 0f Transportation does not maintain and repair sidewalks, or
any portion thereof, that are within public rights-of-way and that do not meet their sidewalk maintenance
eligibility criteria, which sidewalks are hereinafter referred to as "auxiliary sidewalks"; and
WHEREAS, the County has required and/or the Developer has proposed to construct auxiliary
sidewalks identified on the plans entitled , prepared by
, dated , and designated as County File No. SUB [SDP]
, which are incor~(~rated herein by reference as the "Plan", as approved or to be apprOved by the Counbj;
WHEREAS, the County is responsible under 24 VAC § 30-90~170(D) for the cost of maintaining
and repairing auxiliary sidewalks, and the parties desire to assure that funds are available to assure the
continuing maintenance and repair of the sidewalks.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the mutual covenants contained
herein, and the following terms and conditions, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Obliclation to construct sidewalks. The auxiliary sidewalks shall be constructed by the
Developer, its successors and assigns, in accordance with the Plan and specifmations identified in the
Plan.
2. O. bliRa, fion to maintain,and repair sidewalks. The Developer, its successors and assigns,
including any Owners ASsociation, shall adequately maintain and repair the auxiliary sidewalks. For the
purpose of this Agreement ~adequately maintain and repair" is defined as keeping the auxiliary sidewalks
clear of obstructions and providing ail repairs needed to minimize public hazards. These hazards may
include potholes, depressions due to excessive settlement of the subbase, spalled or deteriorated
pavement, and displaced (horizontal and/or vertical) cracks and joints.
3..Ob!'.~jation to inspect sidewalks. The Developer, its successors and assigns, including any
Owners Association, shall inspect the auxiliary sidewalks at least once per year to assure the adequate
condition of the auxiliary sidewalks.
4. EStablishment and maintenance,of, fund~ The Developer, its successors and assigns,
including any Owners Association, Shall establish and maintain a fund to maintain and repair the auxiliary
sidewalks as required by this Agreement, or to reimburse the County for the costs of maintaining and
repairing the auxiliary sidewalks, but for no other purpose. There shall be no withdrawal from the fund
except for purposes set forth in this ,~greement.
A. Amount of fund. The Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners
Association, shall deposit into the fund
days after the street(s) to which the auxiiiary side'talks are a "dollars ($ ) within thirty (30)
COmponent are accepted into the secondary
system of state highways. On each anniversary date thereafter, the amount to be deposited into the fund
each year thereafter shall be adjusted according to the consumer price index [or a more apprepriate
inflation index].
B. Timin= of dePosits. Each year after the initial deposit described in paragraph (A), the
Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners AssOciation, shall deposit the required
monies into the fund not later than the anniversary date of the initial deposit.
C. Replenishment of furld. At any time the County determines that the amount of the fund is
deficient to pay for maintenance and repairs required by this Agreement, the County shall notify in writing
the Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners Association, the amount of the
deficiency, state the der,=iency and the basis therefor, and within thirty (30) days of the date of the
notirmation, the Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners Association, shall replenish
the fund as required.
D. Production of records. At any time requested by the County, the Developer, its
successors and assigns, including any Owners Association, shall provide the County with records
pertaining to deposits to the fund, the current balance of the fund, withdrawals from the fund,
disbursements for repair and maintenance work, and related records.
5. Right of County,~to insPect sidewalks. The Developer, its successors and assigns, including
any Owners Association hereby grant permission to the CoUnty, ils authorized agents and employees, to
enter upon the Property and to inspect the auxiliary sidewalks when deemed necessary by the County or
in response to citizen complaints. The County shall provide the Developer, its successors and assigns,
including any Owners Association, copies of the inspection findings and if necessary a directive to
commence with the repairs.
6. Right of County to maintain and rePair sidewalks. In the event the Developer, its successors
and assigns, including any Owners Association, fails to adequately maintain and repair the auxiliary
sidewalks, the County may enter upon the Property and act'to correct deficiencies identir~d in the
directive and to charge the costs of such repairs to the Developer, its successors and assigns, including
any Owners Association. tt is expressly understood and agreed that the County is under no obligation to
routinely maintain or repair said auxiliary sidewalks, and in no event shall this ,A~;Ireement be construed to
impose any such obligation on the county.
7. Obligation of Developer, to reimburse. County.for expenditures. In the event the county,
pursuant to this Agreement, performs work of any nature, or expends any funds in performance of said
work for labor, use of equipment, supplies, materials, and the like, the Developer, its successors and
assigns, including any Owners Association, shall reimburse the county upon demand, within thirty (30)
days of receipt thereof for all actual costs incurred by the County hereunder.
8. Hold harmless and indemnificat, ion. The Developer, its successors and assigns, including any
Owners Association, shall hold harmless and indemnify the County, its officers, employees, agents and
volunteers for damage to any existing improvements during the construction, maintenance or repair of the
auxiliary sidewalks, and to hold harmless and indemnify the County, its officers, employees, agents and
volunteers from any and all claims for bodily injury and personal injury and/or property damage, including
costs of investigation, all expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees, and the cost of
appeals arising out of any claims or suits that result from errors, omissions or negligent acts of the
Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners Association and its agents and employees,
and any claims .arising from the exercise of any privilege granted by this Agreement.
g. Insurance, The Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners Association,
shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance that expressly includes the auxiliary sidewalks
within its coverage in the amount of . .. dollam ($ .., ) during the term of
this Agreement. The certificate of insurance shall name the ;County of Albemarle, Virginia" as an
additional insured and shall provide that the County shall receive (the word "endeavor" shall be stricken
from the standard cancellation notice provision) thirty (30) days prior written notirmation if any insurance
required under this section shall be canceled. The insurance required by this section shall be and remain
in full force and effect for the entire term Of this Agreement.
10. Notice of proposed, assign, ment or transfer. The Developer, its successors and assigns,
including any Owners Association, shall notify the County in writing at least ten (10) days prior to the
assignment or transfer of this Agreement.
1!. Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded among the land records of Albemarle
County, Virginia, and shall constitute a covenant running with the land, and shall be binding on the
Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners Association.
12. Binding. This Agreement, when properly executed, shall be binding upon all parties, their
successors, heirs and assigns.
13. Mod!fication, This Agreement may be modif'~l in writing by mutual agreement of all parties.
14. Term. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect until such time as the County adopts
a sidewalk maintenance policy expressly applicable to the auxiliary sidewalks which are the subject
hereof.
15. Entire agreement, This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties hereto
conCerning the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior understandings,
whether oral or Written.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has caused this agreement to be executed in
triplicate in ils name and on its behalf by its dulY authorized off'mr as of the date, month, and year first
hereinabove written,
Attachment E
ORDINANCE NO. 02-1(l)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisom of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 1, General
Provisions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 1-119 Additional court costs
Chapter 1. General Provisions
Sec. t-1,19 AdditiOnal court costs,
A fee of two dollars ($2.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each criminal, traffic or civil case in the
respective district or circuit courts of the county for the purpose of providing for the maintenance,
construction or renovation of the courthouse, jail or court-related facilities located in and serving the county
and to defray the costs of cooling, heating and electricity in these facilities. The director of finance shall
segregate the fees collected pursuant to this section for the purposes designated above.
B. A fee of five dollars ($5.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each cdminal or traffic case in
the respective district or circuit courts of the county in which the defendant is convicted of a
violation of any statute or ordinance, The fee shall be collected by the clerk ofthe court in which
the case is heard, remitted to the director of finance, and held by the director of finance subject to
appropriation by the board of supervisors to the sheriff's office for the funding of courthouse
secur'~y personnel.
C. A fee of hventy-five ($25.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each criminal case in the respective district or
cimuit courts of the county in which the defendant is convicted of a violation of any statute or ordinance and
is processed for admission into the regional jail as a result of such conviction. The fee shell be collected by
the clerk of the court in which the case is heard, remitted to the director of finance, and held by the director
of finance subject to appropriation by the board of supervisors to the sheriff's office for the funding of costs
of processing arrested persons into the regional jail.
(Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. of 8-5-92, Code 1975, § 1-8, 6-17-89; Code 1988, § 1-8 Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-1(1), 6-5-
02)
State law reference--Authority for above provisions, Va. Code § 17.1-281; Va. Code § 53.1-120; Va. Code
§ 15.2-1613.1,
This ordinance shell be effective on and after July 1, 2002.
i, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing~ writing is a true, correct Copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 5 to o, as recorded below, at a regular meeting
held on June 5, 2002.
Aye
Mr. Bowerman .x
Mr. Dottier x
Mr. Rooker X
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins .x
Ms. Thomas x ~
Nay
__~bsen0
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
25
Attachment F
CONDITIONS
SP-2000-057. St. David's An,qlican Church (Sig,~,ns #89&90).
]) The church shall be limited to one structure with a maximum one-hundred-twenty-five (125)-seat
sanctuary;
2) Commercial setback standards, as set forth in § 21.7.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,
shall be maintained adjacent to residential or RA zoning districts;
3) There shall be no day care center or pdvate school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit, or amendment to this permit;
4) There shall be no cemetery on the site without approval of an amendment to this permit;
5) Construction of the 125-seat sanctuary shall commence on or before the expiration date of a signed
final site Dian based on preliminary site plan SDP-01,117.(as shown on the plan dated Apdl 19,
2002, and prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC). If SDP-01-117 expires or is
withdrawn without the signing of a final site plan, this permit shall expire five (5) years from the date
of approval of this permit;
(~) Health Department approval of well and septic systems; and,
7) The applicant shall reserve for public dedication to public use, upon demand of the County, a ten
(lO)-foot strip of right-of way along the frontage of the property adjacent to Barracks Road for future
turn-lane and taper improvements to the Barracks Road-Colthurst Drive intersection.
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
FROM THE PUBLIC
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
NAME (Please print clearly)
PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS
From:
Subject.
Date:
Members, ~oard of Supervisors --k--~/ ~
Ella Washington Carey, CMC, C~/~._~
Reading fist forJune 5, 2002
May 28, 2002
October 3, 2001
January 16, 2002
February 6, 2002
February 20, 2002
March 6, 2002
March 20, 2002
Pages 33 (be~nning Item # I I) - end - Ms. Thomas
Mr. ~owerman
Pages I- 27 (end with Item # 12) - Ms. Thomas
Pages 27 (beginning with Item # t 2) - end - Mr. Pert~ns
Pages 2 I~ 23- Mr. Rooker
Pages I - t6 (end with Item # I0) - Mr. Pe~ns
Mr. Dorrier
NOTE:
THEM.
/ewc
PLEASE REMEMBER TO PULL YOUR MINUTES IF YOU HAVE NOT READ
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Extension of Streetlight Agreement with American
Electric Power (AEP), formerly Appalachian Electric
Power Company
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve extension of Streetlight Agreement with AEP
AGENDA DATE:
June 5, 2002
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Muhlberger
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS: Expired AEP Streetlight Agreement
5/17/02 Letter Agreement
American Electric Power (AEP), formerly Appalachian Electric Power Company, provides power for 87 streetlights located in
Southern Albemarle ranging from Keene to Scottsville. The attached 1990 Agreement between the County and AEP has
expired. AEP has offered to extend the terms of this agreement on a month-to-month basis.
DISCUSSION:
The County pays AEP approximately $5,600 per year to power streetlights in Southern Albemarle. Staff has enjoyed a good
working relationship with AEP and is satisfied with service provided by this corn party.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the letter agreement to extend the expired streetlight
agreement with AEP.
02.074
05-28-02A09:29 RCVD
American Electric Power
PO Box 1000
Lynchburg, VA 24505-1000
804 522-4200
May17,2002
Mr. Paul Mulflberger
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Room 211
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Paul,
As you are aware, the current street lighting agreement with AEP has expired. However,
in lieu of a new executed street lighting agreement, AEP is agreeing to extend the terms
of the previous street lighting agreement (utilizing current rates for streetlights as they are
or will be enacted) on a month re month basis with a 30 days cancellation notice by either
party. If you agree to this arrangement, please countersign below and return an original
tome.
Should you have questions or wish to discuss this matter, please call me at 434-5224336.
Sincerely,
Anthony b. Woodall
Customer Services Engineer
Boar/~oun? Snp~ti~or~)f Albemarle County, Virginia
Alb~narle County, County
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier. ~Jr.
Scotts'~le
Charles S. Martin
Rivaana
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkin~
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
~amuel Miller
June 11,2002
Mr. Anthony D. Woodall
Customer Services Engineer
American Electric Power
P.O. Box 1000
Lynchburg, VA 24505-1000
Dear Mr. Woodall:
At its June 5, 2002 meeting, the Board of Supervisors authorized the County
Executive to sign the attached Extension of Streetlight Agreement with your company.
have enclosed the original signed agreements for your records.
Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurel A Bentley, CMC
Senior Deputy Clerk
Cc: Paul Muhlberger
Attachment
Printed on recycled paper
884 522 4251
iBO~D OF CO~TY'-SUPERVISORS 0F ALBE~RLE COUNTYr VIRGINIA ,
~ WITNESSKT~ :
For and in consideration of the mutual aovenants and agreements
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree with each other.as ~ollows:
1. Throughout the term of this agreement, the Company agrees to
initially of the number of lamps of the size and type set forth below, together
with electric energy sufficient to operate said lamps conti~uously from one-half
hour after sunset until one-hal~ hour before sunrise e~er~ night, approximately
4,~00 hours per annum.
NO.
OF UNITS
79
8
SIZE
IN LUMENS
7,000
11,000
OVH. - MV - WOOD POLE
OVH. ~ MV - WOOD POLE'
It is agreed that tho minimum number of lamps provided and maintained by the
Company throughout the :em of =his Aqreement shall no= be less =hen :he total
number o£ lamps so= £or=h above.
2. The Customer agrees ~o accept the service herein specified during
:he term of this Agrsemen= an4 co pay therefor at =he rates, for the periods, and
under the s~ecial Terms and =ondi:ions of Service set forth in ~be attached
Z~hib== A, or any subsequent revision thereto. The rates and ra~e periods
provided for in this Ag=semen= shall be sub,eot to r~v~sion for s:reet ~ighting
service rendered on and after July 1, 1987, and periodically thereafter. The
revisions will be those es~abllShed for street lighting in Virginia throush =he
Company's negotiations with =he Customer or those authorized to negotiate on the
Custom~r'm behalf. The rates charged pending ~ompletlon of such negotiations
shall be those proposed by %he company and such ~&tes shall be collected by the
company on its customer .deposits in Virginia) in the event that the rates
ultlmately agreed upon by the Company and the Customer are le~s :hen tho rates
proposed by the Company.
3. Upon re~eipt Of a written no%ioe from a duly authorized represent-
ative of the CUStomer, :he Company agrees =o install additional Lamps. ~uch
lamp~ shall be provided by the company and paid for by the Cus:omer in accordanoe
with the rates and special Terms and Conditions of Service set forth in the
attached Exhibit A, or any subsequent re~is£on thereto. ~henever additional
la.pS are So ordered~ =he minimum n~mber of lamps to ho ~urnished throu~hou~ the
rsmatnde~ of the perio~ covered by this Agreement shall be increased accordingly.
Temporary lamps~ if ordered, shall be furnished under ~parac= dgreeme~n.
P. 01
MA~-07-2002 1G: ~ A~P LYNCHBU~ 004 ~2~ 42~1 P. 02
A~reem~nt whenever th~ Cus~ome~ requests a s~qni~lcant (10~ o~ ~r~} in~rease
during an~ t~ve-month ~e=io~ in ~he nu~e~ of lamps provi~ea pu=suan~ ~o =his
5_ All bi11~ shall be rendered monthly and shall be due upon
accounts no= so paid, a charg~ o~ I-1/2% ~r month will be a~plied =o any accost
or 800--MaCneSt., Lvnchbdrg, VA
~e Company and may be =~oved at ~e =e~nation of =hi~ Agreement, if ~e
Company ~o desires.
opera=ion and shall at,amp= =o =elight ~y l~p or l~ps on ~e. business day
o~ the customer of the oueage of .such lamp or l~ps. Company shall also u~e its
8. If the Customer =hal1 de~aul~ in ~he pa~en~ of any b~lls
lightin~ ~til ~uch =im~ as the Cu~om~r has ma~e pa~en~ ~or all bills in which
=e~ina~e ~hi~' Agreement ~le~ Company ~0
9. The .Customer, a~ a further consideration Eot the p~omi~es and
agreements made by ~he Company her~in se~ ~orth. her=b~ gran=s to ~h~ said
Company ~be ~rivilege o~ ~e use of the street~, all~y~ and p~lic places o~
Cu~nom~r ~or the put,se of placing its poles and e~pment-for provid~ng this
to a franchis~ awarded pursuant ~o the Constitution and the laws of the
C~eal~ of Virginia.
10. ~1 and =~ngUla= the t~s an~ coalitions of ~h~-s Agreement ~hall
~. This Agreem~n~ cancels and supersedes all p~ev~ou~
relating to the su~ly o~ the set-vice ~eac=~be~ herein.
12. T~ e~ective Cate o~ ~is ~%:ee~nt shall be JU~e 1, 1~90
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
-
Clork
TOTRL P.02
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
05-29-02P03:03
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RCVD
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2002/2003 Resolution of Appropriations
S U BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Request Approva of the Resolution of Appropriation for the
Albemarle County Budget for FY 2002/2003.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Hildebeidel, Breeden, Ms. White
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
June 5,2002
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHME_NT_S: Yes/,~ .y
REVIEWED BY: ~ ~
/
The County's FY 2002/2003 Operating and Capital Budgets were approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 17, 2002,
for a total estimated amount of $211,956,025. The attached Annual Resolution of Appropriations for the Fiscal Year ending
on June 30, 2003 provides the authority from the Board of Supervisors for the County to spend those funds, effective July 1,
2002.
DISCUSSION:
This Resolution is different from past years' resolutions in that it is now a comprehensive Resolution which appropriates the
total County budget, including both operating and capital funds in a single resolution, and includes many of the initial
Special Revenue Fund appropriations that in the past where not included in the operating appropriation resolution.
Also since April, adjustments have been made to the budget numbers adopted in April, particularly in the Special Revenue
Fund accounts, as updated information became available. These adjustments have resulted in a revised net total
appropriation amount in this resolution of $208,618,535. Most of the adjustment is a result of having a more detailed picture
of the many inter-fund transfers included in the various accounts, plus the exclusion of certain grant-funded programs that
were included in the overall Adopted Budget totals, but are not yet ready to be appropriated.
General Fund $140,707,272
The total amount of expenditures appropriated from the General Fund is $140,707,272, which is $6,264 less than the
General Fund budget of $140,713,536 adopted in April. The change resulted from a re-calculation of funding of salaries
and benefits for Staffs of Constitutional Officers to reflect the latest State Compensation Board salary amounts.
School Fund $99,589,820
The revised School operations budget is $99,589,820, which is an increase of $40,958 over the School Fund budget
adopted in April. This increase reflects the amount adopted by the School Board based upon the most recent revenue
estimates.
School Self-Sustaining Funds
$10,854,221
The appropriation for all of the School Self-Sustaining Funds totals $10,854,221, which is a decrease of $115,165 from the
amount adopted in April. This change reflects the most recent information available regarding State, Federal, and other
grant-funded programs.
Special Revenue Funds
$14,054,414
The "Special Revenue Funds" section of this resolution of appropriation includes the various accounts funded from special
revenue sources and in many cases also from transfers from the General Fund, School Fund, and other Special Revenue
Funds.
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2002/2003 Resolution of Appropriations
June 5, 2002
Page 2
These accounts include: the Comprehensive Services Act Fund, totaling $5,702,325; the Bright Stars Program Fund,
totaling $506,160; the Family Support Fund, totaling $1,158,405; the Towe Memorial Park Fund, totaling $212,655; the E-
911 Service Charge Fund, totaling $1,304,418; the Visitor Center Fund, totaling $68,000; the Courthouse Maintenance
Fund, totaling $47,000; the Tourism Fund, totaling $1,360,081; the United Way Day Care Grant Fund, totaling $573,499; the
Criminal Justice Grant Fund at $564,442; the Victim-Witness Assistance Grant fund at $75,139; the Metro Planning Grant
fund at $20,000; and the Housing Assistance Fund at a total of $2,462,300.
These Special Revenue Funds may require future Budget Amendments and Appropriations depending upon either or both
the level of program activity which actually occurs, and the actual revenues which are received from sources other than
local County revenues.
General Government Capital Improvements Fund $11,891,000
This appropriation is the same total amount as included in the Adopted Budget in April for the combination of the General
Government Capital Improvement projects plus the Budget amount of $475,000 for the Ivy Landfill Remediation Fund. This
total includes $1,000,000 for the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program, $475,000 for the Ivy Landfill, and
$5,520,000 for other approved capital projects, plus $4,896,000 in Capital Reserve funds to be used for future capital
projects and debt service requirements over the next five years.
School Division Capital Improvements Fund $9,730,000
The appropriated amount for School Division capital Improvements is the same as the adopted School Capital Improvement
Program budget in April. The only change has been to substitute Fund balance revenue for the $200,000 of State
Construction fund revenue that was lost for FY 2003.
Stormwater Capital Improvements Fund $575,000
There have been no changes to the approved Stormwater Fu nd appropriation from the Budget Adopted in April.
Debt Service
No changes were made in the appropriations for either School Division Debt Service ($10,473,481) or
General Government Debt Service ($970,000) from the amounts included in the Budget Adopted in April.
$11,443,481
RECOM MEN DATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 2003 that allocates a total of
$208,618,535 to the various General Government and School Division operating, capital improvement, and debt service
accounts for expenditure in the Fiscal Year 2002/2003. Also recommended for approval, is the attached Resolution of
Official Intent to use VPSA bond proceeds for certain school division capital projects.
02.082
ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2003
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of rummy for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment;
and to repeal all previous appropriation o~linancas or rasolut~ons that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent
of euch inconsistency.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supewisom of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
FUND to be apporl]oned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, & OTHER REFUNDS:
Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
$7,361,019
4 Depadme~ of Finance
5 Depalmant of Human Resources
6 Depadmant of Inf~natio~ Techr~ogy
7 Voter Registration/Elections
$33~,134
$519,357
$986,783
$3,025,520
$44.7,715
$1,740,446
$303.064
$7,361,019
Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL
$2,~04,03S
I C~rc~t Cou~t
2 C~erk of the C~rcuit Cou~
3 C~mm~'s Attorney
4 General Distdct Court
5 Juvenile Cou;t
6 Magistrate
7 Shell's Office
$81,640
$589,775
$552,984
$22,550
$65,653
$8,000
$t ,,387,333
$2,704,935
Paragraph Fou~. PUBLIC SAFETY
$16,943,191
I Albemarle County Fire, Rescue Del~ertmant
2 Department of Pofice
3 Emergency Communications Center
4 lire/Rescue Credit
5 Fire Depa~ment Contract (City of Cha~o[tes~ile)
6 Forest Fire Extinguishment
7 Thomas Jefferson EMS Council
8 Vdunteer Fire Departmants
9 Vdunteer Rescue Squads
10 Inspections
11 Community Atte~fio~ Home
12 Juvenile De~e~tion Center
13 Juvanile Court Assessment Canter
14 Offender Aid and Restorafi(x~ (OAR)
15 Reg~on~ Jal Auth~r~
16 SPCA C(xlba~
17 VJCCA Canti~ Funding
$2,050,254
$8,382,475
$1,390,509
$40,000
$717,371
$13,758
$2o,2~o
$726,954
$20~A94
$15,678
$751.769
$31,113
$74,692
$1,563,047
$16,943,191
Paragraph Five: ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
1 F. nglneedng& PublicW(xks
2 Water Resources M~'tagem~
Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES
I AIDS ~uppert Group
2 Chalo~;~ille- Aibemate Legal Aid Socie[y (CAI.AS)
3 Charl~ille Free Clinic
4 Children, Y~h and Family Services (CYFS)
5 C~nmission on Children & Families (CCF)
6 Comput~
7 FOCUS- Teensight
8 Heath Depatment
9 Jelferson Area Board on Aging (JABA)
10 JAUNT
11 MACAA. Teen Pregnancy Prevention
12 Madison House
13 Music Resource Center
14 Piednlent Virginia Community College (PVCC)
15 Region Ten Community Services
16 Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA)
17 Shelter for Help in Emerge~'y (SHE)
18 SOCA
19 Depadment of Social Services
21 Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled
Paragraph
Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE
I Da'den T~we Memorial Pa~k
2 Depalment ~ Parks & Recreation
3 J~ ~i~ U~
4 ~ Hi~
5 ~ ~ P~
6 ~~F~
7 ~ V~
8 ~ B~
9 R~m~l~
10 ~inia ~ M~
11 ~inia F~ ~ ~ ~
12 ~in~ Rim F~
13 ~~
14 ~ ~ic T~
Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
2 Charlo[teswlleTra~sit Service
3 Def~artment ~ Planning and Community Development
Housing Office
5 Monticello P~ea Community Action Age~'y (MACAA)
6 Piedmont H(x~sing Alliance (PHA)
7 Plenning District C(xnmission (TJPDC)
8 Soil and Water Conservation
9 VPI Extension Se~ce
10 Zoning
$3,042,019
$4,5O0
$21,215
$5,7O9
$82,083
$148,900
$7,690
$25,625
$781,226
$189,156
$418,481
$7,629
$419,060
$24,O0O
$75,313
$161,4O0
$11,513,037
$126,805
$1,726,332
$2,186,237
$8,446
$16,840
$17,134
$15,450
$10,579
$10,559
$10,558
$10,558
$352,259
$7,612
$4,502,869
$397,365
$174,729
$1,810,317
$462,709
$132,584
$133,185
$83,797
$64,735
$173,705
$742,866
$4,175,992
$11,513,037
$4,175,992
Paragraph Nine: CAPITAL OUTLAYS
I Transfer to Capital Improvements Fund
2 Transit to Stormwater Fund
Paragraph Ten: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
1 Revenue Shaing Agreement
Paragraph Eleven: OTHER USES'OF FUNDS
I Transfer tO ~ ~ent Debt Service
2 Transfer to School Division Debt Service
3 Transfm to School Fund - Recurring
4 Transfer to School Fund- One-time
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from Local Sources - General Fund Balanca/Transfers
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
$5,970.090
$575.000
$6,545,090
$6,692,811
$970,000
$9,911,475
$65,725,202
$125,000
$152.182
$108,518,412
$4,188,9t8
$24,347,101
$3,652,941
$140,707,272
$6,692,811
$76,883,859
$140,707,272
$140,707,272
SE~,,ION Ih REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the sams hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL
purposes herein specified to be appmlioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
Admini~--,~on, Attendance & Health
Debt Sauce Fund
Fadr~des Construction/M(x~fication
Fadrraes Operaam/M~nt~
Instruction
Pupil TransportalJal ServhT~s
Other Uses of Funds
$6,122,669
$295,925
$47,600
$9,672,947
$74.371~153
$6.828,986
$2,250,540
$99,589,82O
$99,589,820
SUMMARY
Total REGULAR SCH(X)L FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer- Ongo~g)
Revenue from Lmml Sources (General Fund Transfer - One-time)
Revenue from Other .Local Sources
Revenue from School Fund Balance, Carnj-Over, Transfers
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
$66,725,202
$126,000
$607,140
$424,000
$30,807,478
$1,901,000
$99,589,820
$99,589,820
SECTION ill: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby ara appropriated for the purposes
herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph One: FOOD SERVICES
I Maintena3ce' Operation of Schod Cafeterias
2 Summer Feeding
SUMMARY
Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Tolal FOOD SERVICES resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Two: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND
$3,226,892
$2,596,676
~799,:~20
$3,449,960
$3,449,960
$73,123
SUMMARY
Tolai PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCTION FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2803:
Paragraph Three: MclNTIRE TRUST FUND
I Payment to ~ Schools
$10.000
$73,t23
$73,t23
$10,OO0
SUf,~IARY
Totsl MclNTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Investments Per Trust
To~al MclNTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Four: PREP PROGRAM
I C.B.I.P. Severe
2 E. D. Program
SUMMARY
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from TuiUon and Fees
Tolal PREP PROGRAM resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Five: FEDERAL PROGRAMS
I Adult Education
2 Cad Perkins
3 Chapter I
4 Chapter II
5 Drug Free Schods
6 Migrant Education
7 Title II
8 English Literacy/Civics
9 Economically Dislocated Workers
10 Bright Sta~s
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropr'mtions for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available ~ fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Six: COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND
I Community Education
SUMMARY
$10,000
$751,803
$570,905
$1,322,708
$1,322,708
$101,550
$125,000
$800,000
$54,928
$44,336
$201,000
$51,797
$74,733
$19,534
~;~,362
$1,509,240
$1,550
$15,000
$150,336
$1.342.354
$1,509,240
$1,505,617
$10,080
$1,322,708
$1,322,708
$1,322,708
$1,505,617
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue front Local Sources - Tuition
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Seven: SUMMER SCHOOL
I Summer Sch~x~
SUMMARY
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources - TuilJon
Miseallaneous Revenues
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Eight: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT
1 School Bus R~lacam~t
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Sale of Vehicles)
Revenue from Local Sources (Repair Fees)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Nine: AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND
I A~MR Summer Rental
91.~05.617
$1,505,617
$164,243
$198/;85
$9,50
$~oo,0o~
$463,378
$I0,000
$18,000
Td~45,000
$870,0OO
$400,000
$1,505,617
$1,505,617
$463,378
$463,378
$870,000
$870,000
$400,000
SUMMARY
Total AIblR SUb. ER RENTAL FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be p~ as follows:
Revenue front Local Sources(rental)
Total NMR SUMMER RENTA
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Ten: RETURN # GRANT FUND
1 Return 11 State Grant
SUMMARY
Total RETURN II GRANT FUND approprint
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
~ Revenues
Local Revenue (Tmnefer from the ~
Total RETURN II GRANT FUb
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Eleven: ALCOA FOUNDATION EDUC
1 ALCOA Foundation Educator-in-Resi¢
SUMMARY
Total ALCOA FOUNDATION EDUCATOR-I!
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Total ALCOA FOUNDATION E
available for fiscal year endfr
Paragraph Twelve: INTERNAL SERVICE - VEHI~
I Vehicle Maintenance
L FUND resources available for fiscal
one for fiscaJ year
chool Fund)
resources available for fiscal
~TORJN-RESIDENCE FUND
4~,ESIDENCE FUND appropriations for
3UCATOR4N-RESIDENCE FUND resources
June 30, 2003:
_E MAINTENANCE FUND
$87,207
$14,120
$24,619
$87,207
$87,207
$87,207
$60,000
$60,000
$266,500
SUMMARY
To(al INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MNNTENANCE FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Total INTERNAL SERV~E VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Thirl~en: GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND
1 Genera~ Adult Educatio~
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATIQN FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Fourteen: DR~VERS SAFETY FUND
I Drf~ $~ Fund
SUMMARY
Total DRJVERS SAFETY FUND approflria'dons for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Fifteen: OPEN DOORS FUND
1 Open Doors Fund
SUMMARY
To~al OPEN DOORS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
$266,500
$8,486
$174,761
$153,757
$21.004
$174,761
$93,fS08
$266,500
$8,486
$8,486
$8,486
$174,761
$174,761
$174,761
$93,608
$93,608
To be provided as follows:
Ravmtue from Tuition
Revenue from Local Sources (Advertisements)
Tcdal OPEN DOORS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
$93,608
Paragraph Sixteen: READING EXCELLENCE ACT GRANT FUND
1 Reading Excellence Act Grant $100,000
SUMMARY
Total READING EXCELLENCE ACT GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Appropriation of Fund Balance $100,000
Total READING EXCELLENCE ACT GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Seventeen: STATE PROGRAMS
Special Education SLIVER Grant
Special Education Jail Progra~
Character Counts
Leam& Se~e Virginia
SOL Training RFP
SUMMARY
To(al STATE PROGRAMS appropriations forfiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Total STATE PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
$35,275
$108,651
$77,777
$7,450
$230.480
$459,633
GRAND TOTAL - OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
$~3,608
$100,000
$100,0Q0
$100,000
$459,633
$469,633
$10,854,221
SECTION IV: OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS.
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER PROGRAM
purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND
1 C,~m~ Sen~ces Act Program ~itures
SUMMARY
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
Revenue f~)m the Commouwsalth
Fund Balance
Tntal COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT msenrces available for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Two: BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND
1 Bright Staus Program
SUMMARY
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND approp~ for
the fisca~ year ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
MJ Child Health Grant
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Fund Balance
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND resources available
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Three: FAMILY SUPPORT FUND
1 Family Support Progra'n
S UI~,~ed~Y
Total FAt~LY SUPPORT FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue front the Federal Gevemment
Total FM~LY SUPPORT FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Four:. TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND
$1,476,$00
$1 ,OO0,OO0
$3,151,105
$74,720
$5,702,325
$506,150
$290,921
$23,OOO
$5,0OO
$158,155
$29,074..
$506,150
$1,15~,405
~1~158.405
$1,158,405
$5,702,325
$5,702,325
$5,702,325
$506,150
$506,150
$1,158,405
$1,158,405
$1,158,405
$212,655
10
1 Darden Towe Memodal Park
SUMMARY
To{al TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND approprlat~ns for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Geueml Fund)
II~scelleneous Local Revenue
City of Charledesville
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Five: E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND
I E-,911 O~ and Debt Service (Transfer to ~ Fund)
2 E-911 Fire Disp~__ch (Transfer to General Fund)
3 E-911 Fund Ca'Cdngency Reserve
SUMMARY
TOTAL E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources - E-911 Fees
Revenue From Local Sources - Interest Income
Total E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Six: VISITOR CENTER FUND
1 Debt Se~ce
SUMMARY
TOTAL VISITOR CENTER FUND appropria'dons for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Total VISITOR CENTER FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Seven: COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND
1 Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund
SUMMARY
TOTAL COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
$126,806
$212,655
$1,074,478
$219,000
$10,940
$1,304,418
$1,244,418
$60,000
$1,304,418
$212,655
$212,655
$1,304,418
$1,304,418
$1,304,418
$68,000
S68,000
$47,000
11
Fund Balance $47,il00
Total COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Eight: TOURISM FUND
1 Tourism ~ent.(Transfer to Genel~ Fund)
2 Tourism Projects (Transfer to Gener~ C-~vemment Capital Improvements Fund)
3 Toudsm Fund Conangency Resewe
SUMMARY
TOTAL TOURISM FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revouue fnxn Local Sources
Revenue from LOcal Sources - Fund Balance
Total TOURISM FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Nine: UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND
I Admi~ Fees
2
SUMMARY
TOTAL UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)
City of Charlottesville
United Way Matching Funds
Revenue from the Federal Government (HHS Pass Thru Grant)
Total UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND resources available
fo~ fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Ten: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND
I Criminal Justice Grant Programs
SUMMARY
TOTAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
$800,000
$1,360,081
$87,015
$113,g66
$2s4,st8.
$573,499
$1,360,081
$1,360,081
$1,360,081
$573,499
$673,499
$~3,~9
$564,442
$664,442
12
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)
Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND resources available
for flseal year ending June 30, 2003:
l:~'dragmph Eleven: VICT~MNrTNESS GRANT FUND
1 V~ctim-W~ss Program
SUMMARY
TOTAL VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND approprlaldmm for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
TO be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)
Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Twelve: METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND
1 IVislmpolilan Planning Organization Funding
SUMMARY
TOTAL METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND appropriations fo~
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue fmrn the Federal Government (Grant)
Revenue ~,c~ the Commonwealth (Grant)
Local Funds - Transfer from the General Fund
Total METRO PLANNING GRANT F. UND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Thirteen: HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND
I F--anily Self-Suffi~ Program (Transfer to Generai Fund)
2 Section 8 Administrative Se~ices (Transfer to General Fund)
3 Section 8 Ho~ng Assistance Payments
SUMMARY
TOTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government (Grant)
Revenue from the Federal Government (Housing Assistance)
Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
GRAND TOTAL - SPEC/AL REVENUE FUNDS
$564,442
$75,139
$75,139
$20,000
$75,139
$20,OOO
$20,000
$2,462,300
$14,054,414
13
SECTION V - GENERAL GOVEla_UMI=NT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums .f money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein
specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph One: ADI,~NISTRATION AND COURTS
County ~ U~
County Facililies Maintenance/Replacement Projects
~ Tec~%-~,k~ Upt~'ade - GIS
Court Fac~TCdes Rert(Nafi~~
Court Square Mainterrance/Replacema3t Projects
J&D Ca Jr ~eplacement Projects
$220,000
$716,000
$130,000
$15,ooo
$i,211,o0o
Paragraph
Paragraph
Two: PUBLIC SAFETY
1 Fire/Rescue Training ~/Police Fi~ng Range
2 Fire/Rescue Building and Equipment Fund
3 Police Computer Upgrade
4 Public Safe~ Mobile Command Center
5 Police Techr~togy Upgrade
6 Police Video C,a-tlmas for Patrol
7 SPCA New,N-~neJ Shelter C, or,,sl~ion - County Cont~bufion
Three: HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
I Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program
2 Revenue Shaing Road Co~structio~ Projects
3 Sidewalk ~on Program
4 ~own Road Sidew'aJk
5 Transportation Ping & Improvement Progrern
6 StreeUamp Program
$10,000
$486,000
$178,000
$75,000
$980,000
$85,000
~50.000
$1.864,000
$550,000
$500,000
$320,0O0
$70,000
$100,000
$1,581,000
$t,864.000
$t,581,000
Paragraph Four: UBRARY AND HUMAN DEVELOPME~IT PROJECTS
I Ubra~- Maint~Replacement
2 Region Ten Facilities
Paragraph F'we: PARKS AND RECREATION
I Cashier BooUt Improvements
2 C, oun~ ~ Fk~d Devek~ent
3 Croze~ Pak AlhleUc Field Deveiopmeat
4 Paramount ~er
5 Parks & Rec. Maintenance/Replacement Projects
6 PVCC Facility Ranovation
7 Rivanna Greemvay Access and Path
8 School Athletic Reid Irrigation
9 So. ~bemade Organization Pan~ Development (Simpson Pa~k)
$14,000
$64,000
$700,000
14
Paragraph Seven: ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
I Acq[dsition of ~ Easements (ACE) Program
Paragraph Eight: UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
I Keene Landlill Closure
2 Ivy Landfill Remedialion Program
Paragraph Nine: CAPITAL RESERVE
I Capital Reserve
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscel year ending Jime 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tourism Fund Transfer)
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Tmnefer)
CIP Fund Balance/Reserve Reapproprlafion
Courthouse Maintenance Funds
Interest Income
$100.000
.$475,000
$575.000
$~08,000
$5,970,090
$5,256,910
$9,000
$47,000
$11,891,000
$11,891,000
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
$11,891,000
15
SECTION VI: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND,
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby am approp,',a~d from the SCHOOL
DIVISION CAPITAL iMPROVEMENTS FUND for the puqx)ses herein specified to be apportioned as
follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
2 Admirf~rath~eTechr~ogY
3 Brownsville Addition
4 Croz~ ~tchen
5 Instructional Technology
6 Joue[t
7 Monticello High School Addition Design
8 Post-High House
9 Sou~em FJementa~Scho~
10 Walton School ~ld~ion
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL iMPROVEMENTS FUND
approprbd]one for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
School ClP Fund Balance
Interest Famed
State Construction Funds
VPSA Bonds
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
SECTION VII: STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the
STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be
appo~donmJ as folinws for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph One: STORMWATER PROJECTS
I Stormwater Control Program
SUMMARY
Total STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)
$50,000
$70,000
$2,386,000
$40,000
$450,000
$2,318,000
$933,000
$250,000
$20,000
$100,000
$3.113.000
$9,730,000
$680,000
$150,000
$200,000
$8,700,00Q
$9,730,000
$~5,0~
~,7~,05O
$575,000
16
SECTION VIII: DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for
the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT
DEBT SERVICE FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND
I Debt Service payments - Sch(ml Division
2 Debt Se~ice Payments - PREP
3 VRS EalyRearement
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tmnefer from General Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (PREP Fees)
Tolal SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND
1 Emeqp~W Se~ces Radio System Lease~ebt Se~ce Paymer~
SUB~&o~Y
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)
Tolal GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2003:
SUR~ARY
Total COUNTY DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
To be provided as follow;
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfa~ frcrn ~ and School Funds)
TOtal COUNTY DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2003:
$9,911,475
$266,081
$295.925
$10,473,481
$9,911,475
$295,925
$266,0~1
$10,473,481
$970,000
$970,000
$11,177,400
$266,081
$10,473,481
$10,473,481
$10,473,481
$970,000
$970,000
$970,000
$11,443,481
$11,443,401
17
Approwiat]ons:
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - VIII OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2003
~ Fund
Sclxx31 Fund
O~her Sch(x31 Funds
Oth~ Special Revenue Funds
Geaerai Goverrm~e~ Capital Improvements Fund
Sched ~ Capital Impro~anen~ Fund
~ Ca~ Im~ Fund
Less Inter-Fund Tmnsfem
~ Fund to School Fund
~ Fund to Special Revenue Funds
Gener'~ Fund to Capital Improvements Funds
~ Fund to Det~ Semice Funds
Special Revenue Funds to Ga3aal Fund
Special Revenue Funds to Capital Improvements Funds
School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds
School Fund to Special Revenue Funds
School Fund to Debt Service Funds
Self-Sustaining Fc~ds to School Fund
GRAND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
$140,707,272
$99,589,820
$10,854,221
$14,054,414
$11,891,000
$575,00O
$11.443.48!.
$298,845,2O8
($65,850,202)
($1,983,241)
(S6,545,090)
($10,881,475)
($2,043,97S)
($555,0O0)
($1,048,762)
($~,023,000)
(~F295,925)
($9o,226,673)
$208,84S,20~
($90,226,673)
$208,618,535
18
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer
monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but
not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the pedod covered by this appropriation
resolution.
SECTION IX
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through VIII are
appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection
with said terms and those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Melvin A. Breeden) and
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors (Ella W. Carey) are hereby designated as authorized signators for
all bank accounts.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be
maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations-the purpose being to make the appropriations
payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate
revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are
sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to, be payable in such proportion a~
the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of
revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included in
its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors
may not be expended by the said agency 'under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the
consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards
make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any
purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of
the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no
requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and
provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a
competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the
contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent
or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for secudng such competitive bids
on the basis of specification furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said
contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obli.qations incurred contrary to the purch.asine procedures prescribed in the
Albemarle County purchasing Manual. shall not be considered obligations o.f the
County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue.any warrants in payment of such
obligations.,
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County
departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their
officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their
personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that
established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to ti me
to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations
prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall
be and the same are hereby re pealed.
Paragraph Seven
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and two.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Project
Endorsement Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 5 to 0, as
recorded below, at a meeting held on June 5, 2002.
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorder
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Aye.. Nay
X _
X
X
X
X
(Absent)
Clerk, Board o[ CoUn~ Superv' '~~
20
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), intends to
undertake various improvements to its public school system as described on Exhibit A
attached hereto (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project prior to the issuance of the Bonds, as
hereinafter defined, and to receive reimbursement for such expenditures from proceeds of the
sale of the Bonds;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
(1)
The County intends to finance the Project through the issuance of bOnds in an amount
not to exceed $8,700,000 (the "Bonds").
(2)
The County intends to receive reimbursement from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds
for costs of th e Project paid by the County prior to the issuance of th e Bonds.
(3)
The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as "official intent"
within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Project Endorsement Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County by vote of 5 to 0, as recorded be. low, at a meeting held on June 5, 2002.
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
X
,, X
X
X
X
(Absent)
Cler-E, Board of Coun't~ Suers
2]
Exhibit A
PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED SCHOOL PROJECTS
FY 2002/2003
Description
I ADA Structural Changes
2 Brownsville Addition
3 Jouett Addition/Renovation
4 Monticello High School Addition Design
5 Post-High House
6 Southern Elementary School
7 Walton School Addition
8 School Maintenance/Replacement Projects
Amount
$50,000
$2,386,000
$2,318,000
$933,0OO
$250,000
$20,000
$100,000
$8,700,000
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Auxiliary Sidewalk Resolution
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
BOS adoption of a resolution to accept responsibility for
the maintenance of "auxiliary sidewalks"; and, authorize
the County Executive to execute auxiliary sidewalk
agreements on behalf of the County.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Kelsey
AGENDA DATE:
5 June 2002
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHM_ENTS: R/~oluti~
REVIEWED BY~~/t~ /
BACKGROUND:
The County of Albemarle encourages and/or requires sidewalks to be constructed as part of new residential
developments for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and, in part, due to the public costs incurred for
retrofitting sidewalks into established communities. These sidewalks are generally located within (or within a
portion of) the public rights~of-way and may not meet the Virginia Department of Transportation eligibility criteria for
maintenance and are therefore considered "auxiliary sidewalks". Public streets that have "auxiliary sidewalks" will
not be accepted into the State Secondary Road System until the governing body has adopted a resolution
accepting responsibility to administer the future repair and re placement of auxiliary sidewalks O/DOT "Subdivision
Street Requirements", 24 VAC 30-90-170 D.).
DISCUSSION:
The resolution (described above) has been prepared for the Board's consideration. In addition, a "sidewalk
maintenance agreement" has also been prepared. This agreement will serve to pass the obligation for sidewalk
maintenance and repair to the developer, as well as provide the Board assurance that funds will be available for
the continuing sidewalk maintenance and repair. Developers will be required to execute the "sidewalk
maintenance agreement" prior to approval of a final subdivision plat, or in the case of a previously approved
development, prior to the acceptance of the roads into the State Secondary Roads System.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution accepting responsibility to administer the future repair and replacement of auxiliary
sidewalks; and, authorize the County Executive to execute "sidewalk maintenance agreements" for auxiliary
sidewalks within the County, in a form substantially similar to the agreement attached hereto and approved by the
County Attorney.
02.075 05-28-02A09:29 RCVD
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUTURE REPAIR AND
REPLACEMENT OF AUXILIARY SIDEWALKS
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle encourages and/or requires sidewalks to be constructed as part of
residential developments for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and, in part, due to the public costs incurred for
retrofitting pedestrian systems into established communities; and
WHEREAS, sidewalks are proposed or constructed as part of a development within (or within a portion of)
the public rights-of-way and are approved by the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, sidewalks that do not meet the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") sidewalk
maintenance eligibility criteria are "auxiliary sidewalks"; and
WHEREAS, VDOT will not accept public streets with auxiliary sidewalks into the State Secondary Road
System until the local governing body has adopted a resolution accepting responsibility to administer the future repair
and replacement of auxiliary sidewalks (VDOT "Subdivision Street Requirements", 24 VAC 30-90-170 D); and
WHEREAS, each developer will be required to execute an "agreement for the maintenance of auxiliary
sidewalks" ("Agreement"), prior to approval of a final subdivision plat, or in the case of a previously approved
development, prior to the acceptance of the roads into the State Secondary Roads System; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Agreement is to pass the obligation for sidewalk maintenance and repair to the
developer, and its successors in interest, as well as provide the Board assurance that fimds will be available for the
continuing sidewalk maintenance and repair;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County does hereby
accept responsibility to administer the future repair and replacement of auxiliary sidewalks as required in VDOT
"Subdivision SWeet Requirements", 24 VAC 30-90-170 D).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to
execute auxiliary sidewalk maintenance agreements on behalf of the County, including any amendments to the model
agreement deemed necessary by the County Attorney.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 5 to 0, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
June 5, 2002. ~
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Mr. Reeker
Ms. Thomas
A~e
x
x
Nay
(absent)
This document was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney's Office
23May2002
AGREEMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE O¥ AUXILIARY SIDEWALKS
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of ., 2002, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, hereinafter the "County", and , a Virginia
corporation [or a Corporation, licensed to do business in the
Commonwealth of Virginia], hereinafter the "Developer".
WlTNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of certain real property described as
as recorded by deed in the land records of Albemarle County, Virginia
(Tax Map/Parcel Number) Deed Book __ Page , hereinafter called the "Property".
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation does not maintain and repair
sidewalks, or any portion thereof, that are within public rights-of-way and that do not meet their
sidewalk maintenance eligibility criteria, which sidewalks are hereinafter referred to as
"auxihary sidewalks"; and
WHEREAS, the County has required and/or the Developer has proposed to construct
auxiliary sidewalks identified on the plans entitled , prepared by
, dated __, and designated as County File No. SUB [SDP]
, which are incorporated herein by reference as the "Plan", as approved or to be
approved by the County; and
WHEREAS, the County is responsible under 24 VAC § 30-90-170(D) for the cost of
maintaining and repairing auxihary sidewalks, and the parties desire to assure that fimds are
available to assure the continuing maintenance and repair of the sidewalks.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the mutual covenants
contained herein, and the following terms and conditions, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Obligation to construct sidewalks. The auxiliary sidewalks shall be constructed by the
Developer, its successors and assigns, in accordance with the Plan and specifications identified
in the Plan.
2. Obligation to maintain and repair sidewalks. The Developer, its successors and
assigns, including any Owners Association, shall adequately maintain and repair the auxiliary
sidewalks. For the purpose of this Agreement "adequately maintain and repair" is defined as
keeping the auxiliary sidewalks clear of obstructions and providing all repairs needed to
minimize public hazards. These hazards may include potholes, depressions due to excessive
settlement of the subbase, spalled or deteriorated pavement, and displaced (horizontal and/or
vertical) cracks 'and joints.
23May2002
This document was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney's Office
3. Obligation to inspect sidewalks. The Developer, its successors and assigns, including
any Owners Association, shall inspect the auxiliary sidewalks at least once per year to assure the
adequate condition of the auxiliary sidewalks.
4. Establishment and maintenance of fund. The Developer, its successors and assigns,
including any Owners Association, shall establish and maintain a fund to maintain and repair the
auxiliary sidewalks as required by this Agreement, or to reimburse the County for the costs of
maintaining and repairing the auxiliary sidewalks, but for no other purpose. There shall be no
withdrawal from the fund except for purposes set forth in this Agreement.
A. Amount of fund. The Developer, its successors and assigns, including any
Owners Association, shall deposit into the fired dollars ($ )
within thirty (30) days after the street(s) to which the auxiliary sidewalks are a component are
accepted into the secondary system of state highways. On each anniversary date thereafter, the
amount to be deposited into the fund each year thereafter shall be adjusted according to the
consumer price index [or a more appropriate inflation index].
B. Timing of deposits. Each year after the initial deposit described in paragraph (A),
the Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners Association, shall deposit the
required monies into the fund not later than the anniversary date of the initial deposit.
C. Replenishment of fund. At any time the County determines that the amount of the
fired is deficient to pay for maintenance and repairs required by this Agreement, the County shall
notify in writing the Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners Association,
the amount of the deficiency, state the deficiency and the basis therefor, and within thirty (30)
days of the date of the notification, the Developer, its successors and assigns, including any
Owners Association, shall replenish the fund as required.
D. Production of records. At any time requested by the County, the Developer, its
successors and assigns, including any Owners Association, shall provide the County with records
pertaining to deposits to the fund, the current balance of the fund, withdrawals from the fund,
disbursements for repair and maintenance work, and related records.
5. Right of County to inspect sidewalks. The Developer, its successors and assigns,
including any Owners Association hereby grant permission to the County, its authorized agents
and employees, to enter upon the Property and to inspect the auxiliary.sidewalks when deemed
necessary by the County or in response to citizen complaints. The County shall provide the
Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners Association, copies of the
inspection findings and if necessary a directive to commence with the repairs.
6. Right of County to maintain and repair sidewalks. In the event the Developer, its
successors and assigns, including any Owners Association, fails to adequately maintain and
repair the auxiliary sidewalks, the County may enter upon the Property and act to correct
-2-
This document was prepared by the Albemarle County Attomey's Office
23May2002
deficiencies identified in the directive and to charge the costs of such repairs to the Developer, its
successors and assigns, including any Owners Association. It is expressly understood and agreed
that the County is under no obligation to routinely maintain or repair said auxiliary sidewalks,
and in no event shall this Agreement be construed to impose any such obligation on the County.
7. Obligation of Developer to reimburse County for expenditures. In the event the
County, pursuant to this Agreement, performs work of any nature, or expends any funds in
performance of said work for labor, use of equipment, supplies, materials, and the like, the
Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners Association, shall reimburse the
County upon demand, within thirty (30) days of receipt thereof for all actual costs incurred by
the County hereunder.
8. Hold harmless and indemnification. The Developer, its successors and assigns,
including any Owners Association, shall hold harmless and indemnify the County, its officers,
employees, agents and volunteers for damage to any existing improvements during the
construction, maintenance or repair of the auxiliary sidewalks, and to hold harmless and
indemnify the County, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers from any and all claims for
bodily injury and personal injury and/or property damage, including costs of investigation, all
expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees, and the cost of appeals arising out of
any claims or suits that result from errors, omissions or negligent acts of the Developer, its
successors and assigns, including any Owners Association and its agents and employees, and any
claims arising from the exercise of any privilege granted by this Agreement.
9. Insurance. The Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners
Association, shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance that expressly includes the
auxiliary sidewalks within its coverage in the amount of dollars
($ ) during the term of this Agreement. The certificate of insurance shall name the
"County of Albemarle, Virginia" as an additional insured and shall provide that the County shall
receive (the word "endeavor" shall be stricken from the standard cancellation notice provision)
thirty (30) days prior written notification if any insurance required under this section shall be
canceled. The insurance required by this section shall be and remain in full force and effect for
the entire term of this Agreement.
10. Notice of proposed assignment or transfer. The Developer, its successors and
assigns, including any Owners Association, shall notify the County in writing at least ten (10)
days prior to the assignment or transfer of this Agreement.
11. Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded among the land records of
Albemarle County, Virginia, and shall constitute a covenant running with the land, and shall be
binding on the Developer, its successors and assigns, including any Owners Association
-3-
23 May 2002
This document was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney's Office
12. Binding. This Agreement, when properly executed, shall be binding upon all parties,
their successors, heirs and assigns.
13. Modification. This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual agreement of
all parties.
14. Term. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect until such time as the County
adopts a sidewalk maintenance policy expressly applicable to the auxiliary sidewalks which are
the subject hereof.
15. Entire agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties
hereto concerning the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior understandings, whether
oral or written.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has caused this agreement to be executed
in triplicate in its name and on its behalf by its duly authorized officer as of the date, month, and
year first hereinabove written.
[DEVELOPER] COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
[Address]
[City, State, Zip Code]
By: By:
Name
Title
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
The foregoing Agreement for the Maintenance of Auxiliary Sidewalks was signed, sworn
to and acknowledged before me this day of , __ by ,
, on behalf of the
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
The foregoing Agreement for the Maintenance of Auxiliary Sidewalks was signed, sworn to
and acknowledged before me this day of , by Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Approved as to form:
By:
County Attorney
-4-
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY TO ADMINISTER THE
FUTURE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF AUXILIARY SIDEWALKS
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle encourages and/or requires sidewalks to be constructed as part of
residential developments for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and, in part, due to the public
costs incurred for retrofitting pedestrian systems into established communities; and
WHEREAS, sidewalks are proposed or constructed as part of a development within (or within a portion of)
the public rights-of-way and are approved by the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, sidewalks that do not meet the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") sidewalk
maintenance eligibility criteria are "auxiliary sidewalks"; and
WltEREAS, VDOT will not accept public streets with auxihary sidewalks into the State Secondary Road
System until the local governing body has adopted a resolution accepting responsibility to administer
the future repmr and replacement of auxiliary sidewalks CVDOT "Subdivision Street Requirements",
24 VAC 30-90-170 D); and
WHEREAS, each developer will be required to execute an "agreement for the maintenance of auxiliary
sidewalks" ("Agreement"), prior to approval of a final subdivision plat, or in the case of a previously
approved development, prior to the acceptance of the roads into the State Secondary Roads System;
and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Agreement is to pass the obligation for sidewalk maintenance and repair to
the developer, and its successors in interest, as well as provide the Board assurance that funds will be
available for the continuing sidewalk maintenance and repair;
NOW, TllF~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County does
hereby accept responsibility to administer the future repair and replacement of auxiliary sidewalks as
required in VDOT "Subdivision Street Requirements", 24 VAC 30-90-170 D).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to
execute auxihary sidewalk maintenance agreements on behalf of the County, including any
amendments to the model agreement deemed necessary by the County Attorney.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of to , as recorded below, at a
meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Southern Urban Area "B" Study
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for County Funding
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE:
June 5,2002
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
In 1988, the Planning and Coordination Council for the City, County and University (PACC) approved the Jefferson Park
Aven ue/Fontaine Avenue Area "B" Study. Subsequently, the County has included consideration of the recommendations of this
study by reference in the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. In consideration of recent development activities in
the area covered by this study, on May 16, 2002 PACC approved a scope of study for an update'to the JPA/Fontaine Study,
now to be called the Southern Urban Area "B" Study (see Attachment A), and authorized a Request for Proposals to be issued.
Upon receipt of proposals, selection of a consultant and an authorization to proceed by each of the thraejurisdictions, PACC
will request that each jurisdiction contribute 1/3 of the cost of the consultant contract, not to exceed $75,000 total ($25,000 for
each jurisdiction).
DISCUSSION:
The study area and adjacent areas have seen significant change since the completion of the original study in 1988 and are now
experiencing the potential for additional growth with several University-oriented housing projects either approved or proposed.
The most recent proposal for the development of one of the last large undeveloped tracts in the County's part of the study area,
Sandy Lane Residential Village, proposes changing nearly 70 acres of Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units
per acre) to Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre). PACC feels this has created a need to revisit the
assumptions and recommendations of the original Area "B" study to address issues of land use, support services,
transportation and other infrastructure, the County Neighborhood Model principles, the City Corridor Plan recommendations
and the appropriate location for University related housing. The Planning Commission approved a resolution of intent on May
21,2002 to consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment for this proposal (CPA 2001-07) within the larger context of an overall
study of this area.
RECOMMENDATION:
bSrtaff recommen ds approval of the funding for the Southern Urban Area "B" Study as approved by PACC on May 16th and will
ing back an appropriation in the near future. County funding is subject to comparable funding from the City and the
University.
02.079 05-29-02P02:59 RCVD
Southern Urban Area "B" Study
Prepared for
City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, University of Virginia
Background
When the Three Party Agreement was signed in 1986, the City of Charlottesville
("City"), County of Albemarle ("County"), and the University of Virginia ("University")
agreed to coordinate planning efforts in Area "B," which includes land lying "at the
boundaries of or between the University and either the City or County and on which the
activities of any or all three of the parties might have an effect" (page one of the
agreement). Since the agreement's inception, most Area B studies have been prepared,
among them the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Neighborhood Framework
Plan, completed August 18, 1988. This study area included the western section of the
southern urban ting; more specifically, property within the County adjacent to the City
boundaries in the vicinity of the 29/250 By-Pass and Interstate 64, along with a major
portion of the southwest quadrant of the City. The plan made a series of
recommendations, culminating in an Action Plan which called for a series of
transportation improvements, the development of design standards for Fontaine and
Jefferson Park Avenue, and various land use and zoning measures. Some of these
recommendations have been implemented; others remain as yet unfulfilled.
Current Context
This portion of the southern urban area is currently experiencing substantial development
pressure, and the 1988 plan offers limited guidance due to its age. Many vacant parcels
for which recommendations were made in the plan have now developed and, in fact, may
be at full build-out. Land use and growth management philosophy have been further
defined with adoption of the Neighborhood Model as part of the County's Comprehensive
Plan, and a higher density, new urbanist development form is now sought within the
designated Development Areas. The City has adopted neighborhood oriented planning
practices, and plans for the eighteen neighborhoods within the city were recently
completed and appended to the Comprehensive Plan. Traffic volumes on City streets
have continued to rise, as development within the urban ting increases, and residential
neighborhoods are being negatively impacted. Rather than routinely looking to new
roads or widened roads as solutions to transportation impacts - or perhaps in place of that
approach - the concepts ofinterconnectivity, walkability, and multi-modal transportation
systems are now seen as appropriate. However, no long-term transportation plan exists
for the area.
A number of significant development proposals within this portion of the southern urban
area have been submitted within the last two to three years. The various multi-family
developments, if approved, would produce an inventory of approximately 1700 rental
units. These complexes are primarily targeting the University student rental market. In
the area just beyond the boundaries of the original study, two significant commercial
developments - one Community Service, and one Regional Service - were proposed.
The Community Service request was approved. It is anticipated that these levels of
development activity will continue and perhaps increase within this southern urban ring.
Study Boundaries
The boundaries of the original study area were determined by the Planning and
Coordination Council of the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University
of Virginia. The updated study would follow the same boundaries, set forth below:
· Bounded on the north by the Birdwood site and the Bellair Estates subdivision, the
University of Virginia, and Stadium Road;
· Bounded on the east by Valley Road;
· Bounded on the south by Cherry Avenue, Cleveland Avenue, Sunset Avenue, and
State Route 781;
· Bounded on the west and southwest by irregular boundaries, extending southward
from the Birdwood tract to include the undeveloped Heyward property, around the
eastern edge of the Route 29/1-64 interchange, around the perimeter of the Sherwood
Farms residential subdivision, and southeasterly to Route 781.
For the purposes of the transportation component of the study, it may be necessary to
address intersections including but not limited to Old Lynchburg Road/Fifth Street
Extended, Harris Road/Fifth Street Extended, and Cherry Avenue/Fifth Street Extended.
Scope of Services
While the final terms and tasks of the contract will be subject to negotiation, it is
anticipated that the range of services will include items listed below:
A. Using digital maps provided by the City, County and University, prepare base maps
identifying natural features, existing constructed features, planned facilities and
infrastructure (public and private), and zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations;
B. Prepare an economic and demographic overview of the City of Charlottesville and
County of Albemarle, addressing key indicators such as employment, population,
number of households, development and redevelopment activity, and housing tenure
and condition in the Area B neighborhoods;
C. Prepare an economic and demographic overview of the University of Virginia,
addressing key indicators such as student enrollment, student living patterns,
University housing inventory, University work force, residence of University
employees,;
Assist the project working group made up of City, County, and University
representatives, residents of the neighborhoods, and other stakeholders in completing
an inventory which identifies preservation areas, urban design features, existing
neighborhood centers and neighborhoods corresponding to those centers;
The Neighborhood Framework Plan will include but not be limited to the following
elements:
1. Master street and circulation plan addressing proposed street locations and
intersections; existing and proposed connections between City, County and
University; bicycle and pedestrian circulation; greenways; an interim or
permanent access management plan;
2. Public transportation routes and options;
3. Community facilities (existing, planned and proposed);
4. Parks, greenways, and open space;
5. Infrastructure (existing, planned and proposed);
6. Appropriate land use for the undeveloped areas and areas to be redeveloped
within the neighborhood.
F. Assist the project working group in assessing existing and future University student
housing needs, developing a student housing policy for this portion of the Southern
Urban Area that also can be used in other Area B.~neighborhoods, and identifying
strategies for implementing the policy*;
G. Based on (D) above, assist the working group in assessing existing and future
University student parking and public transportation needs, developing a student
parking policy for this portion of the Southern Urban Area that also can be used in
other Area B neighborhoods, and identifying strategies for implementing the policy*;
H. Make periodic presentations and a final presentation, with staff, to the community,
elected and appointed officials of the three authorizing jurisdictions during the
Neighborhood Framework Plan process.
I. The project time frame for the Neighborhood Framework Plan shall be no longer than
twelve (12) months from the date of contract award.
* Items F and G may depend upon development of University policy addressing student
housing and parking that is beyond the scope of this study.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Information on The Appalachian Trail Work Camp
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The Group WorkCamps Foundation/Albemarle Housing
Improverr[ent Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Roxanne White, Ron White
AGENDA DATE:
June 5, 2002
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: × INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
/
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) has worked for over a year in an effort to sponsor The Group
WorkCamps Foundation for the improvement of housing conditions of County residents. The multi-denominational supported
Foun dation coordinates youth volunteers and adult chaperones for weeklong m~ssions aimed at improving the lives of those in
need.
DISCUSSION:
132 Albemarle County residents will benefit from the Foundation's volunteers this summer. Th e Appalachian Trail WorkCamp
will consist of 442 volunteers spending the week from July 15-19 doing home repairs on 66 homes. AHIP has provided all of
the outreach to identify jobs, complete work write-ups, and arrange for materials. A fact sheet is attached providing more
information on type of work that is expected. The Covenant School will house the volunteers during their stay.
As noted on the fact sheet, each participant has paid to volunteer. In addition, The Foundation provides up to $15,000 for
materials that must be matched by $15,000 from the sponsor, AHIP. AHIP continues to raise funds through fund-raising
activities and donations to meet their match. AHIP is making every effort to use funds not already designated for other
operations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors support the volunteer efforts of The Appalachian Trail WorkCamp volunteers
and the co-sponsors of the camp - AHIP, The Covenant School, and The Group WorkCamps Foundation as follows:
· The Board Chairperson to write a letter of welcom e, support, and appreciation (staff will draft)
· The Board have representation at the camP's opening ceremony (time & location to be determined) to present a welcome
· The Board commend AHIP and the Covenant School as local co-sponsors in an appropriate way.
02.076
05-28-02P05:04 RCVD
Group WorkCamps
FACT SHEET
Name of Camp:
Date:
The Appalachian Trail WorkCamp
July 15 - 19, 2002
442 youth group members have registered - this includes
adult leaders.
Registration fee is $365 per person.
An additional 50 Group staff and volunteers to run the
camp.
Camp is housed at The Covenant School- brand new
school on Hickory Lane off Old Lynchburg Road. Dr. Ron
Sykes is the Headmaster.
85 projects have been assessed and approved for Group
WorkCamps. Those 85 projects represent 66 separate
Albemarle County homes. Some homes need so much
repair, they have been assigned 2 crews.
Sites have been selected by contacting all Albemarle
County residents on our waiting lists for Emergency Home
Repair and Housing Rehabilitation. Other sites have been
referrals from JABA, Department of Social Services, and
neighbors.
To qualify for Group WorkCamps services the client must:
o Live within a 30 minute radius from the camp base
(The Covenant School);
o The resident or family members must be home during
the entire week;
o The house must have visible and apparent needs
that will keep a team of 5 youth and 1 adult working
for 1 week;
o The resident must be disabled, elderly,
handicapped, and/or iow-income. Group has
adopted AHIP's standard for Iow-income as 80% of
median income.
Religious materials will be on site. Residents are invited to
join daily devotions, but it is not a requirement.
Home with evidence of firearms, alcohol or drug abuse,
drug sales, domestic problems, or vulgar language will not
be considered.
AHIP's responsibilities as co-sponsor are:
o Secure a school to house the camp.
o Raise ,$15,000 to pay for building materials and
supplies for the camp. Group WorkCamps will
match that amount.
o Assess, qualify, and complete project write ups for 85
projects.
o Recruit volunteers for site writing, troubleshooting,
construction debris pick up, and other camp duties.
The work week will be Monday- Friday. Full days work
from 8:30 - 3:30 on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and
Friday. Half day work on Wednesday from 8:30 - 12:30.
Campers are free to go to Monticello, visit The University,
go shopping, etc. that afternoon.
Group WorkCamps will be bringing roughly $100,000 of
business to the area through material purchase, meals,
gas, tourism, etc.
Over $40,000 of free labor and $30,000 of materials will be
provided to county residents.
Typical camp projects are:
o Build wheelchair ramps, decks, and stoops;
o Strip roofs, re-roof, patch, and repair roofs;
o Exterior and interior painting;
o Weatherization- caulking, insulating, glazing
windows;
o Drywall repair
GROUP WORKCAMPS FOUNDATION
· 2002 Season - 62 camps country-wide over 8 week period
· Established in 1977
· www. grou pworkcamps.com
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Corville Farms
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update to BOS on current situation
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Graham, Hirschman
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
June 5, 2002
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: ENSAT Report on Water Supply System
REVIEWED BY~~~'~''j
DISCUSSION:
As directed by the County Board of Supervisors on January 16, 2002, Engineering and Public Works has been working
to get the Corville Farm Road ready for acceptance into the VDOT secondary read system and to find a long-term
solution for the problems with the subdivision's central well water system.
With regard to the read, an "as-built" survey has been completed and additional drainage easements required forVDOT
have been identified. At this time, we are working to complete those easement agreements and to relocate
improvements located within the road's right of way. E~oth of these steps are necessary before VDOT will perform the
needed work un der the Rural Addition Program that must be completed for acceptance in the secondary read system.
At this time, we foresee no difficulties in getting this work done to match the timeline for VDOT to complete this work
under the Six Year Road Plan.
We have also been diligently working to develop long-term solutions to the concerns with water supply for these
property owners. As was discussed at the January 16th Board meeting, the distribution lines for the existing central well
system are in poor condition. The leaks in the distribution lines are causing the pumps and wells to be' overtaxed, which
is the pdmary problem with the current system. Additionally, the owner of the property where the wells are located is
actively seeking to sell his property and there appear to be no guarantees that the new property owner will have any
duty to retain these wells.
To make sure we were fully considering available'alternatives, we contracted with ENSAT Corporation to perform a
study of the water system and to examine altematives from a technical perspective. A copy of that report is attached.
This report indicates that neither individual wells on each lot or continuing with the existing distribution system appear
very feasible as long-term solutions. The report does indicate that a new central well system appears to be technically
feasible, but both the capital and initial operational costs with such a system are likely beyond the financial capabilities
of some homeowners in the Corville Farm subdivision. Additionally, the ENSAT report did not identify a management
structure that would insure the long-term maintenance of this system. At this time, Engineering has taken the ENSAT
report and is considering two new altematives. Those alternatives include a well field on the adjoining Greenwood
Center property that could be used for shared wells and a renovated split distribution system. Both of these alternatives
have complexities that reequ~re additional investigation before we can determine their feasibility. It is premature to
discuss those alternatives until we have identified all the pros and cons of each and what would need to be done to
make the altematives work. We anticipate it will take 2-3 additional months before we are ready to present the
alternatives and a recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors. During this period, we will discuss possible
solutions with both the owner of the well system that serves the subdivision and the residents themselves.
02.077 05-28-02P05:04 ROVD
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P.C.
Table of Contents
Hydrogeology of Corville Farm Area ............................ ' 2
Existing Water System Situation .......................................................................................... 7
Water System Alternatives ................................................................................................... 8
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 1: Stony Run Watershed Map
Figure 2: Lineament Map of Corville Farm Subdivision Area
Figure 3: Map of Corville Farm Subdivision Approximate Drainfield Locations
Figure 4: Map of Corville Farm Subdivision new water line layout
Page 1
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P. C.
Hydrogeology of Corville Farm Area
Introduction
The Corville Farm Subdivision lies within the Stony Run watershed, which begins in the
Blue Ridge Mountains, hms down through Greenwood Hollow, and ends at the
confluence of Stony Run with Stockton Creek (Figure 1). This watershed is
approximately 1500 acres in size. Wells that serve the subdivision are fairly close to the
watershed divide with the Tuckadeway Branch watershed (1400 acres). Like the Stony
Creek watershed, the Tuckadeway Branch watershed originates in the Blue Ridge
Mountains, and also drains into Stockton Creek just west of the 164-250 West
interchange.
Bedrock Geology
The solid bedrock underlying the Stony Run and Tuckadeway Branch watersheds
consists of crystalline rock that contains virtually no pore space between individual
mineral grains. Groundwater occurs only within fractures located in the unweathered
portion of the underlying bedrock. The degree of fracturing and the ease with which
groundwater can move through the fractures is critical to determining how much water
can be extracted from the wells penetrating bedrock.
Underlying bedrock formations in the upper portion of the watersheds consist primarily
of metamorphosed volcanic rocks with a thin band of metamorphosed sedimentary rocks
trending northeast-southwest along the flank of the mountains. Bedrock formations
underlying the mid and lower pOrtions of both watersheds, including the Corville Farms
subdivision, consists of biotite gneiss and granite.
Saprolite
Saprolite is unconsolidated, heavily weathered rock material that comprises a layer
between near-surface soil horizons and unweathered bedrock at depth. The physical
properties of saprolite that develop over a particular type of bedrock are determined by
the differential weathering of minerals contained within the solid bedrock. Common
minerals such as quartz and muscovite are fairly resistant to chemical weathering,
whereas, feldspar, biotite, and amphibole weather readily to form clays and/or leachable
byproducts.
Given that the greatest percentage of each watershed, including the area known as
Corville Farms subdivision, is underlain by biotite gneiss and granite, the mineral content
of this bedrOck will weather to form thick saprolites. These saprolite deposits are
composed of a quartz/muscovite rich porous lattice formed around voids left by more
easily weathered feldspar and biotite. This type of saprolite is typically very permeable
and conducive to recharge via precipitation.
Page 2
Corville Farms ~Vater System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp: and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P.C.
Soils
Soils in the upper portion of the Stony Creek and Tuckadeway watersheds primarily
include the Lew and Myersville units. The mid and lower portion of both watersheds
primarily contain Braddock, Hayesville, Dyke, Unison, and Thurmont soils units.
Generally, all of these soils are considered to be moderately to highly permeable. These
are old, colluvial deposits associated with debris flows.
Overburden Thickness
Overburden thickness values for the Stony Run and Tuckadeway Branch watersheds can
be estimated based on the categories defined in the Albemarle County Hydrogeologic
Assessment conducted by ENSAT Corporation in partnership with the Virginia Division
of Mines, Minerals, and Energy. Generally, overburden thickness was determined by the
Project Team based on the following data sources: soil thickness and percentage slope
from the Albemarle County soil survey, and casing lengths from water well completion
reports contained within the Albemarle County water well database.
The bulk of thc middle and upper portions of these watersheds fall into the category
defined as the Blue Ridge Flank. However, the lower portions, including the Corvillc
Farms subdivision, are contained in the Blue Ridge Foothill category. The subdivision is
located in an area where percentage slope is generally between 2 and 7 percent and
overburden thickness is 60+ feet. Based on the findings of the Hydrogeologic
Assessment, soil and saprolite thicknesses arc considered to be "deep" in this portion of
the watershed.
Overburden Character
The Hydrogeologic Assessment report contains empirical data relating to saturated
hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) values for five major hydrogeologic units and their
associated overburden character. Field measurements were obtained via the Precision
Permeameter, which establishes and maintains a constant head of water to measure flow
rate (Ksat) values utilizing the Glover Solution. The results obtained from these tests are
only valid for the specified locations and depths selected, and results would likely vary at
different locations across the County. Based on the results of the Assessment,
permeability rates for overburden within the Stony Run and Tuckadeway watersheds can
be categorically labeled either "moderate" or "high." Permeability rates in and around
the subdivision itself, fall into the "moderate" category.
Well Yield Characteristics
The average "blown" well yield (obtained from the Albemarle County water well
database) among the 18 wells (Table 1) in or near the subdivision is 11.4 gallons per
minute. However, this average does not include the zero-yield wells. Blown yi61d values
are not considered to be an accurate representation of the production potential of an
Page 3
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation ~n partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P. C.
individual well, as this measurement does not reflect the sustainable yield that would be
achieved under normal pumping conditions. Nonetheless, the numbers imply that the
average well drilled in or near the subdivision will yield a quantity of water sufficient to
supply an average household. Virginia Health Department guidelines recommend a
minimal water well supply yield of 2 gpm per household, or, given sufficient storage, a
yield of 1 gpm.
Table 1: Casing Lengths and Yield Data from Corville Farm Area Wells
Well I.D. # Casing Lengths Yield
5464
5465
5471
22
20
73
10
10
5472 83 11
5476 94 17
5486
5490
53 7
51 30
5601 22 0
5603 20 0
5604 72 7
95
52
5605
5606
5607 51 0
5608 70 0
5609 57 4
5610
94
15
15
5611 55 15
5612 44 10
The average yield of wells is 11.4 gpm, not including zero-yield wells in the database.
The average casing length is 62 feet.
Page 4
CorviIle Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P. C.
Static Water Level
Based on the static water table map generated for the Albemarle County Hydrogeolgic
Asssessment report, water levels in the Stony Run and Tuckadeway watersheds range
from very shallow to deep throughout the area. The subdivision itself is located in an
area where depth to water is considered "shallow."
The Project Team utilized data from the following sources to generate a static water table
map for the Mechum's River and Ivy Creek Basins: the Albemarle County Soil Survey,
the Albemarle County Groundwater Database, and Site Characterization Reports obtained
from thc Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.' A detailed description of the
methodology utilized to generate this map is located on page 46, sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2,
of the report.
Recharge
Recharge is defined as the replenishment of subsurface water to an aquifer via infiltration
of precipitation from the land surface. Although there are other potential sources of
recharge such as irrigation or septic return flows, the Project Team selected only the rain
event-driven component for consideration. Soils comprising the Blue Ridge Flank and
the Blue Ridge Foothill hydrogeologic groups are generally considered to be highly
permeable. Given' that the upper and middle portions of the two referenced watersheds
have a relatively high percentage slope, it logically follows that precipitation will run-off
the Flank areas into the lower-lying, flatter areas dominated by the soils of the Foothill
Group. Combining these factors results in a "high" to "moderate" recharge score for the
lower portions of the watersheds where the subdivision is located.
Degree of Fracturing
As was the case in the initial phase of the Albemarle County Hydrogeologic Assessment,
there is no statistically valid basis on which to characterize the bedrock underlying the
subdivision with regard to joint density or degree of fracturing. However, the Project
Team devised a strategy to measure the gradation of fractures in bedrock, rather than
evaluate the presence or absence of fractures. The Team calculated a "fracture factor"
that may indicate watersheds where, based on topographic expression, bedrock fracturing
is potentially more concentrated, than in other watersheds.
Based on the map-layer generated from fracture factor scores, the Stony Run watershed
received a "very low" ranking, whereas the Tuckadeway watershed received a "low"
ranking. However, despite the low scores that these two watersheds received, there are a
fair number of additional fractures evident from an additional fracture trace analysis that
was conducted on 1:24,000 scale aerial photos. The presence of these features indicate
that there is a possibility that a number of wells could be installed in or near the
subdivision which could supply a sufficient quantity of water for domestic consumption.
Page 5
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P.C.
In addition, more detailed fracture trace analysis of the site and site vicinitv was
performed using both 1:40,000 and 1:24,000 stereo aerial photographs. Lineations
observed from the analysis were marked directly on the photos and transferred to the
Waynesboro East USGS topographic quadrangle map.
Several fractures/lineations proximal to the site are well expressed and manifest
themselves over a long distance in the surface. Of particular interest is a lineation located
directly west of the site and is oriented along Stoney Creek through the Greenwood
Community Center property (Figure 2).
Assessment of Groundwater Availability
Although the two watersheds received less than desirable scores for their fracture
"potential," the most recent fracture trace analysis conducted at the 1:40,000 and
1:24,000 scale indicates that there is an existing potential to site wells with adequate yield
in or near the Corville Farms subdivision. While there are no guarantees that well
locations sited via fracture trace analysis will yield sufficient quantities of water, a more
detailed analysis involving a geophysical resistivity survey could be conducted to
enhance the possibility of selecting promising targets. Despite the additional costs of
utilizing this technique, it could effectively increase the chance of siting desirable targets
for future wells.
Based upon the results of the fracture trace analysis and groundwater availability
assessment, it is concluded that this region of the county possesses a well fractured
bedrock, moderately deep soils and colluvium, and a large drainage basin. All of these
components suggest good potential for a groundwater supply source in the vicinity of
the subdivision. This finding means that there is good chance that replacement
groundwater supply sources couM be found in the vicinity of the subdivision if one or
more existing wells were unable to be used or if a need arose to augment existing
supplies.
Page 6
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P.C.
Existing Water System Situation
Approximately 30 years ago, H.H. Tiffany created a 21-lot subdivision (originally known
as Tiffany Subdivision) on a moderate slope on the south side of his farm property
between the farmhouse and Stony Run. Each of the lots created is approximately 100
feet wide and 200 feet deep (Figure 3). The subdivision is served by three wells on a
split distribution system. According to the present Owner of the farm (now named
"Monterey Farm"), these wells, along with associated infrastructure, i.e, pumps, motors,
tanks, distribution system, and the lots on which the wells are located, are all owned by
the Public Service Company of Virginia (hereafter referred to as "Owner"). Each of the
lots is served by a drainfield in the front or back of the properties.
The distribution system has historically been known to leak to varying degrees in
multiple locations. Water leakage has been observed by the residents, by the Owner, and
by the Southeastern Rural Assistance Program, which has recently conducted leakage
testing on the system. In addition, the locations of large portions of the distribution
system cannot be determined, in spite of the use of various subsurface utility
identification tools. As a result of the leaks, maintenance of the infrastructure is costly in
terms of time and materials.
Thus, for the moment, the primary water problem with the subdivision is distribution
(connecting underground pipes), rather than the source (groundwater quality and
quantity), or the proper functioning of the supply (mechanical pumps and tanks).
It should be noted that according to the Owner, he has no legal obligation to maintain the
system for the residents. He wishes to sell the farm unencumbered from the water system
and plans to sell the three wells currently supplying the subdivision along with the farm.
Therefore, this study attempts to provide information to the County about water
distribution and supply options. These options are:
1. Split community system
2. Individual wells
3. Single community system
4. Hybrid water well-single community system
It is the opinion of the Project Team and of the Owner that the current distribution system
cannot be repaired in a patchwork type of process. Supply lines cannot be located and
the quality of them is so poor, that repair would cost as much or more than a replacement
system.
Page 7
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P.C.
Water System Alternatives
Individual Wells Option
Historically, all wells in the subdivision have been served through three wells located just
outside of the subdivision. Recently, four wells have been drilled by residents, one of
which failed to yield an appreciable quantity of water (1 gallon per minute or greater).
Of these newly drilled wells, one was determined to have a blown yield of 3 gpm and
serves two homes, another was determined to have a blown yield of 6 gpm and serves the
home of the lot it was drilled on, and the other was determined to have a blown yield of
12-15 gpm, and also serves the home of the lot it was drilled on.
The Project Team has examined the feasibility of drilling individual wells for the
remainder of the lots in the subdivision. As a first step, approximate drainfield locations
within each of the lots were identified (Figure 3). Staff from the Thomas Jefferson
Health Department met Project Team staff on-site to review proximity to drainfields,
drilling rig access, and interference between wells.
The Team's fmdings include:
1. Proximity to Drainfields
Many of the lots on the north side of the subdivision are organized in such a manner that
additional wells could be drilled with adequate setbacks from septic systems. However,
all of the lots on the south side of the subdivision are downhill from drainfields on the
north side. Perhaps one-half of the houses within these lots are located less than 100'
from the upslope drainfields. Again, on the lower side of the subdivision, for most of the
homes, there is less than 100' from the drainfield to the upslope property boundary. It is
conceivable that a few of the lots on the south side might have wells drilled behind
(downslope) of the drainfields: However, these areas are near Stony Run creek, and many
are on a fairly steep grade below the drainfields.
The Project Team concludes that the drilling of additional wells on lots on the north side
of the subdivision is generally possible. However, the reverse is generally true with lots
on the south side of the subdivision. Depending on the yield, most of these lots have the
potential to include effluent from one or more drainfields into their recharge areas, or to
capture surface water from Stony Creek. Obviously, both of these scenarios present some
level of health risk.
Page 8
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSA T Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P.C.
2. Drilling Rig Access
The Team has also discussed the logistics of rig access within the subdivision. Again, for
lots on the north side, it would be possible to create a road along the back of the lots for
access. However, there is no easy way to get to the lots on the south side, due to steep
slopes on the back of the lot and proximity to the stream. The team thus concludes that
drilling on the south side of the subdivision would be very difficult and undoubtedly
expensive.
3. Drawdown Effects between Wells
Piedmont groundwater is one of the least understood regimes in the world. Thus, without
expensive and time-consuming field investigations, it is difficult to ascertain the degree
to which one well may affect another. Based upon the Albemarle County Hydrogeologic
Investigation, however, we can generally estimate the potential for connection. Data fi:om
this study reveals the potential for substantial primary fracturing in the area. The yields of
the most recently drilled wells (3-12 gpm) are moderate, and provide some indication of
the degree of background fracturing. Saprolite permeability is moderate to high and
saprolite depth is deep to moderately deep. Soil hydrologic grouping in the area is
moderately sandy to sandy. The Owner has noted that when one of the new wells on
individual lots was drilled, increased sediment was found in one of the community wells.
This information indicates strong potential for impact from one supply well to another.
Based upon this information, the Project Team finds the individual well option to not
be feasible due to human health concerns.
A modification to the individual well approach as conceived above may have merit.
Groundwater potential in the Greenwood Community Center area appears to be
favorable. As an alternative to drilling additional wells within the property boundaries of
each of the lots on the south side of the subdivision, individual or shared wells could be
drilled on County-owned land. A determination of the feasibility of. this approach would
require additional work beyond the scope allocated for this report.
Split Distribution System Option
The subdivision is currently split into two independent water systems, each with its own
source, pumping, and distribution system. This splitting of the system allows a reduction
in the Owner's operation and maintenance costs, and has allowed rates charged to: the
customers to remain reasonable. This is possible because the two separate water systems
do not meet the minimum definition of a public water supply and as such are not subject
to the many monitoring and reporting requirements of current state and federal drinking
water regulations.
Page 9
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P.C.
Prior to 1995, the Owner operated the system as a community waterworks, as defined by
State and Federal drinking water regulations, even though the system had two distinct
pumping and distribution systems. With the promulgation of new Federal drinking water
regulations (primarily the Lead and Copper Rule) the owner was faced with increasing
operation and maintenance costs and possible capital costs necessary to comply with
Federally mandated treatment technique requirements.
In late 1994, the Owner opted to split the system into two independent waterworks, each
of which provides water to less than 15 connections~ and sent a letter to the Virginia
Department of Health noting that the system no longer met the definition for a public
waterworks. In response, the VDH revoked the system's waterworks permit in early
1995. To date, the system still functions as a "spht" system.
Obviously, there are financial benefits to the users and to the Owner for continued
operation of the system with this configuration. And it is understandable, how, under the
present operational situation, this approach would be attractive to the Owner, and to the
users. However, the Project Team believes that this configuration is one that fails to fully
serve the health monitoring needs (as defined by VDH) of the system users. It is also
unclear how routine maintenance will be completed if the Owner should decide to sell the
farm.
Based upon this information, the Project Team finds this alternative to not be feasible
due to health and management concerns.
Single Distribution System Option
The Project Team has evaluated the feasibility of recombining the water distribution
system from its present split status. Under this scenario, a management entity would
operate the system as a "public waterworks", as defined in Title 32.1, Article 2, of
Appendix A of the Virginia Waterworks Regulations. An entirely new distribution
system would be constructed. It is also the opinion of the Project Team that all three of
the existing wells would need to be utilized. Alternatively, one or more new wells could
be drilled.
The existing 5000 gallon* ground storage tank would be adequate to serve the system,
coupled with booster tanks and a 1000 gallon hydropneumatic tank. The new distribution
system would be installed from well site A, along the existing easement between lots 11
and 13 to the south side of the street. From this point, the line would tee into (2) two four
inch water lines to both ends of the street with the appropriate taps and meter bases (see
Figure 4).
The Project Team estimates the materials and construction costs to complete these
improvements:
Page 10
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P. C.
1. 1000 gallon hydropneumatic tank
2. 12 ft. X 12 ft. pump house
3. Booster pump, plumbing and electrical
4. Install 2000 ft. Of 4" sch. 40 pipe with 23 meter sets
$5000.00
$10,000.00'*
$7500.00
$40,000.00
* assumes that Owner is willing to convey tank to community system entity
** may not be needed if existing pump houses can be used
The team also recommends that a 48 hour yield and draw down test as well as complete
chemical, biological, and radiological tests be conducted on each of the wells. The
approximate costs to complete these tests is $6000.00 each. The classification of each
well should also be checked to ensure that each is Class liB. In addition, VDH
recommends that a chlorination system be installed for all new systems. VDH also noted
that a soda ash feeder system and a corrosion inhibitor may be needed, depending on the
findings of future water quality tests. The construction cost for these two items are
approximately $5500.00. Based upon these estimates, the total construction costs are
approximately $75,000.00, or $4200.00 per house. Costs to extend piping from the street
to the house are an additional cost, estimated to range from $400.00 to $1000.00/house.
Additional costs would also include property acquisition for the existing and/or new well
site(s) and purchase of existing infrastructure. Associated costs might also include well
development, i.e., site preparation, drilling, etc.
In addition to these construction costs, the management entity would also have to manage
the system according to VDH specifications. As of July 1, a (minimum) Class VI
waterworks operator will be required to maintain the system. The operator would then
have to complete the following procedures:
Procedure
1 coliform sample/month
1 complete water qual. scan/3 years/entry point (1)
1 radiological scan/4 years/entry point (1)
lead and copper:
- (first two years) 5 samples/six months
- (next two years) 5 samples/year
- (thereafter) 5 samples
radiological scan
fill soda ash and chlorine tanks
Costpermonth
$25.00
$14.00
$21.00
$42.00
($21.00)
($7.00)
$21.00
$20.00
Page 11
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P.C.
operator labor: 4 hours/week @ 25.00/hr.
$400.00
For the first two years, the total O&M costs would be approximately 540.O0/month or
$32.00/month/home. It must be stressed that these are approximate costs generated from
the attached (Figure 4) conceptual engineering plan, and thus, should not be used for bid
specifications.
Based upon this information, the Project Team finds this option to be ~feasible, with
reservations about construction and O&M costs, and management structure.
Hybrid Individual Wells-Single Distribution System Option
In the past year, four homes within the subdivision have either drilled their own wells or
shared a well with their neighbor. If three more residents on the north side of the
subdivision were to successfully drill their own well, 14 users would be left on the
system, which would allow continuation of the current "non-community" status. This
would reduce O & M costs and eliminate the need for the Class VI operator. However,
the same construction costs would still exist, but would be spread out over a smaller user
base, thus increasing per user cost to approximately $5300.00, not including costs to
connect the system from street to home. This number might be reduced depending on the
testing requirements that might be required by a new Owner.
Based upon this information, the Project Team finds this option to be feasible, with
reservations about health concerns, increased per user construction costs, management
structure, and a generally smaller pool of resources to pay for the system.
Page 12
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P.C.
Recommendations
The Project Team recommends construction of a single distribution system for the
Corville Farm subdivision, with no further development of individual wells. The
following significant issues associated with this option will need to be addressed:
1. Construction Cost Funding
According to the Owner, many of the residents would be unable to pay for construction
of the system (approximately $5000.00/home). Southeastern RCAP conducted a survey
of the residents and found that 20% of those surveyed met the Federal Register Poverty
Guidelines.
According to Mr. Jim Moore, with the Virginia Department of Health, it is possible that
grant funds might be available to fix a water quality or health problem, but not supply or
distribution problem. He did note that it is possible that some loan funds might be
available.
The Project Team recommends that the subdivision residents work with
RCAP/Albemarle County/VDH to identify loan funds to reconstruct the system.
2. Management Structure
The Owner has stated his intention to sell the farm as soon as possible. There seem to be
three options open to manage water supply for the subdivsion:
A. Present Owner/new farm Owner continues to maintain system.
B. A new homeowner's association is formed to maintain the system.
C. Albemarle County maintains the system.
Of these three options, the first seems to be the least desirable. According to the Owner,
there is no legal responsibility for the Owner of the farm to continue to maintain the
system. A future Owner may not demonstrate the same level of concern for the residents
as has the present Owner.
The remaining options have obvious pros and cons. A Homeowner's association would
allow the residents to have more direct control of the maintenance of their system. This
management option might also enhance eligibility for grant funds. There are other small
systems in the area that so far, have been able to take care of their own water supply and
distribution needs.
Page 13
Corville Farms Water System Study April 1, 2002
ENSAT Corporation in partnership with Fallwell Corp. and Berkley-Howell & Associates, P.C.
These community-owned systems include:
Blue Ridge Community (25 connnections) 540-977-5214
Longdale Furnace (57 connections) 540-862-7917
Bedford Hills Subdivsion (28 connections) 434-973-6020
Langford (35 connections) 434-971-2547
The residents of these systems, however, appear to generally be more socioeconomically-
advantaged than the residents of Corville Farms and thus may have greater time and
financial resources to manage their water needs. Moreover, according to the Owner, the
ability of the Corville Farm residents to organize an association and conduct various
functions, based on his past experience, is limited.
The remaining option, County management of the system, could provide the necessary
resources to adequately maintain the system. However, at this time, there is no policy or
rural water management structure to support this option.
Page 14
MONTHLY REPORT
JUNE 2002
Mission
Essential Tasks Assessment
Construction & Maintenance
Plannl g & Traffic Englneen g
Budget and Issues
Mission
The VDOT Charlottesville Residency builds and maintains
roads, provides transportation expertise and regulatory
authority and facilitates traffic engineering issues for
Albemarle and Greene Counties in ways that are:
· focused on public safety
· fiscally and environmentally responsible
· supportive of alternative transportation means
· supportive of neighborhood and regional development
ESSENTIAL TASKS
TASK
~INTAIN SECONDARY &
PRII'~La. RY ROADS
o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim,
signs, patrols
o ROADWAY: grade, pave, patch
o EMERGENCY OPS
o REPAIR & BUILD BRIDGES
o MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT
Legend:
~ r~ ~: 90-100% Excellent
: 80-90% Good, room for improvement
~ed: 70-80% Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
REMA~S
- Mowing on sec./holiday patrol
- Interstate mowing complete; primary mowing
50% complete
- Gravel roads machined, stone added, installed pipes,
shoulder repair; guardrails/trim brush
- AAH pickup
- Pothole patching; cleaned drains; patching
for schedules
- Replace timber deck, coat beams Rt 629
Route 33, Greene County, widen bridge
- Route 606 & 743 bridges painted
- Interstate & primary bridges washed & sw3~pt
- PMs completed;
ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
TASK
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
2. MANAGE CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM
o PE Activities
REMARKS
- Secondary 6YP revised;
submitted to county for
review
o Project Construction
Legend:
~ r~:,~a~: 90-100% Excellent
80-90% Good, room for
improvement
~d: 70-80% Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
- Bridge painting
schedule completed
4
ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
Task Assessment
(See legend below)
CONDUCT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Remarks
o Issue and review permits
o Review site plans and rezoning request
o Conduct studies and advise
42 land use permits issued
8 site plans reviewed & comments
provided
7 developments in planning stages
3 traI~c studies under active review
o Inspect and monitor subdivisions
- 6 subdivision plan reviews
Legend:
( ~'~>~: 90-100% Excellent
: 80-90% Good, room for
improvement
~:~cd: 70-80% Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
5
ESSENTIAL TASKS continued)
TASK
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
4. FACILITATE TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING
o Request and advise on signals & signs
o Request and advise on studies & data
o Assist with design
REMARKS
- 9 Traffic issues reviewed
- 3 Traffic issues under review
Legend:
(;~ee~: 90-100% Excellent
: 80-90% Good, room for improvement
}~ed: 70-80% Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
6
PI LIMINARY ENGINEERING
PPM I~D Scop- FL:Id Field
Route S iCortact Proj~Ixt~tt3er D~s~ hg Stray RevL~ P~ l'sD R/W Adv, Co~
20 17619 BAA 0g2gl~-l~E101 PM~CtoNl~rt-imlb HS. Famar~ ~ ~
53 18897 BAA 0053.(IE-101j]601 Brklge~-~lslarrtOl::ek 24)2 6.02 2-03 10413 12413
PI LIMINARY ENGINEERING
June 2002 Albemarle County Six-Year Plan Project Status Secondary Projects
PPM L&D Street Name/ Field Field
Route S DesignerProjectNumber Description Scoping Survey Review P.H. Inspect.R/W Adv. Comments
Airport Road
649 2456 SLM 0649-002-158,C 501 4-lanes w/s idewalks & bike lane s ~~~~~ 12~03 On schedule
Jarman Gap Rd Adjustment due to FY2003
691 11129 DWS 0691-002-158,C 501 2-1 .... w/bike I .... &sidewalk ~~~ 8-02 4-03 3-04 8705 alia catio n adjustment
Mclntire Rd. Ext NewAlignment Adjustment due 1o assessment
6-05 ofrightofway/util?ties requirements
F rea State Rd. Co nnecto r Waiting for resolution from County B.O.S.
-- 52393 JWH R000-002-259,C 501 Construct 2 lanes on 4-lane R/W ~ '? ? ? ? ? ? Sehed. will change pending donated R/W
Gravel Roads
LindsayRd. Rte 639 to Louisa Co. Line Construction began05-02
615 54422 0615-002-P 64,N501 Wid ..... dPave ~'- N/A N/A N/A N/A~~ ~~i
]Gravel Road P re jeer
Mountain Vista Rd, Route 61o 1.2Mi. E. Rte.6
737 54425 - 0737-002-P68~NS01 Widen,pave &replace bridge N/A N/A N/A N/A 12-02 GravelRoad Project
, , Secretarys Road ~ , R/Wnot available on 2 parcels
708 I 1130 0708-002-P 77,N501 Widen and P ave 3-02 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6-02 8-03 Gravel Re ad P reject
, We It Leigh Dr. Rte 250 to 0.4 M i. N r Rte 250
.... I¢41 56085 1641-002-269,N501 Trench 2',replaae Pipe &overlay N/A N/A N/A N/A 12~02 Ruraladdition
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
R~ute PPMS Des~er Project Descrig~n Scope Suney Review P J4 hsp. RF¢/ A&. Comments
Bacon kblbwRoad
627 51022 P, EL 0627-039-195,C501 FnRte. 615 to Rte 632 54)2 942 1-03 64)3 11434 V4denardstraigtaen 2-1aneroad~a~y ....
810 2920 D~ 08104)39d46,C501 Fr'l.7krnERte. 624toRte. 624 ~~~~~~ 84)3 V~klenardstmil~'lten24~roadvay
Ivla3o Road
035 iV[ E Rte 619
618 06184)02-P 24 Oange~.~ 0242 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 84)3 V vldenardSarCzace Tmat-Cvavelroad
V~tson l~x>ad
9
CONSTRUCTION
PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Street Name Project Description Dur'~ion CaT, ere Cor~ract
0615-0(~. N501 Gra~ Road
U~ Rd ~: Qeadng compile. VVill begin rough ~;~acling first ~ of June. ~ ~ ~ 14 19
Anticipate ~ ~eti.on prior to Ju~y 4 holiday.
oo22-o~2-~o~o, SF~ t E~d~,~~
Louisa I~ ~s: Traflic reduced to single lane at'~dge ~,4th signals: Forrni~
Vadous BP-TA-01 I addge Rewriting
P~ 1427and i~i pl~ to~in ~r:.~ Ri:el ~ ~ S~h ~1~ I~erchange to
R~e. 250 ~,pass in mid June. . . ........
10
Mowing
Patching
MAINTENANCE
YANCEY MILLS HQ
MAY
Began mowing secondaries;
Patching for Slurry & Chip Seal
in Crozet
JUNE
Secondary mowing; start
guardrail mowing 29,250,240
Continue patching for chip
seal Crozet Park (4 rts); St
George Ave, 691
Grade/machine/add stone
Ditch/Pipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
Machined 633,611,702,782,745,
63C689,684,811,688,824
Cleaned ditches & pipe 827;
cleaned leaves from ditches on
635,692,691,636,689,684; install
pipe 636,689
As scheduled; clean & lube spreaders;
ready equipment for mowing season
Install pipe 688,611
Per schedule
Daylight signs
11
Mowing
Patching
Grade/machine/
add stone
Ditch~ipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
MAINTENANCE
FREE UNION HQ
MAY
Secondary mowing 601, 676, 743, 606;
contract mowing 29, bypass; removed
dead tree 29; trimmed bushes, low
hanging limbs 675; removed brush
from fight of way on Four Seasons Dr
Spot patching on secondaries
810,665,665,601
Machined/added stone 643, 606
667,668,678,675
Installed ent pipes 657,810; cleaned
ditches, installed pipe 601
As scheduled; cleaned & lubed
spreaders and plows
Installed silt barriers 29; lawn work
on rental property 657; sweeper/vacuum
606, 743~ 665, 601, 668, subd
JUNE
Secondary mowing;
contract mowing on
primaries
Patch routes on paving
schedule 810
Machine secondary roads
& apply calcium chloride 664,
668,666,662,643;shoulder repair
250 West
Per schedule
Daylight road signs; clean
bridges on sec; contract
street sweeping
12
Mowing
Patching
Grade/machine/add stone
Ditch/Pipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
MAINTENANCE
BOYD TA~q~I~N HQ
MAY
Began mowing secondaries;
tree removal 20
Patching 645, 615, 600, 1456,740,
1427, 1428
Gradall work on 20; shoulder
repair 616 from 64 to 22; grade
gravel roads
Open drains Rivanna River Bridges
Per schedule
Spreader restoration; tree
cleanup from storms
Trash/dead animal pick up;
JUNE
Mowing on secondaries
5th St, Rio Rd,649, 20
Patching for schedule work
Terr-ybrook, Franklin,
Riggory Ridge, Forest
Lakes N, Coventry, 1114,
1115, 1116, 1123
Route 20, Gradall work;
continue shoulder repair
on 616 to Fluvanna CL
As scheduled
Litter/dead animal pick up
13
Mowing
Patching
Grade/machine/add stone
Ditch/Pipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
MAINTENANCE
KEENE HQ
MAY
Cut trees 633, 699; mowed 20,
6, 742,626,726,725,812,627,602,
800,723,715,703,627,724,770
Patched 626
Machined 697,711,712,856,760,
795,761,735,724,617,627
Cleaned ditches & pipes 627,
714,1302,620
Per schedule; cleaned mowing eq
Cleaned up storm damage on
626,800,602,722,723,630,625,
627,618,622,712
Cleaned lot/garaage
JUNE
Begin guardrail mowing
on 6,20,29; secondary mowing
627,708,795,727,618,622,620;
boom ax on 638
Patch 626,719,715,795
Clean ditches 630,625,712,
708,631,724,726; replace
pipes 715,712,708,
As scheduled
14
MAINTENANCE
STANARDSVILLE HQ
Mowing
Patching
MAY
Contract mowing on secondaries,
609,610~618,657,607,670,743,
644~606,641,617,629,633; long
arm mowing 604,642,603,667,33;
hand mowing 33 mountain
Grade/machine/add stone Machined 642, 677, 629, 642, 614
Ditch,~ipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
Cleaned pipes 642,677,629,642,614;
replaced pipe 621
Completed all due PMs;
cleaned/lubed spreaders
Bridge project (33); sidewalk
repairs in Stanardsville
JUNE
Secondary mowing;
hand mowing 33, 29
long arm mowing
on secondaries
Plant mix patching on
604,810,663,603,623
Machine n.h.s, roads &
replace stone 629,614,
628,676,638,634
Ditching on 609,663,604,
621
Daily PM per schedule
Bridge project (33); animal
& fitter control
15
F R E E UN JO N
Tractor m o w e rs 3
t~ O Y D TAVERN
Trucks 7
Loader 1
T Ia c to r m ow ers 4
G rad e rs I
K E E N E
Loaders 2
9 a c k h o e s 1
T~a ~ to r m ow e rs 4
S T A N A R D S V IL L E
Loe d ers 1
G rad e rs 2
Tractor m ow ers 4
C h )p p e rs 1
B rid g · C re w
!Trucks 4
Legend:
Equipment
S H O P
O P ER A T{O N A L
E~ D A Y S
O P RATIO N A L
23418 06 2 34 I 0
62 O 62
124 37 87
23117
93
82
62
0
0
0
0
o
217
31
124
31
0
0
217
62
124
62
36
0
0
10
o
0
217
31
62
124
13 214
9800'910O0% %G E × c $ lie n t
- o o d ,~o o m for Im pro ye m eat
70-80% N e ed s Im pro vem e n t
ia c k : B e lo wm ~n im u m standards
201
23
31
g 3
E 2
20I
3 o
31
1 t 3
3 t
62
62
28
124
31
120
3 1
96 77%
t00 00%
7016%
I00 00%
92.63%
7419%
10000%
100.00%
t00 00%
92 83%
9677%
10000%
91t3%
100.00%
83 41%
100 00%
100 00%
91 94%
108 00%
100 00%
9954%
90,32%
8710%
100,00%
100 00%
10000%
9677%
100 00%
R A T INRG)
(C o g O
Green
Green
Green
Red
Green
G re e n
R e d
G re e n
G re e n
Green
Green
Green
G ree~
Green
A m bet
Green
Green
Green
Green
Green
Green
Green
A m bet
G ree~
G ree~
Green
G re e n
G re e n
16
Project
PLANNING
Traffic Traffic
Stuffy Study Site Plan
Scoping Review Review
Current Status
Alber~de To,~ne Center (sPerry) TraffiC ~ ~ ~ t~ ~i,,e Plan ~ st~
has been con~eted. Adc~tonal st.~3'nissions will be made at the
~ Rezoning stage.
Pa~ ~or¢~aha ~ site ~m ~ ~, s~i~ ~e Perrr~tS,~ TraffiC ~
comrT'e~s ha~ been forw'-~ to the ~,. Awaiting site plan to
respord to study rec~ior'¢.
R~ ~i1~ ~ e~ ~~ Awaiti~ site ¢~ t0 ~ t0 St~ ~~i~i ~Yt0
re, se conwehersi e plan.
~h poise ~~ Traffic ~t.dy C~S have ~ ~ t0 the ~Y: TraffiC
~ Study Addendum under redew.
~iyrread R~ TraffiC St~ ~ ur.der
Buck's Elbow Golf Course Traffic Study has been requested.
17
BUDGET
%ofTime BUd.g .et~ Budget1
Section , , Remaining Remam-ingI Status Comments
'Adminstrati'0n & Support 8.00% 18.06% Vacant Positions
Construction Management 8.00% 38.81% Vacant Positions
Buiidi,r~s & Grounds 8.00% -4.61% ~/~ Disputed charges under review
On Track - Includes AHQ expenditures
Asphalt Schedules and Reimbursible
Maintenance 8.00% 19.20% Emergency Snow Expenses.
Boyds Tavern AHQ 8.00% 16.98% On Track
Free Union AHQ 8.00% 12.89% On Track
Keene AHQ 8.00% 17.19% On Track
Yancey Mills AHQ 8.00% 10.91% On Track _
Stanardsvitle AHQ 8.00% 11.58% On Track
Residency Wide Overall 8.00% ' 17.00% On Track
Data based on the May 25, 2002 FMS II
Reports
TRAFFIC ENGff, IEERING
Outstanding Traffic Engineering Issues
728
643
676
250
250
658
29
738
VAR
250
29
602
729
29
29
606
619
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Albemarle
Greene
Greene
Greene
Greene
Post Speed Limit Sign
Blind Curve Sight Distance
Installing Warning Sign at Int of 601 & 676 near Foxfield & Hunt Country Store
Install Left Turn Must Yield signs at int of 616 & 250
Signage Study
Speed Study
Warrant Analysis at the Intersection of 29 and 641
Traffic Patterns, Speeding, Cut thru traffic, Signage, etc. on Morgantown Road
Traffic Calming in Hollymead
250 W just past h,'y Nursery
Int. 29 & 649
Speed Study
Review intersection of Route 1120 Milton Hills Drive to address sight distance problems
Signing Study (No Parking)
Change pavement markings left & thru lanes EB on 607 @Int of 29
Speed Study requested
Speed Study
19
ISSUES
2O
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Internet Access to Real Estate Records.
SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Information on the proposed July 1~ Internet access to
County real estate records
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Breeden, Woodzell
AGENDA DATE:
June 5,2002
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Real Estate assessment data is currently projected to be available on the Internet by July 1,2002. A previous report to you on
this issue had recommended that information on name, parcel and address would be available on the Internet, but searchable
only by parcel and address, not name. After six months of operation, the name search issue was to be revisited based on
public comment and use.
Since that report, several issues have been identified that have made staff reconsider allowing a name search.
Due to licensing requirements of this software, County staff currently has two different methods of accessing data. Staff in
the Real Estate office, some staff in the Collections Office, and some staff in the Development offices have direct access to
the live data files. In total, the County has 25 of these licenses that cost $250 per license or $6,250 peryear. Other county
staff members, who need real estate information in their work, currently have access to a secondary data file on the
County's internal Intranet, which is very similar to the proposed public Internet access. Both the live file and the Intranet file
allow County staff to search information by name. The annual cost for the Intranet access is $4,560 for an unlimited
number of internal users, which is estimated to be approximately 75 staff members.
To eliminate the $4,560 annual cost for the Intranet file, staff had planned to eliminate the Intranet access when the Internet
access became available. However, if the Internet site does not allow the real estate records to be searched by name, it
would also eliminate the option for the internal user to do a name search. Since very few people remember parcel
numbers, and only properties with structures are assigned street addresses, many internal users will experience problems
locating specific parcels.
The only alternatives to this dilemma are to: (1) Allow name search on the Internet.
(2) Continue to also operate the Intranet version at an annual cost of $4,560.
(3) Purchase additional licenses for some portion of the 75 users at an annual cost of $250 each.
Since the last report to you, staff has surveyed those localities offering Internet access and as shown on the attached
schedule, 64% of the localities allow name searches. The City of Charlottesville recently made their data available on the
Internet allowing name searches. Discussions with City staff indicate they have received only a couple of complaints on
this ~ssue and they plan to continue with this option.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the above reasons, i.e. annual savings of $4,560 and the number of other localities allowing name search without incident,
staff is recommending that the proposed July 1 Intemet acceSs to real estate data allow public users to search by name. This
option will allow more flexibility for internal users and reduce costs. However, if the public was to raise concerns or complain
about the name search as it did in some of the major metropolitan areas, the name search could easily and quickly be removed
at any time without any additional cost to the County.
02.083 05-30-02A08:£'0 RCVD
Locality
Alexandria City
Amherst Co
Arlington Co
Augusta Co
Bedford Co.
Bedford City
Blacksburg Town
Caroline Co
Charlottesville City
Clarke 'Co
Fairfax City
Fairfax Co.
Fluvanna Co
Giles Co
Greensville Co
Hampton City
James City Co
King George Co
Lexington City
Loundon Co,
Manassas City
Montgomery Co
Newport News City
NorfOlk City
Portsmouth City
Powhatan Co
Prince William Co
Richmond
Roanoke City
Roanoke Co
Salem City
Staunton City
Va. Beach
Williamsburg City
Wise Co
York Co.
Owner's
Information Search Owner Name
Name Parcel Address Parcel Number Displays
X X X
X X X X
X X X
X X X X
X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X
X X X_
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X
X X
X X
X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X
X X X X
X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
Totals & Pcts 23/36 = 64% 35/36 = 97% 36/36 = 100% 32/36 =89%
NO~ ~0 6OAP~
J
---.---fO 'VY
GIK.
/
/
/
Z
~A~A~O
~0
i~ou.r~ 27:X) W~f
YH~ HAYOH~O AR~A IN fH~ 6K~YOH INOIOAY~6 YH~ ~R~G~NY ?AGGING ZON~ ON
KOUf~ 250> dUGf ~AGY Of IVY, fHl§ G~OflON OP KOUY~ 250 IG 3-PAN,e)
WIYH fH~ 6~NY~R ~AN~ ~AKK~O AG A ~A6~IN~ ZON~ POK ~§f ~OUNO YKAPPt6
YH~K~ AK~ 3 ~NYKAN6~G WIYHIN YHIG ~AG§IN6 ZONe.
DON5 ¢¢RAflOND: 5APCfY~ PUNGflON~ PUfUR¢
IVY ~OAO
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Clerk's Initlal~:_ r -- ~
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors~._,,
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executiv~j/
May 17, 2002 ,/
Revised Secondary Road Improvement Plan
Attached is a letter from Jim Bryan outlining the changes to the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement
Plan that you approved on February 14, 2002. The changes reflect a reduction in revenues totaling
$11.58 million over the next six years. You will note there are several projects that have been removed
from the plan due to a reduction of funds.
VDOT is requesting to know whether a new public hearing is warranted due to these changes to the
original six-year plan approved in February of this year. I am placing this as an agenda item under
transportation matter for discussion on June 5, 2002.
RWT,Jr/dbm
02.023
Attachment
-05-1g-O£P02:39 RCVD
Albemarle County Executive's Office
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(804) 296-5841
PHILIP A. SHUCET
COMMISSIONER
O RECEIVED
MAY 15 2002
County of Albemarle
Colmty Executive's Office
COMMO1VWF_,AL TH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 2_291t JAMES L. BRYAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
May 9, 2002
Revised Six-Year-Improvement Plan
Mr. Robert Tucker Jr., County Executive
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Bob:
As you are aware, Governor Wamer directed VDOT to overhaul the Virginia Transportation
Development Plan (including all the secondary six year plans). In order to assure that the plans
reflects realistic cost estimates and achievable schedules, the secondary six year plan for Albemarle
County beginning in 2002 will undergo modifications.
Accordingly, we modified revenue projections for the future years 2002/03 through 2007/08
to reflect the Commonwealth's economic forecast. The following table reflects the impact on the
county's secondary six year plan that the Board of Supervisors approved on February 14, 2002.
Fiscal
Year
Secondary Construction Allocations
Total Total Difference between
Previous Tentative Previous SYP 01 &
SYP 2001 SYP 2002 Tentative SYP 02
% Difference
Previous SYP 01 &
Tentative SYP 02
FY02/03 5,470,847 3,255,657 (2,215,190) .-40.49%
FY03/04 5,428,745 4,277,906 (1,150,&39) -21.20%
FY 04/05 5,735,274 4,009,332 (1,725,942) -30.09%
FY05~06 6,093,356 3,966,947 (2,126,409) -34.90%
FY 06/07 6,181,151 3,980,478 (2,200,673) -35.60%
FY07/O8 6,181,151 4,016,301 (2,164,850) -35.02%
Six Yr Totals 35,090,524 23,506,621 (11,583,903) -33.01%
We validated the existing cost estimates for each project in the previously approved 2002/03
plan to assure that they are reasonable, and we adjusted the allocation of funds for the six-year
pedod year based on the new projections for Albemarle County. As a result, some projects "dropped
off" because of a shortage of funds. They are:
Rte. 0726 (James River Rd.)
Rte. 0810 (Brown's Gap Rd.)
Rte. 0795 (Blenheim Rd.)
Rte, 0623 (Woods Edge Rd.)
Rte. 0784 (Doctors Crossing Rd.)
Rte, 0712 (Coles Crossing Rd.)
· Pd. # 15
· Pti.# 18
Pal.# 19
· Pal. # 28
Pd. # 29
· Pd. # 30
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 CENTURY
Revised Six Year Plan
May 9, 2002
Page 2of2
We also validated the existing advertisement dates for the projects because a change in
allocation could affect the dates. The criteria we used in validating the dates relied not only on
achieving full funding, but also on the development of construction plans, the relocation of utilities
and the acquisition of the necessary right-of-way.
We saw no reason to modify the "ad dates" for priorities 1 - 6. However for reasons not
related to funding (i.e. Utilities and Right of Way), we moved the Mclntire Road project (Priority 5) to
June 2005. The following table summarizes the projects remaining on the six year plan with the
revised total cost and new advertisement dates.
Secondary System Construction Program
Pdodty Route Total Ad.
Number Number Route Name Project Cost Date
I Budget Items.' 150,000 ' Per Year
2 625 Hatton Ferry 20,000 Per Year
3 1641 West Leigh Dr. 500,000 Dec-02
4 9998 Corville Farm Rd. 150,000 Mar-03
5 631 Mclntire Rd. 16,709,600 Jun-05
6 649 Airport Rd. 10,944,050 Dec-03
7 R000 Freestate Connector 3,350,000 ?
8 R000 Meadow Creek Pkwy 37,500,000 ?
9 691 Jarman Gap Rd. 5,150,000 Jun-06
10 649 Proffit Rd. 9,500,000 Jun-08
11 601 Old Ivy Rd. 7,200,000 ?
12 656 Georgetown Rd. 3,200,000 ?
13 781 Sunset Ave. 1,650,000 ?
14 631 Old Lynchburg Rd. 1,500,000 ?
A draft copy of the recommended revised plan is being provided with this letter. After you
review it, you may decide that a new public hearing should be held to re-visit and re-approve the
2002/03 Six-Year Plan priorities and the 2002103 budget listing. If you determine that the revised
2002~03 plan is still consistent with the county's desires or the changes are not significant enough to
warrant a new headng, we ask that you advise us by return mail and that you include the Six-Year
Plan title sheet, signed with a new date.
Please don't hesitate to call me or the Residency staff if you have any questions.
Sincerely, ~
~ent Engineer .-~
CCP
cc: Wayne Cilimberg, David Benish, Juandiego Wade
Secondary System
County:. Albemarle
Construction Program
Estimated Allocations
New Surface
Fiscal Year Treatments Federal Other Total
2002-03 $497,044 $2,413,613 $345,000 $3,255,657
2003-04 $717,464 $3,390,442 $170,000 $4,277,906
2004-05 $645,995 $3,193,337 $170,000 $4,009,332
2005-06 $631,140 $3,165,807 $170,000 $3,966,947
2006-07 $629,242 $3,141,791 $209,445 $3,980,478
2007-08 $630,984 $3,~165,317 $220,000 $4,016,301
Totals
$3,751,869 $18,470,307 $1,284,445 $23,506,621
Board Approval Date:: 1/1/02
J.L. Bryan
VDOT Resident Engineer
Date
Robert W. Tucker,
Chairman, Clerk, Co. Administrator
Date
Page 1 of 7
, District: Culpeper
County: Albemarle
Board Approval Date::
Route
PPMS ID
Accomplishment
Type of Funds:
Type of Project
Priority #
Rt. 8o01
ID: CWl
State Forces
STATE
County-Wide Incidental
Pri #: 0
Rt. 8002
ID: CWI
Contract
STATE
County-Wide Incidental
Pri #: 0
Rt. 0825
ID:
State Forces
STATE
Regular
Pri #: 2
=
Rt. 9999
ID: 58085
Contract
STATE
Regular
Pri #: 3
Rt. 9998
ID:
Contract
STATE
Regular
Pri #: 4
Rt. 0631
ID: 2530
Contract
STP
Regular
Pri #: 5
1/1/02
Road Name
Project #
FROM
TO
Length
Traffic Count
Total County-Wide Allocation
OWl
NEW PIPE INSTALL..
SIGNS, SEEDING
NEVV PLANT MIX
0
Total Coun~/-Wide Allocation
CWI
TRAFFIC CALMING
VARIOUS LOC.
0
HATTON FERRY
O525-OO2-
OPERATE HATTON
FERRY
(BUDGET ITEM)
22O
WEST LEIGH DRIVE
9999-002-259,C501
Route 250
0.4 N, RTE. 250
O,4 MI.
0
CORVILLE FARM ROAD
9998-002- ,N
ROUTE 691
MONTEREY FARM
MclNTIRE RD. EXTENDED
0631-002-128 C502
NCL CHARLOTTESVILLE
CSX RAILROAD
1.37 MI
0
Page 2 of 7
Estimated Cost
AD Date:
PE $0
RW $0
CON $825,000
Total $825,000
7/1/02
PE $0
RW $0
CON $300,000
Total $800,000
7/1/02
PE $0
RW $0
CON $120,O00
Total $120,000
7/1/02
PE $20,000
RW $20,000
CON $460,000
Total $$00,000
8/1/02
PE $2,000
RW $4,0OO
CON $144,000
Total $160,000
3/1/03
PE $1,205,000
RW $2,403,000
CON $9,016,600
Total 12,624,600
Previous Funding
PE $0
RW $0
CON $0
Total $0
=E $0
RW $0
CON $0
Total $0
=E $0
RW $0
CON $0
Total $0
PE $20,000
RW $20,000
CON $210,000
Total $260,000
PE $2,000
RW $4,000
CON $144,000
Total $150,000
PE $1,205,000
RW $2,403,000
CON $7,529,684
Total $11,137,884
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2002-03 through 2007-08
Additional
Funding
Required
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
2002-03 2003-04 2004,05 2005-06 2006.07
$300,000
$120,000
$250,000
$0
$1,486,916
$2~000
$50,000
$2~000
$250,000
$0
$100,000
$50,000
$20,000
$0
$0
$0
$100,000 $100,000
$80,000 SS0,000
$20,000 $20,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $1,488,916
$100,000
$50,000
$20,000
$0
$0
$0
2007-08
$100,000
$50,000
$20,000
$0
$0
Balance to
Complete
$300,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Scope of Work
FHWA #
Comments
BUDGET ITEM
2003-04 $150,000 SIGNAL ~ RT
631/164
Rev. Sh. 2003-4 $300000
Prelim. Engineedng 2001-02
Hollymeade Dr.
RURAL ADDITION
Upgrade to minimum standads & add t
Rural Addition Funds
NEW ALIGNMENT-2 lanes
Date: 5/9/02
I~istrict: Cutpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
County: Albemarle (in dollars)
Board Approval Date:: 1/1/02 2002-03 through 2007-08
Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work
PPMS ID Project # Funding Complete FHWA #
Accomplishment FROM Required
Comments
Type of Funds: TO 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Type of Project Length
Priority # Traffic Count AD Date:
Rt. 0631 MclNTIRE RD. EXT. PE $150,000 PE $150,000
ID: 2530 0631-002-128,B612 RW $0 RW $0
Contract BRIDGE OVER CON $2,054,500 CON $2,054,500 ~ 2-lane Bridge
BR MEADOWCREEK Total $2,204,500 Total $2,204,600
Regular
Pri #: 5 0 6/t/04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rt. 0631 MclNTIRE RD. EXT. PE $50,000 PE $50,000
ID: 2530 0631-002-128,B657 RW $0 RW $0
Contract BRIDGE OVER CSX RR CON $1,830,500 CON $1,830,500
BR NEW ALIGNMENT Total $'1,880,500 Total $'1,880,600
Regular
Pri #: 5 0 6/I/04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rt. 0649 AIRPORT ROAD PE $1,237,400 ~E $1,237,400 4-LANE DIVIDED
ID: 2456 0649-002-158,C501 RW $4,856,550 ~W $3,743,209
Contract ROUTE 29 CON $4,850,100 CON $0 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 1998-
STP ROUTE 606 Total 10,944,050 Total $4,980,609 99
Paid
Regular 0.83 MI. URBAN DESIGN W~ S.W. & BIKE LANE
Pri #: 6 13411 7/1/03 $5,963,441 $2,000,000 $2,963,441 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rt. R000 FREE STATE ROAD CONNECTO PE $600,000 PE $600,000 2-LANE DESIGN
ID: 52393 R000-002-259,C501 RW $750,000 RW $502,641
Contract RIO ROAD CON $2,000,000 CON $0 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 1995-
STP ROUTE 651 Total $3,360,000 Total $1,102,641 96
Regular 0.70 MI Paid
Pri #: 7 0 7/1/05 $2,247,359. $43,613 $57,001 $1,146,746 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000
Rt. R000 MEADOWCREEK PKY. PE $4,200,000 PE $1,502,365 NEW ALIGNMENT
ID: 12981 R000-002-253,PE101 RW $6,500,000 RW $0
Contract RIO ROAD CON 26,800,000 CON $0 REVENUE SHARING $800,000 1997-
STP RTE. 29 Total 37,600,000 Total $1,602,365 98
Regular 3.8 MI Paid
Pri #: 8 0 1/1/15 $35,997,635 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $36,877,635
Rt. 0691 JARMAN GAP ROAD PE $650,000 PE $308,209
ID: 11129 0691-002-258,C501 RW $1,300,000 RW $0
Contract ROUTE 240 CON $3,200,000 CON $0 REVENUE SHARING 1999-2000
STP ROUTE 684 Total $5,150,000 Total $308,209 $1,000,000
Regular 1.5 MI. 2-LANE URBAN W/S. W. & BIKE LANES
Pri#: 9 2118 12/I/04 $4,84t,791 $350,000 $350,000 $750,000 $650,000 $1,741,791 $0 $1,000,000
Page 3 of 7 Date: 5/9/02
District: ,Culpeper
County: Albemarle
Board Approval Date::
Route
PPMS ID
Accomplishment
Type of Funds:
Type of Project
0649
I PROFFIT RD,
ID: 54416 10649-002- ,C
Contract I ROUTE 29
STP ' 1,6 MI. E. RTE, 29
Regular 1.60 MI.
Pd #: 10 2273
Rt. 0601
OLD IVY ROAD
ID: 8807 0601-002-237,C501
Contract ROUTE 250
STP RTE. 29 BYPASS
Regular 0.7
Pri if: 11 4358
Rt. 0656
GEORGETOWN ROAD
ID: 12982 0658-002-254,C501
Contract ROUTE 654
STP ROUTE 743
Regular 0.8 MI.
Pri #: 12 13500
Rt. 0781
SUNSET AVE.
ID: 17171 0781-002- ,C
Contract NCL CH'VILLE
STATE OLD RTE. 631
Regular 0.5 MI.
Pri#: 13 1108
Rt. 0631
OLD LYNCHBURGH RD.
ID: 15329 0631-002- ,C
Contract 1.35 MI.S. 1-64
STP RTE. 7O8
Regular 5.0 MI.
Pri #: 14 1500
0744
HUNT CLUB ROAD
ID: 54460 0744-002-S63,FS715
Railroad NEAR INT. RTE. 22
RRP RAILROAD CROSSING
Regular 0.05
Pri #: 17 640
1/1/02
FROM
Page 4 of 7
PE $1,500,000
RW $3,000,000
CON $5,000,000
Total $9,600,000
8/I/06
PE $950,000
RW $2,500,000
CON $3,750,000
Total $7,200,000
8/1/08
PE $60O,O00
RW $6OO,OOO
CON $2,000,000
Total $3,200,000
12/1/08
PE $250,000
RW $450,000
CON $95O,OO0
ToPal $1,660,000
10/1/08
PE $25O,00O
RW $25O,OO0
CON $1,000,000
Total $1,600,000
12/1/08
PE $1,000
RW $0
CON $9,000
Total $10,000
2/1/02
Previous Funding
PE $1,000,000
~W $0
CON $0
Total $1,000,000
DE $910,000
=~W $0
CON $0
Total $910,000
=E $600,000
RW $100,000
CON $0
Total $700,000
PE $0
RW $0
CON $0
Total $0
PE $0
RW $0
CON $0
To~l f. $0
PE $1,000
RW $0
CON $9,000
Tom/ $10,000
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2002-03 through 2007-08
Additional
Funding
Required
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
2002-03 ~
$8,600,000
$6,290,000
$2,500,000
$1,660,000
$1,500,000
$0
$0 $0 $250,000
$0 $0 $26,592
$o $o $o
$o $o $o
$0 $0 $0
$0
$920,000
$50,000
$38,891
$0
$0.
$0
$1,280,000 $2,980,000
$60,000 $100,000
$50,000 $60,000
$39,445 $60,000
$0 $16,317
$0 $o
Balance to
Complete
Scope of Work
FHWA #
Comments
$3,070,000
$6,063,408
$2,361,109
REVENUE SHARING $t, 000,000 2005-
07
2-LANES RURAL W/BIKE LANES
REV. SHARING $ 1,000,000 2000-01
3-LANES WIS. W. & BIKE LANES
SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
REVENUE SHARING $200,000 1997-
98
2-LANES W/ S.W. & BIKE LANES
2-LANE URBAN W/SW & BIKE LANE
REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 2005-
O6
$1,41N,683
$0
REVENUE SHARING 2001-02
$1,000,000
SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
GATES & LIGHTS
Date: 5/9/02
~)istrict: ,Culpeper
County; Albemarle
Board Approval Date::
Route Road Name
PPMS ID Project #
Accomplishment FROM
Type of Funds: TO
Type of Project Length
~ # Traffic Count
Rt. 0615
LINSDAY ROAD
ID: 54422 0615-002-P64,NS01
SAAP ROUTE 639
STATE LOUISA CO, LINE
Unpaved 0.50 MI.
Pri #: 20 237
Rt. 0737
MOUNTAIN VISTA RD.
ID: 54425 0737-002-P ,N
Contract ROUTE 6
STATE 1.19 MI.E. RT. 6
Unpaved 1.19
Pri #: 21 75
Rt. O708
SECRETARYS ROAD
ID: 11130 0708-002-P77,NS01
Contract 0.7 M.W. RTE. 795
STATE 0.28 M.W. RT. 620
Unpaved 2.09
Pti #: 22 151
Rt. 0702
RESERVOIR ROAD
ID: 54426 0702-002-P ,N
Contract ROUTE 29 RAMP
STATE DEAD END
Unpaved 2.4 MI.
Pri #: 23 406
GILBERT STATION RD.
ID: 54427 0640-002-P ,N
Contract ROUTE 641
STATE ROUTE 747
Unpaved 0.70 MI.
Pri #: 24 230
Rt. 0633 ~
HEARDS MT.RD.
ID: 54428 0633-002-P ,N
Contract NELSON CO. LINE
STATE ROUTE 634
Unpaved 0.50 MI.
Pri #: 25 59
1/1/02
Page 5 of 7
Estimated Cost Previous Funding
AD Date:
PE $10,000
RW $10,000
CON $200,000
Total $220,000
11/1/01
PE $20,00O
RW $20,000
CON $610,000
Total $650,000
12/1/02
PE $3O,00O
RW $5O,OOO
CON $745,000
Total $825,000
1/1/03
PE $20,000
RW $60,000
CON $1,340,000
Total $1,420,000
12/1/04
PE $20,000
RW $4O,OOO
CON $300,000
Total $360,000
10/1/03
PE $20,OO0
RW $40,000
CON $300,000
Total $360,000
10/1/04
PE $I0,000
RW $10,000
CON $200,00O
Total $220,O00
PE $20,000
RW $20,000
CON $610,000
Total $650,000
PE $30,000
RW $50,000
CON $417,355
Total $497,356
~E $20,000
=~W $40,000
CON $65,000
Total $125,000
PE $0
RW $0
CON $0
Total $0
PE $0
RW $0
CON $0
Total $0
SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
(in dollars)
2002~03 through 2007-08
Additional
Funding
Required
PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
$0
$327,646
$1,295,000
$360,000
$360,000
$0 $0
$o
$222,17t
$274,873
$0
$0
$0
$105,474
$611,990
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$408,137
$237,858
$o
$0
$0
$122,142
$260,000
$o
$o
$o
$I 00,o0o
$0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
Balance to
Complete
Scope of Work
FHWA #
Comments
$0
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
UNPAVED ROAD
RIGHT OF WAY AVAILABLE
UNPAVED ROAD RIGHT OF WAY
AVAILABLE
UNPAVED ROAD PARTIAL RIGHT OF.
WAY
UNPAVED ROAD
NO RIGHT OF WAY
UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WAY
UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WAY
Date: 5/9/02
D~istrict: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
County: Albemarle (ill dollars)
Board Approval Date:: 1/1/02 2002-03 through 2007-08
Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work
PPMS-ID Project"~ gu riding-- Complete FHWA #
Accomplishment FROM Required Comments
Type of Funds: TO 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Type of Project Length
Priority # Traffic Count AD Date:
Rt. 0606 DICKERSON ROAD ,PE $20,000 PE $0
ID: 54429 0606-002-P ,N RW ' $60,000 RW $0
Contract ROUTE 850 CON $1,200,000 CON $0 UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WA¥
STATE ROUTE 1030 Total $t,280,000 Total $0
Unpaved 1.99 MI.
Pri #: 26 170 10/1/06 $1,280,000 $0 $0 $0 $248,998 $500,000 $53%002 $0
Rt. 0769 BEAM ROAD PE $10,000 PE $0 GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD.
ID: 0769-002-P ,N RW $15,000 RW $0
C~ntract RTE. 1484 CON $175,000 CON $0
STATE END'STATE MAINT. Total $200,000 Total $0
Unpaved 0.27 MI
Pti #: 27 50 10/1/06 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 I $29,242 $99,982 $70,776
Page 6 of 7 Date: 5/9/02
Distri'~t: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
County: Albemarle (in dollars)
2002-03 through 2007-08
Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to
Funding Complete
Required
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
County Totals Total Allocated: $103,923,650 $27,628,863 $76,294,787 $3,255,657 $4,277,906 $4,009,332 $3,966,947 $3,960,478 $4,016,301 $52,788,166
Report Totals PE $11,815,400 $7,665,974 $4,149,426 $361,791 $20,000 $316,592 $323,408 $69,445 $85,317 $2,972,873
RW $22,928,550 $6,892,850 $16,035,700 $1,185,t63 $407,001 $936,745 $1,037,274 $1,395,000 $1,200,000 $9,874,517
CON $69,179,700 $13,070,039 $56,109,661 $1,708,703 $3,850,905 $2,755,995 $2,606,265 $2,516,033 $2,730,984 $39,940,776
Original Allocation: $3,255,657 $4,277,906 $4,009,332 $3,966,947 $3,980,478 $4,0'16,301
Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Page 7 of 7
Date: 5~9~02
Secondary Six Year Plan Revision Summary
1. Allocations for 2002 reduced 40% and the total for the next
six years is reduced 33%.
Secondary Construction Allocations
Total Total
Fiscal Previous Tentative Percent
Year SYP 2001 SYP 2002 Difference Reduction
FY 02/03 5,470,847 3,255,657 (2,215,190)-40.49%
FY03/04 5,428,745 4,277,906 (1,150,839)-21.20%
FY 04/05 5, 735,2744,009,332 (I ,725,942) -30.09%
FY 05/06 6,093,356 3,966,947 (2,126,409)-34.90%
FY06/07 6,181,151 3,980,478 (2,200,673)-35.60%
FY 07/08 6,181,151 4,016~ 301(2,164,850)-35.02%
Six YrTotals35,090,52423,506,621(I1,583,903) -33.01%
2. The List of Priorities is unchanged.
3. Six projects dropped off:
Regular Improvement Proiects
· Pri. # 15 Rte. 0726 (James River Rd.)Spot improv.
· Pri. # 18 Rte. 0810 (Brown's Gap Rd.)Int. impmv.
· Pri. # 19 Rte. 0795 (Blenheim Rd.) Int. improv.
Gravel Road Projects
· Pri. # 28 Rte.
· Pri. # 29 Rte.
· Pri. # 30 Rte.
0623 (Woods Edge Rd) Grade & Pave
0764 (Doctors Crossing Rd.) Grade & Pave
0712 (Coles Crossing Rd.) Grade & Pave
RECEIVED AT B0S MEETING
Clerk'~ Inltlab~_ ~
Secondary Six Year Plan Revision Summary
4. Several project advertisement dates will be revised to reflect
the loss of funding as follows:
Pdority Route
Number Number
Secondary System Construction Program,
Total Project Old Adv. New Adv.
Route Name Cost Date Date
Regular Improvement Proiects
3 1641
4 9998
5 631
6 649
7 R000
8 R000
9 691
10 649
11 601
12 656
13 781
14 631
West Leigh Dr.
Corville Farm Rd.
Mclntire Rd.
Airport Rd.
Freestate Connector
Meadow Creek Pkwy
Jarman Gap Rd.
Proffit Rd.
Old Ivy Rd.
Georgetown Rd.
Sunset Ave.
Old Lynchburg Rd.
500,000
150,000
16,709,600
10,944,050
3,350,000
37,500,000
5,150,000
9,500,000
7,200,000
3,200,000
1,650,000
1,500,000
Dec-02
Mar-03
Jun-05
Dec-03
Dec-04
Aug-06
Aug-08
Dec-08
Oct-08
Dec-08
Gravel Roads
21 737
22 708
23 702
24 640
25 633
26 606
27 769
Mountain Vista Rd.
Secretarys Rd
Reservior Rd.
Gilbert Station Rd.
Heards Rd
Dickerson Rd.
Beam Rd
650,000
825,000
1,420,000
360,000
360,000
1,280,000
200,000
Dec-02
Jan-03
Dec-04
Oct-03
Oct-04
Oct-06
Oct-06
Dec-02
Mar-03
Jun-05
Dec-03
Jun-06
Jun-08
Dec-02
Jan-03
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
PE Process
(Actual)
Revisions
Cost Estimate
PE Process
(6 YR Template)
Z~
OCO
Z F.- 0 ~
ZO-J
u.. _.J ~
<~
Project Funding
Mclntire Road Ext. Time Line Comparison
Location
Approval
Apr. 1994
$6,440,000
Adv.
Dec.,
$10,280,157
Sc !p ng Locatid
Field
M 1997
Desig~ Field
Approv~ Inspection
Public
Design
Approval
Jun. 1999
Adv. Date
revised to
July, 2001
E~t m~te
Rev sed
$16,709,603
Jones & Jo~s New
Study CommisSioned
Sept.
Date
Field
RECEIVED AT BOS MEE33NG
Date: __
Project
Ad Date
Jun. 2005
2004
a result of the lignment chan.~
i Cumlative
Allocation
Amc
$13,015,317
$9,179,287
$5,565,642
$3,216,162
$847,376
W. S. Figgatt
5892 St. George Ave.
Crozet, Va. 22932
Invoice
To: Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors
Date: May 15, 2002
Payable: Due June 07, 2002
Amount: $230,000,000.00
For: Damages by your Zoning Commission.
Arrangement for payment may be made by calling
and asking for Mr. Figgatt during the day at (434)
295-3703.
DISTRIBUTED TO
JUN 0
06-0~-02P0'~ :10 RCvD
Article I
The zoning administrator and her inspector, by their
own admission, tresspassed on land which had a division
of mine permit; to inspect the mine.
Article II
Photos were taken by the zoning administrator and her
inspector, and removed from the site without permission
from Mr. Figgatt, which violates the trade secret act.
Article IH
The zoning administrator and her inspector, without
Mr. Figgatt's knowledge or permission, ordered Mr.
Sweeney to remove aH of Mr. Figgatt's equipment from
the property. This resulted in two diesel power units,
one crusher removed, and two other crushers bulldozed
into a pile, destroying them.
Article IV
The zoning administrator and her inspector interfered
with the reclamation of the permitted property during
the following years. 1999,2000, and 2001.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Office Building
Public Meeting Room Renovations
SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
AGENDA DATE:
June 5, 2002
ACTION: X
CONSENTAGENDA:
Decision on Options for Meeting Room Upgrades
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley,Graham, Lilley
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: April 3rd Executive Summary, Architect's
alternatives for new Board...j.nQe. eting room
sketches of 2 a
REVIEWED BY:
/
BACKGROUND:
Several options for possible renovation of the Board meeting room were discussed at the April 3~d meeting. A copy of that executive
summary is attached. The Board appeared to indicate a preference for option C without the work to convert Room 235 into a"smart"
room with audio-visual components. The Board also requested Engineering and Public Works examine the feasibility of building a
new Board meeting room, preferably using the existing courtyard to the rear of the building. That work has been done and two
options were developed for your consideration.
DISCUSSION:
The attached sketches provide two options for constructing a new Board meeting room connected to the existing building. Option A
shows a one-story addition that has an estimated cost of approximately $1.1 Million. This addition' would simply provide a new
meeting room with full audio-visual capabilities. Option B shows a two-story addition that has an estimated cost.of approximately $1.7
Million. This addition would provide approximately 2,500 square feet of office space on the first level and the meeting room on the
second level with the same type of audio-visual components as option A. As directed by the Board, we have tried to keep the time
and expense of investigating these alternatives to a minimum. As such, both options only reflect a "first cut" at such a meeting room
and would require significant refinement and input to reach a more accurate cost estimate.
At the same time as this work has been occurring, County staff has been working on a long-term space needs analysis for the
County. While that analysis will not be completed until later this summer, it appears likely this analysis will include a recommendation
for new office space to meet the County's needs. It also appears that if the decision were made to construct additional space, it would
be relatively easy to include a new Board meeting room with that construction. That would provide the opportunity to design a Board
meeting room based on careful study which would assure it meets the long-term needs of the County. Thus, it appears that
consideration of constructing a new County Board meeting room could be better considered as part of the overall needs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the County Board's input from the April 3rd meeting, we recommend proceeding with the original option C without the work
on Room 235. Should the Board wish to proceed with consideration of a new Board meeting room, we would recommend postponing
that discussion until it could be considered with the long-term space needs analysis that is anticipated to come before the Board early
this fall.
02.078
05-29-02Al1:36 RCVD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Office Building
Public Meeting Room Renovations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Decision on Options for Meeting Room Upgrades
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Graham, Lilley
AGENDA DATE:
April 3, 2002
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Cost Summary of Options
BACKGROUND:
We are experiencing an increasing need for more sophisticated technology and presentation capabilities in the Board
Meeting Room as presentations by county staff, applicants, community groups and others have demanded more
complex technical support. It has become a very standard expectation that we will accommodate power point
presentations, other projectiOn displays, and visual displays as groups present to the Board of Supervisors, School
Board, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and other public bodies that use Meeting Room 241. In order
for elected and appointed officials, staff and members of the audience to receive maximum benefit from these more
advanced presentations without major disruptions setting up during the actual meetings, significant changes in the
room's arrangement and equipment are critical. Instituting these changes will transform the Board meeting room into a
technologically "smart" room that will be app
bodies that currently use the space. Also, ii
Board meetings, this room will be ideal for c~
and presentation.
After meetings with the various users of the
number of changes to the A/V systems in th
adjacent conference room (Room 235) wel
developed by our consultant in response to
A schematic-level cost estimate indicates
exceeds the current budget placeholder. Fo
estimates for 3 options are provided as an
'opriate for numerous other uses beyond the meeting of the various public
our long-range space plans create a new public meeting space for major
)ntinued use as a "smart" space for in-house as well as external meetings
County Office Building Public Meeting Room (Board Room/Room 241 ), a
e room and the basic configuration of the room, as well as tie-ins with the
'e deemed desirable. A schematic plan of the reconfiguration proposal
lis input, including A/V system components, is provided as an attachment.
hat the complete upgrades would cost approximately $360,000, which
· this reason, options for some incremental upgrades were developed. Cost
ttachment and are summarized as follows:
Option A - Basic A/V Renovations - Approx $180,000
This would include a presenters station with a projection display system, enhanced sound system, archival
recording system, integrated multimedia control system, hearing assistance system for ADA compliance,
agenda display, and remote monitors in the hall. This setup would allow us to have electronic presentations,
display the board agenda items in the hall, and provide the backbone for broadcasting of meetings.
Option B - BaSic A/V Renovations w~ Room 235 as a "smart room" - Approx. $250,000
-This option is the same as "A" with A/V extended to Room 235 that would allow it to be a smart room,
somewhat similar to the conference room on the third floor. This allows Room 235 to serve both as an
enhanced conference/meeting room and an overflow space allowing people to view Board Room meetings
for those times the Board Room is full.
AGENDA TITLE:
County Office Building
Public Meeting Room Renovations
April 3, 2002
Page 2
Option C - A/V Renovafions w/Room 235 as a "smart room" and Room 241 rehab'ed - Approx. 360,000
This option is the same as "B" with Room 241 also receiving a new Board dais, raised ceiling to allow for
better display from the projection system and new seating. Essentially, a rehab'ed Board Room.
DISCUSSION:
Staff recommendation is option "A", with the possible addition of new audience seating if funds are available. This
accomplishes the initial objectives at the smallest cost and fits within the current budget placeholder. This
recommendation is based, in part, on the assumption that the physical space in the current Board Room will become too
small at some point in the future and a larger space will be required. With this timeframe and anticipated technology
changes, it does not appear prudent to make substantial improvements. It does appear prudent to invest in the
technology described in option A at this time. Use of this technology should extend the useful life of the current space by
allowing the meetings to be dis played outside of the physical space. In addition, experience with this new technology will
provide us with valuable insights into the design of any new space in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
Proceed with option "A", with the possible addition of new audience seating if funds are available.
02.043
P.O. Box 1332 Charloltesvil[e, VA 22902 '
26 APR 2002
1116"=1'-0"
A-1
Stoneking Ivon Storch Architects B- 1
P.O, Box 1332 Charlottesville VA 22902 1 of 2
S~S l ~NFILLAUDITOR~UM ,~.,~,
I P.O. B~x 1332 gl~arlotte~vi[le. VA 22902 2 o~ 2
IOIIIce Use On~ 4129,'D2 - lO:4tam
INFILL AUDITORIUM
26 APR 2002
1/16"=1'-0"
Stoneking /von Storch Architects
P.O. Box 1332 Charlo[tesville, VA 22902
Office Use Only: 4./26/'02 - 3:06pm
H:\DA~'A'tCou nly~infill\
A-PN_O I.dwg
A-1
1
INFILL AUDITORIUM~
Stoneldng/vOn StorCh Architects
P.O. Box 1332 Charlottesville, VA 22902
26 APR 2002
1/16"=I'-0"
lOll'ice UseOnly: 4/29/02- 11:19am
H:\DATA\C°unl¥~,inlill\
B-PN_Oi .dwg
B-1
1 oi2
L
INFILL AUDITORIUM
stoneking/Yon Storch Architects
p.O, BOX 1332 Charlottesville, VA 22902
26 APR 2002
1/16"=1'-0"
lOffice Use Only: 4/29/02 - lO:41am
/H:'tDATA\CounIYUn fill\
JB-PN 027wg
B-2
2of2
1. Board position with microphone and computer
2. Reporting staff station
3. Recording secretary and system operator
4. Presenter podium with computer port, digital video presenter, microphone
5. Tack board
6. Projection screen/tack board
7. Camera on meeting session
8. Digital video presenter
9. Kitchenette
10.60 seats
11. Agencla display
12. Video Monitor
13. Smartroom screen w/feeds from visual presenter ar;d camera 7
14. Reporter% desk
15. TV camera
j3
BOARD -TO -BOARD
June 5, 2002- 10:30 a.m.
~4 Monthly Communications Report of activities from the Albemarle County School Board to
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
RECENT
Highlights: School Board Briefs - May 9 and 23, 2002 Board Briefs were
provided via e-mail. RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
~a ~ #: /0
Clerk's Initials:
MIDDLE SCHOOL REDISTRICTING: The Middle School Redistricting
Committee presented its proposed plan for middle school redistricting to the
School Board on May 9th. The board is considering whether or not to delay
redistricting until the fall. Our Joint Meeting with the Board of Supervisors will
be a critical part of decision-making process.
TEXTBOOK SELECTION AND ADOPTION: The board approved the
adoption of instructional materials for Grades K-5 Music at its May 23 meeting.
The last time these books were purchased was 10 years ago.
MONTESSORI CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATION: At its May 23
meeting, the board denied the Montessori Charter School Application,
concurring with the Charter School Review Committee recommendation not to
approve the application. Several reasons cited for not recommending the
application were 1) the application does not address an area of need, or even
target an at-risk population, 2) the application pieces together bits of Montessori
philosophy, but does not talk about how specific curriculum will be
implemented, 3) the applicatiOn does not "mesh" with the SOL requirements,
and 4) the application leaves too many logistics unanswered.
JOUETT ADDITION/RENOVATION: At its May 9 meeting, the board
approved the addition/renovation to Jack Jouett Middle School to be bid and
constructed as planned for completion in August 2003, with a capacity of 669.
The board felt that regardless of how redistricting is approached these seats will
still be needed.
LONG TERM RECOGNITION: The board approved at its May 9 meeting to
utilize $29,121 of the Board Reserve to provide longevity payments to eligible
staff for the 2002-2003 school year. This will provide a $200 per year longevity
payment for teachers who have from 31 years to a maximum of 35 years of
experience. Teachers with 31 years would receive $200, and teachers with 35
years would receive $1,000. Because the classified pay range is not based on
years of experience, the payment would be based on the difference between the
top of the scale and the salary the individual employee would have received if
the entire merit increase had been applied.
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSIGNMENTS: The following are administrative
assignments that were approved by the board at it May 23 meeting: appointed
Lisa Jones as Principal of Scottsville Elementary School; appointed Kathryn
Baylor as Principal of Sutherland Middle School; appointed Jeff Crawford as
Assistant Principal of Walton Middle School; appointed Eric Johnson as
Assistant Principal of Sutherland Middle School; and appointed Dr. Jean
Wollenberg as English as a Second or Other Language Instructional Specialist.
Attachment 1 is a copy of the media release that was sent out regarding these
appointments.
Also, Dr. Frank Morgan will be leaving Albemarle County Schools to assume
the position of Superintendent of Goochland County Public Schools. A
reception in his honor will be held on Friday, June 14 at the Bayly Art Museum
of UVA from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. (contact Jane Freeman, 296-5820, for further
information). The position of Assistant Superintendent of Support Services has
been advertised and the deadline for accepting applications is June 15.
POST HIGH SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM: The board is
seeking new placement for the Post High School Special Education Program,
which serves special needs students ages 18-22. The program is currently
located on Rugby Avenue, but the lease will not be renewed. At its May 23
meeting, the board received options for placement of the program, which
included placing it on Burley Middle School grounds. The board plans to
purchase a house constructed by CATEC students and adapted specifically for
this program. The board asked that staff review and consider other options for
placement and to report back to the Board. The Board will make a decision on
placement of the program at its June 13 meeting.
DESIGN 2004: In support of increasing the division's capacity to provide high
quality instruction, schools can present Design 2004 proposals for funding to
develop and implement innovative, integrated and technologically rich programs
and projects. Teams of teachers will be funded to develop, pilot and disseminate
instructional strategies used in inquiry classrooms that promote our current
professional development focus areas. Through this process, teams of teachers
will help Albemarle County Schools "grow" instructional models for teaching
and learn to delineate what students and teachers should know, understand and
be able to do. Additional information about Design 2004 can be found on the
web site at http://kl2.albemarle.org/Design 2004.
FUTURE ITEMS OF INTEREST
SCHOOL BOARD RETREAT: The board will hold its annual mid-year
retreat on June 15 at JABA. At the retreat, the Board will do its annual
evaluations of the board, the School Board/Superintendent Priorities, and the
Superintendent. We also start the process of revising our Biennial
Boar/Superintendent Priorities.
We look forward to seeing you at the graduation ceremonies as we celebrate
the success of our students.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTER
WEBSITE: http://lcl2.albema~le.o~g
'~Ve Expect Success"
ME DIA RE LEASE
DATE:
CONTACT:
PHONE:
For lrr~Miate R dease
May 23, 2002
Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
296-5877
ALBEMARLE SCHOOL BOARD ANNOUNCES ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS
At its May 23 meeting, the Albemarle County School Board announced the following administrative
appointments, effective July 1, 2002:
Ms. Lisa Jones as Principal of Scottsville Elementary School - Ms. Jones is currently the Principal of
Orange Elementary School in Orange County. Previously, she taught at Wetsel Middle School in Madison
County from 1989-1996 and served as an administrative intern there from 1996-1997. Ms. Jones holds a
Bachelor's Degree from Fairmount State College in West Virginia and a Master's Degree from the University of
Virginia. She will replace Mr. Jim Jones, who is retiring.
Ms. Kathryn Baylor as Principal of Sutherland Middle School - Since last August, Ms. Baylor has been
Assistant Principal at Walton Middle School. Previously, she served as Assistant Principal at Prospect Heights
Middle School in Orange County from 1998-2001 and as a teacher at Burley Middle School from 1988-1998.
Ms. Baylor holds both a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree from the University of Virginia, where she is
now a doctoral candidate. She will replace Mr. James R. Washington, who is retiring.
Mr. Jeff Crawford as Assistant Principal of Walton Middle School - Mr. Crawford is currently Principal of
Hudson High School in Hudson, Iowa. Previously, he served as an administrative intem at Walton from 1999-
2000, as a teacher at Walton from 1997-1999, and as a teacher in Georgia from 1994-1997. Mr. Crawford
holds a Bachelor's Degree from The Citadel and a Master's Degree from the University of Virginia. He will
replace Ms. Kathryn Baylor, who will become Principal at Sutherland.
Dr. Jean Wollenburg as English as a Second or Other Language (ESOL) Instructional Specialist- Dr.
Wollenburg is currently Assistant Principal at Sutherland Middle School. Previously, she has worked as an
Instructional Coordinator in Albemarle County from 1998-2000 and as a teacher and administrator in
Washington State and California. Dr. Wollenburg holds a Bachelor's Degree from the University of Minnesota
and a Master's Degree and Doctorate from the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Mr. Eric Johnson as Assistant Principal at Sutherland Middle School - Mr. Johnson is currently Assistant
Principal at Prospect Heights Middle School in Orange County. Previously, he served as a teacher at Walker
Upper Elementary School in the City of Charlottesville from 1995-2000. Mr. Johnson holds a Bachelor's
Degree from the University of Virginia and a Master's Degree from James Madison University. He replaces Dr.
Jean Wollenburg, who is leaving Sutherland to take a position as ESOL Instructional Specialist.
In commenting on these appointments, Albemarle Superintendent Dr. Kevin Castner said, "While Mr. Jones
and Mr. Washington will be sorely missed, these very strong professionals will help us to continue to move
forward. I am very pleased with these appointments."
401 Mclntire Road · Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone (434) 972-4055, Fax (434) 296-5869 , WEB SITE: http://kl2.albemarle.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to Amend Chapter 1, Section 1-119, General
Provisions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request adoption of ordinance to establish additional court
fees for courthouse security and intake processing costs
AGENDA DATE:
June 5, 2002
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
CONSENTAGENDA:
X INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Breeden, Hildebeidel, Ms. White
ACTION: IN FORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinan/~,
REVIEWED
BACKGROU ND:
Currently, County Code Section. 1-119 requires defendants in each criminal, traffic, or civil case to pay a fee of two dollars
($2.00) for the purpose of providing for the maintenance, construction or renovation of the courthouse in addition to the State
im posed court costs.
During the last General Assembly session, the General Assembly amended Virginia Code § 53.1-120 and adopted Virginia
Code § 15.2-1613.1, to enable a locality to: 1) impose, by ordinance, an additional court fee of five dollars ($5.00) on
defendants convicted in criminal or traffic cases to be used for funding courthouse security personal and 2) to impose, by
ordinance, a court fee of twenty-five dollars $25.00 on defendants ordered incarcerated in criminal cases to be used for funding
the cost of processing the convicted persons into the regional jail.
On April 17th, as part of the FY 02-03 budget approval process, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) proposed to amend the
County Code Section 1-119 to establish a Court Security Fee of $5.00 per conviction. In addition, at the May 1, 2002
Board meeting, the BOS proposed to establish a $25.00 processing fee for each convicted person admitted into the
regional jail. The County Attorney's office drafted the attached ordinance for the Board's consideration based on the new
State enabling authority. The public hearing for these two items was set for June 5, 2002.
DISCUSSION:
The County projects revenue of approximately $70,000 in Court security fees during the FY 02-03 year, which will be applied
towards appropriate courtroom security expenses. Fees cannot be imposed unless a defendant is actually "convicted" of a
crime and unlike the court maintenance fees, they cannot be assessed for defendants involved in civil cases. The amount of
jail processing fees received will be carefully monitored during FY 02-03, before any specific'revenue projections are made
for this fee category. Costs to collect both categories of these fees are expected to be minim al, as fees will be processed as
part of the County and Courts' billing procedures currently utilized for other court-related fees.
The ordinance would be effective July 1, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached ordinance after the public hearing is held.
02.073
05-20-02P04:72 RCV
ORDINANCE NO. 02-t(t)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER I~ GENERAL PROVISIONS, 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 1, General
Provisions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 1-119 Additional ~ourt costs
Chapter t. General Provisions
Sec. 1.119 Additional court costs.
A fee of two dollars ($2.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each criminal, traffic or civil case in the
respective district or circuit courts of the county for the purpose of providing for the maintenance,
construction or renovation of the courthouse, jail or court-related facilities located in and serving the
county and to defray the costs of cooling, heating and electricity in these facilities. The director of
finance shall segregate the fees collected pursuant to this section for the purposes designated above.
A fee of five dollars ($5.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each criminal or traffic case in the
respective district or cimuit courts of the county in which the defendant is convicted of a violation of any
statute or ordinance. The fee shall be collected by the clerk of the court in which the case is heard,
remitted to the director of finance, and held by the director of finance subject to appropriation by the
board of supervisors to the sheriff's office for the funding of courthouse security personnel.
A fee of twenty.five ($25.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each cdminal case in the respective
distdct or circuit courts of the county in which the defendant is convicted of a violation of any statute or
on:iinance and is processed for admission into the regional jail as a result of such conviction. The fee
shall be collected by the clerk of the court in which the case is heard, remitted to the director of finance,
and held by the director of finance subject to appropriation by the board of supervisors to the sheriffs
office for the funding of costs of processing arrested persons into the regional jail.
(Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. of 8-5-92, Code 1975, § 1-8, 6-17-89; Code 1988, § 1-8 Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-1(1), 6-5-
02)
State law reference--Authority for above provisions, Va. Code § 17.1-281; Va. Code § 53.1-120; Va. Code
§ 15.2-1613.1.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2002.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing wdting is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,held on June 5, 2002. by a vote of 5 to 0, ~~~~~,~. as .r:~7. rded~regular meeting
~rd of County Supervisors ~
Nay
Aye
Mr. Bowerman x
Mr. Dorrier x
Mr. ROoker x
Mr. Martin (Absent)
Mr. Perkins ~'
Ms. Thomas x
Draft: May 1, 2002
ORDINANCE NO. 02-1( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDA1NED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 1, General
Provisions, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 1-119 Additional court costs
Chapter 1. General Provisions
Sec. 1-119
Additional court costs.
A fee of two dollars ($2.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each criminal, traffic or civil case
in the respective district or circuit courts of the county for the purpose of providing for the
maintenance, construction or renovation of the courthouse, jail or court-related facilities located in
and serving the county and to defray the costs of cooling, heating and electricity in these facilities,
The director of finance shall segregate the fees collected pursuant to this ordnance section for the
purposes designated above.
B. A fee. of five dollars (.$5.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each criminal or traffic case in
the respective district or circuit courts of the county in which 'the defendant is convicted of a
violation of any stamt_e or ordinance. The fee shall be collected by the clerk of the court in which
the case is heard, remitted to the director of finance, and held by the director of finance subject to
appropriation by the board of supervisors to the sheriff's.office for the funding of courthouse
security personnel.
C. ^ fee of twenty five ($25.00) shall be taxed as additional costs in each criminal case in the
respective district or circuit courts of the county in which the defendant is convicted of a violation
of any st~-lJJte or ordinance and is processed for admission into the re~onal.jail as a result of such
convictiom The fee shall be collected by the clerk of the court in which the case is heard remitted
to the director of finance, and held by the director of finance subject to appropriation by the bom
of supervisors to the sheriWs office.for the funding of costs of ~ocessing arrested persons into
the reeional .jail.
(Ore[ of 8-8-90; Ord. of 8-5-92, Code 1975, § 1-8, 6-17-89; Code 1988, § 1-8 Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ore[ 02-
1 (1), 6-5-O2)
State law reference-Authority for above provisions, Va. Code § 14.1-133.2; Va. Code ~ 53A-120: Va. Code § 15.2-1613.1.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2002.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of__ to , as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Reeker
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Proposed FY02 Budget Amendment
SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on the Proposed FY02 Budget Amendment in
the amount of $3,930,516.97 and requested approval for the
amendment and Appropriations #2001063, 2001064,
2001065, 2001066, 2001068, 2001069, 2001070, and
2001071 for various school and local government projects.
AGENDA DATE:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White
BACKGROUND:
June 5,2002
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes ~
REVIEWED BY: /_~~'J
The Code of Virginia {}15.2-2507 stipulates that the County must amend its current budget if additional appropriated amounts
exceed 1% of the original budget of $500,000, whichever is the lesser. The Code section applies to all funds, i.e, Capital, E-
911, School Self-Sustaining, etc., not just the General Fund or County's adopted operating budget.
DISCUSSION:
This proposed FY02 Budget Amendment totals $3,930,516.97. The chart below breaks out the estimated amendment of the
expenses and revenues in the funds.
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund
Local Government Programs/Projects
School Fund
Education Programs/Projects
Capital Improvement Fund
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES -All Funds
$ 19,000.00
1,413,724.63
26,604.12
468,188.22
2,003,000.00
$3,930,516.97
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
Fund Balances
$ 481,300.10
1,062,403.72
244,642.00
2,142;171.15
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds
$3,930,516.97
This budget amendment consists of eight appropriations. A detailed description of these appropriations is provided on
Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests approval of the FY02 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,930,516.97 and approval of Appropriations
#2001063, 2001064, 2001065, 2001066, 2001068, 2001069, 2001070 and 2001071 as detailed on the attached appropriation
forms.
02.072 05-20-02P04:12 RCVD
Attachment A
APPROPRIATION #2001063
$113,736.12
Recent action was taken by the Wireless E911 Services Board to encourage and assist localities with Computer
Aided Dispatch (CAD). This action has provided reimbursement in the amount of $113,736.12 to the Emergency
Communications Center based on expenditures incurred to implement the CAD system.
Since the CAD project was fully funded by the County, City, and University, the ECC Management Board has
requested that this reimbursement be appropriated for the 800 Mhz radio project. The funds will be used to cover
greater than anticipated consulting fees.
APPROPRIATION #2001064
$328,775,73
Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from Thomas and Edeltraud Guenther.
This donation will be used to help finance the Laptops for Teachers Project.
Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $201.00 from Charles and Pamela Rose III, $94.00
from Deborah and Richard Welch, $198.00 from Cynthia and Linwood Watts, and $116.00 from Edward and Traci
Brooks. These donations will be used to fund the gifted program at the school.
Albemarle County Schools received a Refugee School Impact Grant award from the Virginia Department of
Education's Office of Secondary Instructional Services in the amount of $4,919.00. These funds will be used to
provide additional services for Albemarle County's growing multicultural population, which includes refugees. The
grant program will run in conjunction with the evening Adult ESOL program, targeting K-12 "Limited English
Proficient" (LEP) refugee students with special em phasis on reading, writing, and mathematical concepts.
Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients
of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our existing classes. Additional
revenues were received in the amount of $3,380.00 form Farmington Country Club and $1,672.00 from students in
tuition and books fees for English as a Second Language class.
The Eisenhower Grant provides federal assistance to improve teaching and learning through sustained and
intensive high quality professional development activities in the core academic areas of the Virginia Standards of
Learning. There is a local fund balance in the amount of $3,516.33 from FY00/01 to be re-appropriated in
FY01/02. These funds will be used to pay substitute teachers allowing the full time teacher to attend staff
development classes.
Albemarle County Public Schools received an award in the amount of $43,297.00 from the Virginia Adult Basic
Education English Literacy/Civics Program. This grant will provide funds to offer six non-traditional venues in
which English Language instruction will be provided in a Family Literacy environment. Limited English families that
currently are unable to attend classes regularly due to transportation issues and work conflicts will be targeted.
The venues are: monthly ESOL community nights, ESOL job fair, ESOL healthcare fair, expansion of the current
Adult ESOL Program at AHS to include computer literacy, readily available computer labs and lower
student/teacher ratios, Hispanic Outreach and an ESOL "Motheread/Fatheread" Family Literacy Program.
Title I is a federally funded program designed to help children meet challenging content and performance
standards. There is a local fund balance in the amount of $6,642.28 from FY00/01 and may be re-appropriated for
FY01/02. In addition, funding for FY01/02 increased by $241,667.00 from the original amount of $606.042.00
A consortium of school systems (Albemarle, Charlottesville and Nelson) has formed to address the educational,
social, and emotional needs of students who require an alternative education program. The 2001-02 funding
request included $25,000 in a new initiative for the Alternative Education Continuum and the School Board
approved the budget initiative as requested. The funds were added to the Enterprise Center. It is requested that
$15,000.00 be transferred from Enterprise Center to the Project Return II account in order that remaining
expenditures can be adequately covered. In addition, Nelson County funding for Project Return II was increased
by $2,600.00 from the original budget amount of $5,400.00. These funds are needed to pay the additional part-
time teacher for services this school year.
The Adult Education Program is a federally and state funded program, providing educational opportunities to adults
whose skills in reading, mathematics and other subjects are below th e 12th grade level. There is a required 15%
mandated match of local funds. It is requested that $227.00 be transferred from the School Fund to adequately
meet the grant mandate. There is a local fund balance in the amount of $3,635.12 form FY00/01 and may be re-
appropriated for FY01/02. An additional amount of $1,111.00 has been received for books fees from students.
These funds will pay for salaries and educational materials.
AP PROPRIATION #2001065
$10,000.00
The Woodstock Drive Drainage Improvement Program involves the installation of drainage pipes and associated
structures, removal of existing stormpipes, rip-rap installation, asphalt repair, minor grading and permanent soil
stabilization. This project requires that a portion of the storm drain pipe in the City, along Ricky Road at Wayne
Avenue, be upgraded.
The City reviewed the design Plans and agreed that the City portion should be included in the project as deSigned.
Linda Peacock, Assistant City Manager, provided a letter dated November 29, 2001, acknowledging the City's
commitment to participate in the cost of this project up to $10,000.
APPROPRIATION #2001066
$18,501.67
Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from Dr. Jeffrey Barth. This donation will
be used to help finance the Laptops for Teachers Project. Murray Elementary School also received a donation of
$28.17 from the Target School Fund-Raising Program. Target has designated their favorite school to receive
donations equal to 1% of purchases made when shopping at Target or online.
Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $137.00 from George and Sandra Stephens and
$350.00 from Blaine and Jean Norum. These donations will be used to fund the gifted program at the school.
Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $4,400.00 from the Broadus Wood PTO.
This donation will be used to purchase instructional materials for use in the classrooms.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $50.00 from Charles and Judy Werner.
This donation will be used to purchase materials for the K-1 classroom. Stone Robinson also received a donation
in the amount of $29.95 from Dr. and Mrs. Doulgas Cox. This donation will be used to help pay for magazine
subscriptions for a 5th grade classroom.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts made several grant awards to Albemarle County Schools to help strengthen
education in and through the arts in elementary and secondary schools. Broadus Wood Elementary received
$300.00, Murray Elementary received $299.00, Yancey Elementary received $300.00, Jouett Middle received
$600.00, and Sutherland Middle received $600.00.
The State Farm Companies Foundation made Good Neighbor Grant awards in the amount of $1,000.00 to Crozet
Elementary and $500.00 to the Monticello High School Band.
The Optimist Club of the Blue Ridge made a grant award in the amount of $200.00 to Cale Elementary and
$219.98 to Woodbrook Elementary. These funds will be used to help purchase materials for literacy programs at
the schools.
The Jefferson Region Destination Imagination (DI) will provide a regional DI competition for county students and
surrounding school districts. Of the 70 teams that participate, 25 will be from Albemarle County. Team registration
fees, t-shirt sales and contributions will help cover expenses and the DI has a fund balance of $977.57. Albemarle
County will continue as fiscal agent for our region.
7-Eleven, Inc. made a grant award in the amount of $310.00 to Red Hill Elementary School. These funds will be
used in their literacy program.
The Farmers Agribusiness Resources and Marketing, Inc. (FARM, Inc) made a grant award in the amount of
$500.00 to Monticello High School. These funds will be used for a project in the Virginia Right Choices for Youth
Initiative.
APPROPRIATION #2001068 $19,000.00
The FY02 budget request for the Sheriff's Office included replacement of computers in his office. This request was
not approved in the County budget, but the Compensation Board approved $19,000 in the Sheriff's State budget.
In order to obtain this funding from the State, this request is to approve a $19,000 local appropriation that will be
used to replace and upgrade laptop computers in the Sheriff's office. This amount will be 100% funded by the
State.
APPROPRIATION #2001069
$2,003,000.00
Based on the revenue surplus from FY01, and as previously presented to the Board on the quarterly reports,
$2,003,000 will be transferred to the Capital Fund. Of this total, $1,557,000 is allocated to the Capital Reserve
account and $446,000 is allocated to the Ivy Landfill Remediation Project.
APPROPRIATION #2001070
$147,514.94
Albemarle County Public Schools in partnership with Stafford and Fairfax County Public Schools and the Virginia
Department of Education have received the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project: V-CEP Grant in the
amount of $77,000.00. This is the second year of the three-year project, which supports the development,
implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of comprehensive K-12 character education programs.
Federal funding for the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Grant was increased by $2,975.00 over the original budget
estimate of $149,675.00. These additional funds will be used to help purchase computer equipment for the hig h
schools.
Virginia Business-Education Partnerships has a carry over grant balance of $36,463.94 from FY00-01. This
balance was retained by the Virginia Department of Education and is now available for use by Albemarle County
Schools. These funds will be used to cover expenditures in the current Business-Education Partnerships Grant
Program.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts has awarded Kelly O'Leary of Jack Jouett Middle School a $300.00 grant.
This grant has been established to help strengthen education in and through the arts.
Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients
of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our existing classes. Additional
revenues were received in the amount of $800.00 from Boar's Head Inn in tuition and $49.00 from students in
books fees for English as a Second Language class.
The Adult Education Program is a federally and state funded program, providing educational opportunities to adults
whose skills in reading, mathematics and other subjects are below the 12th grade level. Additional revenues were
received in the amount of $427.00 from students for books fees.
Approximately $20,000.00 is available from the Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR)
rental. The Superintendent proposes that available revenues from this fund be allocated as follows: $10,000.00 to
Monticello High School, $5,000.00 to Albemarle High School, and $5,000.00 to Western Albemarle High School.
None of the above initiatives are recurring. Additionally, some revenue for the next year's rental will be received
and some expenses will be necessary to incur to facilitate AIMR's use of the building in the timeframe for which
they wish to occupy it.
The Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), implemented in 1993, is the primary funding source for at risk children
and families who are either in foster care, involved with the juvenile court system, or require residential or day
treatment services because of their special education needs. Children and families served with these funds are
mandated by the Code and include children placed for purposes of special education, disabled children placed by
local social services or the court in private residential facilities and whose Individual Education Program (IEP)
indicates such schooling is appropriate and needed, foster care children, and children and families served to
prevent foster care placement. The School Division is fiscally responsible for costs associated with providing
special education services to children served under the Comprehensive Services Act. The FY02 School transfer
an estimate of these costs has been completed for FY2002 with total expenditures of $1,000,000.00. The current
FY02 school transfer appropriation to CSA is $600,000, leaving a shortfall of $400,000. Shifting funds from
savings associated with a mid-year VRS rate reduction for teachers will fund this shortfall.
APPROPRIATION #2001071 $1,289,988.51
FY 2001/02 expenditures in the Comprehensive Service Act Fund are currently anticipated to total $5,628,743.52.
Of this amount, $4,338,755.00 has previously been appropriated, leaving an additional $1,289,988.51 to be
appropriated. In March 2002, the County received approval for additional state monies for its CSA Program in the
amount of $765,588.66. The County's portion of these additional expenditures will be funded by the CSA fund
balance in the amount of $124,399.85, and a transfer from the School Division of $400,000.00.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
01/02
NUMBER
2001063
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: E.C.C.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR CONSULTING EXPENSE FOR RADIO SYSTEM.
CODE
I 4110 31050
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
312700 CONSULTING EXPENSE $ 113,736.12
TOTAL $ 113,736.12
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 4110 24000 240424 $ 113,736.12
TOTAL $ 113,736.12
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: E.C.C.
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
22-Mar-02
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
01~2
NUMBER
2001064
TYPE OFAPPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO
X
FUND:
EDUCATON
PURPOSE OFAPPROPRIATION:
DONATIONS AND VARIOUS SCHOOLPROGRAMS.
CODE
I 2215 61101 800700
I 2304 61101 601300
1 3123 61101 132100
1 3123 61101 210000
1 3123 61101 312700
1 3123 61101 601300
I 3116 63348 132100
I 3116 63348 210000
I 3116 63348 601300
1 3203 61311 152100
1 3203 61311 210000
I 3150 61101 111400
114100
132100
210000
221000
231000
232000
241000
312000
520100
550100
601300
601700
1 310t 61101 112100
114100
210000
1 2113 61111
I 2113 93010
I 3122 63349
I 3122 63349
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************ *********************************** *'~¢r'~**Cc'A"~**Cc*'~Cc~"A'*X'~
ADP Equipment $ 500.00
Inst/Rec Supplies 609.00
PIT Teacher Wages 3,268.80
FICA 252.20
Prof Svc-Consultant 300.00
Inst/Rec Supplies 1,098.00
P/T Teacher Wages 4,514.63
FICA 345.37
Inst/Rec Supplies 192.00
Sub-Wages-Teacher 3,266.45
FICA 249.88
Salaries-Other Mang. 2,880.00
Salaries-Teacher Aide 3,960.00
P/T Teacher Wages 25,630.00
FICA 2,484.00
VRS 314.00
Health Ins 194.00
Dental Ins 10.00
Group Life Ins 25.00
Other Prof Services 5,500.00
Postal Services 400.00
Travel 400.00
Inst/Rec Supplies 1,000.00
Copy Supplies 500.00
Salaries-Teacher 108,746.00
Salaries-Teacher Aide 29,267.00
FICA 10,557.99
221000 VRS
231000 Healthlns
232000 Dentallns
601300 Ins~Rec Supplies
601300 Ins~Rec Supplies
930000 Fund Transfer
132100 PFFTeacherWages
210000 FICA
15,625.00
20,786.00
832.00
62,495.29
(15,000.00)
15,000.00
16,349.28
1,250.72
1 3115 63322
1 3115 63322
I 3115 63322
132100 P/TTeacherWages
210000 FICA
601300 Ins~Rec Supplies
3,376.80
258.32
1,338.00
CODE
2 2000 18100 181109
2 3123 24000 240359
2 3116 16000 161206
2 3116 18000 189900
2 3203 51000 510100
2 3150 33000 330600
2 3101 33000 330101
2 3101 51000 510100
2 3122 18000 189900
2 3122 51000 512001
2 3115 18000 189900
2 3115 51000 510100
2 3115 51000 512001
TOTAL $ 328,775.73
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Donation
Refugee Grant
Tuition-Adult Ed
Misc Revenues
Approp-Fund Balance
ESOL Outreach Grant
Title I Funds
Approp-Fund Balance
Misc Revenues
Transfer-School Fund
Misc Revenues
Approp-Fund Balance
Transfer-School Fund
$ 1,109.00
4,919.00
4,860.00
192.00
3 516.33
43 297.00
241 667.0O
6 642.28
2 600.00
15000.00
1 111.00
3 635.12
227.00
TOTAL $ 328,775.73
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
25-Mar-02
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
01/02
NUMBER
2001065
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL X
TRANSFER
NEW X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND:
STORM DRAINAGE
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CITY SHARE OF PROJECT ON RICKY ROAD.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 9100 41054 800975 STORM DRAINAGE-RICKY ROAD $ 10,000.00
TOTAL $ 10,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9100 16000 160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE $ 10,000.00
TOTAL $ 10,000.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: ENGINEERING
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
18-Apr-02
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
01102
NUMBER
2001066
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
X
FUND:
EDUCATON
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DONATIONS AND VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
CODE
I 2215 61101 800700
1 2215 61101 601300
1 2304 61101 601300
1 2201 61101 601300
I 2210 61101 601300
1 3104 60201 601300
I 3104 60216 601300
1 3104 60213 601300
1 3104 60252 601300
1 3104 60255 601300
1 3104 60203 601300
1 3104 60304 601300
1 3104 60214 601300
1 3104 60212 601300
1 3129 61104 520100
1 3129 61104 580000
1 3129 61104 601300
1 3104 60207 601300
1 3104 60304 601300
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ADP Equipment
Inst/Rec Supplies
Inst/Rec Supplies
Inst/Rec Supplies
Inst/Rec Supplies
Inst/Rec Supplies
Inst/Rec Supplies
Inst/Rec Supplies
Inst/Rec Supplies
Inst/Rec Supplies
Inst/Rec Supplies
I nst/Rec Su ppli.es
Inst/Rec Supplies
Inst/Rec Supplies
Postal Services
Misc Expenses
Inst/Rec Supplies
Inst/Rec Su ppties
Inst/Rec Supplies
$ 500.00
28.17
487.00
4,400.00
79.95
300.00
299.00
300.00
600.00
600.00
1,000.00
500.00
200.00
219.98
151.00
4,838.00
3,188.57
310.00
500.00
CODE
2 2000 18100 181109
2 3104 24000 240295
2 3104 24000 240328
2 3104 24000 240249
2 3104 24000 240250
2 3104 24000 240368
2 3104 18000 181255
2 3104 18000 181261
2 3104 18000 186012
2 3104 18000 186262
2 3129 16000 161260
TOTAL $ 18,501.67
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Donation
Va Comm-Broadus Wood
Va Comm-Murray Elem
Va Comm-Yancey
Va Comm-Jouett
Va Comm-Sutherland
State Farm-Crozet
State Farm-MHS
Optimist Club-Cale
Optimist Club-Woodbrook
BI Reg Fees
$ 5,495.12
300.00
299.00
300.00
600.00
600.00
1,000.00
500.00
200.00
219.98
2,5OO.0O
2 3129 18100 181109Contributions 200.00
2 3129 18000 189918 Proceeds-Sales 4,500.00
2 3129 51000 510100Appro-FundBal 977.57
2 3104 18000 186011 7-Eleven, Inc 310.00
2 3104 18000 181263 FARM Inc 500.00
TOTAL $ 18,501.67
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
22-Apr-02
J~-~
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 01/02
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
2001068
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
STATE FUNDED COMPUTERS FOR SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
I 1000 31020 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT $ 19,000.00
TOTAL $ 19,000.00
REV. ENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 23000 230202 STATE COMP. BOARD-SHERIFF'S EXPENSES $ 19000.00
TOTAL $ 19,000.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: SHERIFF
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
1 ~May-02
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
01/02
NUMBER
2001069
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES X
NO
FUND:
GENERAL/CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION'
TRANSFER OF FY 02 SURPLUS TO CAPITAL RESERVE AND IVY LANDFILL.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
I 9010 11010 999979 CAPITAL RESERVE $ 1,557,000.00
I 9010 41000 700006 IVY LANDFILL 446,000.00
TOTAL $ 2,003,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9010 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F $ 2,003,000.00
TOTAL $ 2,003,000.00
TRANSFERS
1 1000 93010 930010 TRANSFER TOC.I.P. 2,003,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 2,003,000.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD Ot= SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
13-May-02
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 01/02
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL X
TRANSFER
NEW X
2001070
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND:
EDUCATON
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
1 3146
1 3146
1 3146
I 3146
1 3146
1 3146
1 3146
1 3207
1 3209
1 3209
I 3209
1 3209
1 3209
I 3209
1 3104
1 3116
1 3116
1 3116
I 3115
1 3145
1 3145
1 3145
1 3145
1 2301
1 2302
1 2304
1 2100
1 2112
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
61101 131400 PT Wages-Other Mang $ 25,000.00
61101 210000 FICA 1,912.50
61101 312700 Prof Serv Consultants 10,000.00
61101 550100 Travel-Mileage 2,587.50
61101 550400 Travel-Education 2,500.00
61101 580500 Staff Dev 10 000.00
61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 25,000.00
61190 800100 Equipment 2,975.00
61103 117100 Salaries-Bus Driver 3,000.00
61103 160300 Stipends-Staff Dev 15,000.00
61103 210000 FICA 1,380.00
61103 350000 Printing/Bindin§ 2,000.00
61103 420100 Field Trips 3,000.00
61103 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 12,083.94
60253 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 300.00
63348 132100 Salaries-Teacher 743.15
63348 210000 FICA 56.85
63348 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 49.00
63322 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 427.00
62190 114300 Salaries-Other Tech (2,410.00)
62190 800701 DP Equipment (2,000.00)
62420 331200 R&M Equip-Buildings (6,090.00)
93010 930001 Transfer School Fund 20,000.00
61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 5,000.00
61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 5,000.00
61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 10,000.00
61101 221000 VRS (400,000.00)
93010 930206 Transfer to CSA 400,000.00
TOTAL $ 147,514.94
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 3146 24000 240364 Character EdGrant $ 77,000.00
2 3207 33000 330107 Carl Perkins-Voc Ed 2,975.00
2 3209 24000 240299 Va Business Ed Grant 36,463.94
2 3104 24000 240250 Va Comm-Jouett 300.00
2 3116 16000 161206 Tuition-Adult Ed 800.00
2 3116 18000 189900Misc. Revenues 49.00
2 3t15 18000 189900Misc. Revenues 427.00
2 2000 51000 510110 Transfer-Self Sustaining 20,000.00
2 3145 15000 150201 General Prop. Rental 9,500.00
TOTAL $ 147,514.94
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR~
SIGNATURE
DATE
14~May-02
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
01102
NUMBER
2001071
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION'
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: C.S.A
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1551 53120 581101 MAN RES THERAP FC IV-E $ (270,737.80)
1 1551 53120 581102 MAN RES THERAP FC OTHER 486,282.46
1 1551 53120 581201 MAN RES FAMILYFC IV-E (71,822.17)
1 1551 53120 581202 MAN RES FAMILY FC-OTHER 12,369.84
I 1551 53120 581203 FAM. FSTR CARE MAINT PAYM (38,397.57)
1 1551 53120 581301 MAN RES FC PREVENTION (127,758.72)
1 1551 53120 581401 MAN RES SPECIAL ED 427,998.75
1 1551 53120 581501 MAN NON-RES FC PREVENTION 433,916.12
1 1551 53120 581601 MAN NRES SPEC ED PRIVDAY 463,137.60
I 1551 53120 581602 MAN NRES SPEC ED PUBL DAY (25,000.00)
TOTAL $ 1,289,988.51
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1551 24000 240609 STATE-COMPREHENSIVESERV. $ 765,588.66
2 1551 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION-FUND BAL 124,399.85
2 1551 51000 512001 TRS. FR.-FROM SCHOOL FUND 400,000.00
TOTAL $ 1,289,988.51
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: SOCIAL SERVICES
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR,~
SIGNATURE
DATE
16-May-02
~./,',,¢. ¢ 2.--
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier ,Jr.
5cottsuil e
Charles S. Martin
R~vanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
'v?~it e
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
~amuel Mg~r
June 21,2002
Charles and Judy Werner
3331 Martin Kings Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Werner:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation which will be used to purchase materials for the K-1 classroom at Stone
Robinson Elementary School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our
educational system. These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education
provided to our students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorder, Jr.
scottsvflle
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
',~e Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
June 21,2002
Dr. and Mrs. Douglas: Cox
4895 Barnfield Drive
Keswick, VA. 22947
Dear Dr. and Mrs. Cox:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation which will be used to help pay for magazine subscriptions fOr a 5t~
grade classroom at Stone Robinson Elementary School. It is a pleasure to
acknowledge your investment in our educational system. These funds will be used to
help enhance the quality of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for
your continued support.
Sincerely,
/
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
David P. Bowerman
Rio
LLndsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scottsvi|le
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (4341 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
June 21,2002
Blaine and Jean Norum
1400 Clearbrook Lane
Charlottesville, VA. 22911
Dear "~ g~-~'~/
Mr. n~dMrs. Norum.
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation which will be used to help fund the gifted program at Monticello High
School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system.
These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to our
students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Scott$~ille
Charles S. Martin
Rivarlna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40i Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Satly H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
June 21,2002
George and Sandra Stephens
3834 Starlight Road
North Garden, VA. 22959
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stephens:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation which will be used to help fund the gifted program at Monticello High
School. it is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system.
These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to our
students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/Iab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
David P. Bowerman
Lindsay_G. Dorrier, Jr.
5cottsville
Charles S. ~artin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S, Rooker
Jack Joueti
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
June 21,2002
The Cornell Company
Dr. Jeffrey Barth
465 Ivy Farm Drive
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
Dear Dr. Barth:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation which will be used to help finance the Laptops for Teachers Project at
Murray Elementary School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our
educational system. These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education
provided to our students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier Jr.
Scobtsvil e
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 M¢Intire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX I4341 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
June 21,2002
Edward and TraciBrooks
2630 GardnerLane
Esmont, VA. 22937
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Brooks:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation which will be used to help finance the gifted program at Monticello High
School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system.
These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to our
students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay_G. Dorrier. Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
~ite Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack gouett
Sally H. Thomas
,~amuel Miller
June 21,2002
Linwood and Cynthia'Watts
3327 Marsden Point
Keswick, VA. 22947
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Watts'
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation which will be used to help finance the gifted program at Monticello High
School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system.
These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to our
students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scottsville
Charles $. Martin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
June 21,2002
Richard and DeborahWelch
719 Black Cat Road
Keswick, VA. 22947-2410
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Welch:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation which will be used to help finance the gifted program at Monticello High
School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system.
These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to our
students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S. Martin
Fdvanna
CO UNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(4341 296-5843 FAX (4341 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
June 21,2002
Charles and Pamela Rose, III
1104 Milton Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rose:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation which will be used to help finance the gifted program at 'Monticello High
School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your "nvestment in our educational system.
These funds will. be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to our
students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
David P~ Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scott sville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H: Thomas
,gamu el Miller
June 21,2002
Thomas and Edeltraud Guenther
1225 Old Garth Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Guenther:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation which will be used to help finance the Laptops for Teachers Project at
Murray Elementary School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our
educational system. These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education
provided to our students. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
o.,.:
Agenda Item #:
C,erk's ,ri,ia,s:
JUNE 5, 2002
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED
SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2-3711 (A) OF
THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
UNDER SUBSECTION (1) TO CONSIDER
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS;
UNDER SUBSECTION (1) TO CONDUCT AN
ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION;
UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH
LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING
PENDING LITIGATION RELATING TO A SITE
PLAN DENIAL AND RELATING TO AN
ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIM; AND
UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH
LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING A SPECIFIC
LEGAL MATTER REQUIRING LEGAL ADVICE
REGARDING POTENTIAL COUNTY LIABILITIES.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Laurie Bentley, C.M.C. ~r, ~
Senior Deputy Clerk
May 31, 2002
RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through September 30, 21302. I
have also attached copies of applications for the seven interviews scheduled for the June 5 meeting.
Thank you.
Cc:
Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
Chamber of Commerce (list only)
BOARD OR COMMISSION
MEMBER
TERM EXPIRES NEW TERM
IWtSH TO BE
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
· I application (perkins) sent 2/2/0!.
· ReadvertiSed; rec'd no additional
appl?tions,
Advertised no appl cants,
2 interViews on 6/5.
Daniel Montgomery
Juandi~o wade
Clifford R, Buys ~
Arthur B. Brown Jr. ~
JoAnne Ebersold
12/111~i0 i 12113/02
6/30104
Resigned
3 interviews on 6/5.
Cynthia Dupree (appointee
12/31/03
Resigned
The application for the CAFGB's
recommendation (Alan N. Culbertson)
is attached,
James B, Murray, Jr.
7/1/02 7/1/05 No
Note: Roxanne White is working on
establishing bylaws forthis committee,
so no action need be taken at this time,
MiChael K. Semanik
A, Bruce Dotson
Charles M.
Jr.
7/8/02 7/8/04 718/04
7/8/02 7/8/04 7/8/04
7/8/02 7/8/04 7/8/04
New slot.
WiSH TO BE DISTRICT IF
NEW TERM RE- MAGISTERIAL
BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? APPOINTMENT
Advertised; applications due 6/19. Sanford P. Wilcox 3/31/03 Resigned
(appointee to complete his
~ term)
INTERVIEWS
BOARD OR COMMISSION
# VACANCIES
APPLICANT
INTERVIEW
TIME
Carole Wemstrom
1:00
Rob Jiranek
12:50
1:20
NEW APPLICATIONS
Alan N. Culbertson
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier,
ScottsviIIe
Charles S. Martin
Ri,.ra~na
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Superwsors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hail
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
June 19,2002
Ms. Carole Wernstrom
2448 Whitney Ct.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Ms. Wernstrom:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on June 5, 2002, you were appointed to the Region Ten
Community Service Board, with said term to run from 7/1/02 - 6/30/05. I have enclosed a roster for your
convenience.
On behalf of the Board I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your'willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
CO:
Commonwealth Attorney
James R Peterson
Printed on recycled paper
~0 'd
County of Albemarle
Offi¢~ of I~L~I OF COUnty
401 Mcl~tim Road
Cha~lottc~-,411~, VA
G ~E~r~E ~__.cqDMsMiq'~l
3o6 Westmin~er Road
Eharlottesv616 Virginia22901-2234
7'elephone: 434-971.5538
EBb: 434- 971-4805
M-ay 09~ 2OO2
Sally Thomas, Chair, and' members of the Ceunty of Albemarle Board of Sul~erviSO~s:
~David Bowerman, Lindsay.Dorrier, Jr., Charles Martin, Walter F. Perkins, Dennis Rooker
Office of ~ Board of'Su~rvisors
401 Mctntire Road
Charlottesville,. Vi~nia 22g~
Telephone: 434,296-5843
FAX: ~296-5800
Dear-Mrs. ~mas and other membem of the Board of Supervisors,
~is letter is being sent asa recomme~tion for*
Carnie is trained as a
Albemarle County. One ofthe attractions :of A!bemark
Wemstmm,
child,
volunteer with the Friends. of
~onthe HealthCommittee. She
knows and~ is 'known by Jim .Peterson,
an inter~stedobserver. She has met/J ' ~"
Court; udge Edward "Ted Hogshire who. presides over
.Substance Abuse Services,.James Reinhard, M:D., aboard:certE~ed psychiatrist.
~ Commissioner of the DePartment of Mental Health; Mental. Retardation, andSubstanoa:Abuse,
the former CEO of the;~over. County-Community;Sen,ice Board. These contacts
As a prOfesSional, she :has the
~ch i
lhe-myriadof~
psychiatric nursing and substance abuse counseling
retired:indiwi~ she-Yes the time te devote to
unit will keep her uptodate eh, the: latestinformation~inthe
cemmuff~,
'. Withthis appliCa~on, and'her activities-since
Camte Wemstmm is tryi~ touse her experience-for the be~fferment of our
a poSition as a
With appmciation%r all that you ali do for our community,
05-1Q-~o_:_..
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G~ Dorrier, Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40I Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
June 19,2002
Mr. Paul Howard, Jr.
410 Westmoreland Ct.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Howard:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on June 5, 2002, you were appointed to the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee, to complete Ms. Cynthia Dupree's term which will
expire 12/31/03. I have enclosed a roster for your convemence.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your.willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/Iab
Enclosure
cc:
Commonwealth Attorney
Lawrence C. Tropea
Printed on rec?cled paper
83/19/2882 i5:25 5488292152 CULPEPER COUNTY PAGE 82
County of Albemarle
(8o4) ~-
APPLICATION,TO Sga~ ON BO~fCOMMIsSION/CO~~
A~t's ~ P~i H~r, "
FuR Hom~ Ad&e~ 410 Wgs~gl~C~,,~lo~i~e, VA 11~1 ' , .... .
~~ Dis~ct ~ wach ~',~'~fe is 1o~d _~o ....
Phone 434-~I4-1142
Date of Eaal~!oy~¢nt
' S[~ouse"s Name If~lyltti~i~s
Nmub~ of Children 3
11/1/199~
Map 26 02 03:25p 3D EnviroLo~ics 43~97S3637 p.1
County of Albemarle
Of:flee of Boaxd of County Supervisors
401 McIn~e Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type o~ print.)
Board/Coramission/Co~ttee Rivanna Solid Waste Authority ~~q
Applicanfs Name A. Scott Noose
Full Home Address 2759 Peppervine Court, Charlottesville, VA 22911
Home Phone 434 975 2129
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Hollymead (?)
Employer 3D EnviroLogics LLC
Business Addres.s 2759 Peppervhe Court, Charlottesville, VA 22911
Phone 434 975 0687
Occupation/Title Vice President Date of Emplo3maent 1/1/2002
Years Resident in Albemarle County 7 Spouse's Name Patrk~ Y. Noose
Previous Residence 321 $ Gateway Circle, Charlott~ville, VA 229t I Number of Children 2
Education (De,ecs and G.,raduafion Date~ Ph.D & MS.- Johns Hopkins Univ. (1980 & 1978); BS- Washington & Lee Univ. (1972)
Meml;~rships in Fraternal. Busine ss,..Church an___d / o_r Social Groups Membon American Chemical Society, Holy Matyrs Cimr~h,
Public. Civic and Ghadmbte O_ffice and/or Qther Activities or Interests Head Men's Lacrosse Coaoh- Atbernarle High Sohool
Reason(s) for Wishin.~ tx) Ser3~.e 9n this Board/Commission/Committee Desiro lac opportunity [o bring my years ofem4ronmcntal
~ormalting to benoflt Rivanna's policy ~¢~ing mad d,cision making. The community needs te find a delicate balance b~n growth and minimizing environmental
im~aots.
The informayn p/go~Sd~n chis ~ppLieafion will be released to the public upon request.
Signature Date
2/26/2002
Return to:
Cledq Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclnt/ze Road
Chadottesv/lle~ VA 229024~96
FAX: (804) 296-~800
County of Albemarle
04-16-02A08:11 ROVD
Home Phone 434-2444)081
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 Mclmtire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print.)
Board/Commission/Committee Rivauna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee
Applicant's Name KevinO'Connor
Full Home Address 183 Bryan Court, Charlottesville, VA 22902-8730
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Scottsville
Employer Pine Mountain Investmem Company, LLC
Business Address 183 Bryan Court, Charlottesville, VA 22902-8730
Phone 434-961-8219
Occupation/Tide Notebmker f Managing Member 12~te of Employment 2/1/1993
Years Resident in Albemarle County Nine years Spouse's Name Julia T. Dyer
Previous Residence Route 2 Box 217, Charlottesville, 22901 Number of Children 0
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) At~nded Washington University (St. Louis, MO) 1973 =.1974 /University of California
(Berkely) 1975 /Northeastern University (Boston, MA) 1976 - 1977/University of Mis$omi St Louis 1979-1980
Member~ps in Fraternal Business.~ Church and/or Social Groups Kiwanis Club of Charlottesville (member 4 years),
Knight~ of Columbuh St. Thomas of Aquinas Parish (member 3 years),
Public. Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or lmterests Chamber of Cormnmerce, Greater Charlottesville Business
Association (member 7 years), Charlottesville Venture Group, Monticello Fire & Rescue Station # 11 (Board of Directom), Mill Creek Homeowners
A, ssueiafion, Offic~r- Trea~n~r & Bpoxd of Directors since 1998
Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee I have passionate interest in environmental & recycling issues
I would like to serve on county-wide committee.
The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
Signatu~,j'~ Date
Cledq Board of County Supexvlsors
Albemarle County
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
FAX: (804) 296-~800
County of Albemarle
Office of Bo~xd of County Supenrisozs
401 McIntke Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
04-~8-02A~1:24
RCVD
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print;)
~te~D~ ~yo=homer~d~ceislocat~ % nk~ ~(~
Employer ~-- Phone
Business Address
Occupation/Title ~ Date of Employment
Me~s A Fm~m~ BusAess. ~ ~d/or S~ ~s
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests ~'-
Reason(s) for Wishlng to Serve on this Board/Commission/Commlttee 'e'''-O
lne infoxaxi~tiG~bvidea ota_~.t~is application will be released to the public upon request.
S~-~ex ~// Date
FAX~ (8O4) 29C~800
APPLICATIONS FOR THE
JEFFERSON AREA BICYCLE AND WALKING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
County of Albemarle
Yvar~ Rc.~klc,,! i. ^ibcm.dc ~>~untv ~T- ~
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier. Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Superwsors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack ,Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
June 20, 2002
Mr. Alan N. Culbertson
4884 Nutmeg Farm
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Culber[son:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on June 5, 2002, I appointed you to the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Community Foundation Governing Board, with said term to run from July 1, 2002
- June 31, 2005.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your'willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
CC:
Commonwealth Attorney
John R. Ridick
Printed ~n recyclec~ paper
05/20/:2002 ~fON tl;$? FAX
. C~Lberq.~on COIVIBAN~:
lO:b~ PAC-~ 2/2
County of Albemaffe
002
Clerk, Bo~ed ~ County S~perv~s~rs
Albemarle CounTy
~l McT-~e Ro~
c~~~, vA 2~o2-4~96
PLEASE RE~TF~iCT ANY ATTACHMENTS
TO ONE PAGe;
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' AGENDA TITLE:
SP 00-057 St. David's Anglican Church
SUB]ECT/PROPOSAIJREOUEST:
Updated traffic information as requested by Planning
Comm/ssioru
STAFF CONTACT(S):
ScoR Clark
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA DATE: 6]5/02
ITEM NUMBER: SP 00-0~7
ACTION: Yes
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA: No
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUNd.
On May 21, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended denial of SP 00-057, due to uncertainties regarding
the traffic-safety impacts of the project. However, the Commission instruct~ staff to supply more information
regarding sight distance (horizontal and vertical) and accident history at the intersection in question (Colthurst
Drive and Barracks Road).
Also, an error was found in an analysis supplied by VDOT (a correctol version is attact~).
DISCUSSION:
One of the primary conc~as at the Planning Commission meeting was sight distance at the ~on of
Barracks Road and Colthurst Drive. After reviewing past comments on this mater from VDOT, staff b~as found
a comment stating thai:
"A field review at the above referenced intersection indicates the sight distance exceeds the minimum
requirements of 55ff. Sight distance to the west and for left turning vehicles was found to be 670' and to
· feet"
the east it was several thousand .
Although this does not specifically address the issue of vertical limits on sight distance (Le,, the effects of the hill
to the west of the intersection), it does show that sufficient sight distance already exists. After the Planning
Commission meeting, staff received confirmation from VDOT that "site ~ at this intemection is
adequate." Staff has requested darification from VDOT on whether or not the terrain has any s'~aificant impact,
but has not yet received a response. Given the two messa~ (based on field ~) stating that sight distance is
adequate, staff feels that VDOT has suffidently addressed this concern,
The Planning Commission also requested information on collisions at this intemection, Acddent data from
VDOT shows that in the last 5 years, there has been one accident at the Barracks-Colthurst intersection, in which
one person was injured and no-one was kitled.
The previous analysis supplied by the Engineering Department and VDOT (attachment AA of the report
packet) led the Engineering Department to state that "it is our opinion that the proposed church con~es to,
1 06-03-02P12:30 RCVD
but does not significantly generate, the need for improvements to the Barracks Road-Colthurst Drive
intersection" However, there is an error in the tables that led to this result-- the speed limit was incorrectly
entered as 45 miles per hour. When that number is corr~:xt to 55, no changes result in the length of turn lanes
and tapers recommended. In other words, the intersection should have right and left turn Ianes given current
traffic levels, and adding the traffic generated by the church stiI1 does not change what is needed at the sit~
The Plarming Commission requested that staff investigate the possibility of reducing the speed limit on this
portion of Route 601. At our request, the local VDOT Residency has requested that the ~ office conduct a
speed study, the first step in determining ff a change is warran~cL Planning staff was unable to obtain a firm
completion date for the study, which will take "a few weeks."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has recommended approval of SP 00-057 with the conditions l~ow (the same that were recommended
to the Planning Co--ion on May 21, 2002). The Planning Commission recommends denial based on
their ~ty that traffic-s~ety issues have been sufficiently addressecL
1. The church shall be limited to one structure with a maximum 125-seat sanctuary.
2. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.71 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordio~ce,
shall be mainta/ned adjacent to residential or RA zoning districts.
3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit,
or amendment to this perm~
4. There shall be no cemetery on the site without approval of an amendmen~ to this permit.
5. Construction of the 125-seat sanctuary shall commence on or before the expiration date of a signed final site
plan based on proliminary site plan SDP 01-117 (as shown on the plan dated April 19, 2002, and prepared
by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC). If SDP 01-117 expires or is withdrawn without the signing of a
final site plan, this permit shah expire five years from the date of approval of this permit.
6. Health Depa~:~tent approval of well and septic ~.
7. The applicant shah reserve for public dedication to public use, upon demand of the County, a 10-foot strip
of right-of-way along the frontage of the property adjacent to Barracks Road for future turn-lane and taper
improvements to the Barracks Road-Colthurst Drive intemectiom
ATI'ACHMENTS:
Corrected "Commerdal Entrance Worksheets" to replace those in original packet
EXCEL SPREADSHEET
filename: ENTR'2-LN
F
EXCEL SPREADSHEET
filename: ENTR-2~LN
F
EXCEL SPREADSHEET
filename: ENTR-2-LN
at-Barracks Road
:::~::~:::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::~:~::::::~:::::::::~:~::::?:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::~:::::::~:::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ivehicles turning from Barracks Road
F
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department o£ Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road. Room 218
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 40t2
May-23,2002
William Anderson
Summers & Anderson
41.5 Park Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-00-057 St. David's Anglican Church; Tax Map 60, Parcel 68
Dear Mr. Anderson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 21, 2002, by a vote of 5-2,
recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on June 5, 2002. Please note that review of the publiC hearing items for
the June 5th Board meeting will begin at 1:30 p.m. Any new or additional information regarding your
application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
~Sincer y,
~cott C a
Planner
SC/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: SP 00-57, St. David's
Anglican Church
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST.·
ConsideratiOn of this project was deferred so
that the Architectural Review Board could
review a revised site design and more
information could be provided on traffic
impacts.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Scott Clark
AGENDA DATE:
Planning Commission:~May 21, 2002
Board of Supervisors: June 5, 2002
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: Yes
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA: No
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
At the March 19, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant defer
consideration of this project until two major issues were addressed. First was the unresolved difference
between the applicant' s site design and the Architectural Review Board's standards for the site.
Second was the community concern over the traffic impacts of adding a church on this site. The
Planning Commission requested additional information from VDOT and the Albemarle County
Engineering Department.
On May 6, 2002, the applicants presented the Architectural Review Board (ARB) a revised site plan
(Attachment BB). The ARB unanimously voted to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness subject to the
following conditions to be approved administratively by Staff.'
1) Provide a signed Conservation Plan Checklist on the plan and provide the checklist details on the
site plan.
2) Use landscaping to minimize the impact of the stormwater management facility along the
northeast property tine.
-3) Specify the White Ash for the parking lot,and the Dogwood to the northeast of the church.
4) Locate the monument sign 10' off the property line.
5) Provide shrubs around the base of the monument sign. Revise the plant list to include the
proposed shrubs.
6) Revise the plant list to include the shrubs proposed for the screening of the mechanical units.
7) Accurately draw the Eastern Redbuds at 40' on center.
8) Submit complete information on proposed lighting. If wall lights are proposed include those
details. Include cut sheets for all fixtures on ~e plan.
9) The louvers on the front and back of the building shall be lengthened.
These conditions will require changes to the current site plan (Attachment BB), but the overall pattern
of site development will be as shown on that plan.
The Engineering Department has discussed the traffic impacts with VDOT. Engineering's analysis
(Attachment AA) states that "it is our opinion that the proposed church contributes to, but does not
significantly generate, the need for improvements to the Barracks Road-Colthurst Drive intersection."
They continue to recommend approval of the special use permit. VDOT has no plans to upgrade this
intersection at this time. However, in order to facilitate such improvements should they ever be
necessary, the Engineering Department recommends that the permit approval be conditioned on the
reservation for public use ora 10-foot strip of right-of-way along the Barracks Road edge of the
property.
Recommendation
Given that the design issues have been resolved, and that a traffic analysis shows that the church
would not significantly change the traffic patterns at the intersection of Barracks Road and Colthurst
Drive, staff recommends approval of SP 00-057 with the following conditions:
1. The church shall be limited to one structure with a maximum 125-seat sanctuary.
2. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential or RA zoning districts.
3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval ofa separate special use
permit, or amendment to this permit.
4. There shall be no cemetery on the site without approval of an amendment to this permit.
5. Construction of the 125-seat sanctuary shall commence on or before the expiration dateofa signed
final site plan based on preliminary site plan SDP 01,117 (as shown on the plan dated April 19, 2002,
and prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC). If SDP 01-117 expires or is withdrawn
without the signing of a final site plan, this permit shall expire five years from the date of approval of
this permit.
6. Health Department approval of well and septic systems.
7. The applicant shall reserve for public dedication to public use, upon demand of the County, a 10-foot
strip of right-of-way along the frontage of the property adjacent to Barracks Road for future turn-lane
and taper improvements to the Barracks Road-Colthurst Drive intersection.
Attachments
AA. Memo from Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering
BB. Updated preliminary site plan
CC. 'Original SP 01)-057 Stuff Report (including original attachments A-G)
2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT AA
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Scott Clark- Planner ~X
J8ack M. Kelsey, PE- Chief of Engine~~_.~
April 20,02 X~.
St. David s Anglican Church; SP 00-057
The referenced application was deferred at the Planning Commission hearing pending further
comment from Engineering and VDOT regarding traffic safety concerns expressed by residents
for the Colthurst Drive - Barracks Road intersection. A summary of this department's evaluation
and disCussion with VDOT is provided below.
The traffic counts for Barracks Road, existing traffic generated by Colthurst subdivision, and the
proposed traffic generated by St. David's Anglican Church were the basis for our evaluation and
are summarized in Attachment A..'Using worksheets supplied by VDOT's traffic division, we
then assessed the intersection for turning lanes (Attachments B - D).
Colthurst Drive-Church Entrance
Based on the traffic generated by the proposed church and the existing traffic generated by the
Colthurst subdivisiOn, neither a right-turn nor a left-mm lane are required on Colthurst Drive for
turning movements into the proposed church entrance.
Barracks Road-Colthurst Drive
Based on the traffic counts for Barracks ROad and the existing traffic generated by the Colthurst
subdivision, this intersecti°n would qualify for both a right-turn lane & taper and a left-turn lane
& taper for taming mox~ements fxom BarracksRoad ~into Cotthurst Drive (see.Attachment B).
Currently there are no turn lan6s or tapers at this intersection. The Sunday average daily trips
generated by the church would represent about 12% of the total average daily trips generated by
Colthurst subdivision and the church. As a result, the additional traffic generated by the church
has no influence over the mm lane needs of the existing intersection (Attachment C).
Church Entrance onto Barracks Road
For comparison we evaluated a case with the proposed church entrance located On Barracks
Road. Based on the traffic countS for Barracks Road and the traffic generated by the proposed
church, a right-mm taper would be needed into the entrance. However, neither a right-mm lane
nor a left-mm lane & taper would be required (see Attachment D).
St. David's Anglican Church
8 April 20O2
Page 2 of 2
Based on our evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed church contributes to, but does not
significantly generate, the need for improvements to the Barracks Road-Colthurst Drive
intersection. VDOT has no plans for constructing mm lanes at the Barracks Road-Colthurst
~Drive intersection anytime in the near furore. Such improvements may be considered in the
fi~ture and prioritized by VDOT and the County with other Projects in the Secondary Road
Improvements 6-Year Plan. The Engineering Department still recommends approval of the
special use permit and the preliminary site plan. However; based upon this evaluation and
discussions with VDOT, we recommend that the agent/commission consider the addition of the
following condition of approval:
The developer will reserve for dedication to public use, upon demand of the County, a
10 foot strip of right-of-way along the frontage of the property adjacent to Barracl~
Road for future turn lane & taper improvements to the BarraCks Road-Colthurst Drive
intersection.
Please comact me if you have any questions.
enclosures
cc:
Glenn Brooks
Jim Kesterson
File: st davids supplemental comments.doc
,¸4
APPENDIX-A
St. Davids Traffic Computations
(provided by the County Engineering Department 4-2-2002)
2000 Traffic Counts - Barracks Road (601}
(between Georgetown Rd and Garth Road)
6400 vtd
Colthurst SUbdivision - Sunday Traffic (based on ITE Manual)
Average Dally Trips: 52 dwellings X 8.78 vtd/dwelling =
Peak Hour: 52 dwellings X 0.86 vph/dwelling =
St. David - Sunday Traffic (based on ITE Manual)
Average Daily Trips: 1800 gsf X 36.63 vtd/1000 gsf =
Peak Hour: 1800 gsf X 9.49 vph/1000 gsf =
457 vtd
45 vph
66 vtd
17 vph
St. David - Saturday Traffic (based on ITE Manual)
Average Daily Tdps: 1800 gsf X 9.7 vtd/1000 gsf =
Peak Hour: 1800 gsf X 3.25 vph/1000 gsf =
18 vtd
6 vph
St. David - Weekday Traffic (based on ITE Manual)
Average DailyTdps: 1800 gsf X 9.11 vtd/1000 gsf =
Peak Hour: 1800 gsf X 1.41 vph/1000 gsf =
17 vtd
3 vph
EXCEL SPREADSHEET
filename: ENTR-2-LN
APPENDIX- B
EXCEL SPREADSHEET
filename: ENTR-2-LN
APPENDIX -C
EXCEL SPREADSHEET,
filename: ENTR-2-LN
St. Davids Traffic Only
APPENDIX- D
31NO3HOS 3dV0$aNV1
~ £NB~HOV-L..L¥
ATTACHMENT C~.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Scott Clark
March '19, 2002
April 18, 2002
SP 00-57 ST. DAVID'S ANGLICAN CHURCH SPECIAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
The applicants propose to construct a church with a maximum capacity of 125 people. The
church is intended to be used for "services every Sunday with occasional feast-day services." No
cemetery is proposed for the site. Due to the need to raise funds, the applicants may not begin
construction before the usual 2-year deadline applied to special use permits. Therefore, they have
requested that the SP expire on the same date as their final site plan (5 years from the signing
date). ~
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The property, described as a 2.07-acre portion of Tax Map 60 Parcel 68, is on Colthurst Drive
[Route # 1001 ] at the intersection of Colthurst Drive & Barracks Road [Route # 654]. The parcel
is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and EC (Entrance Corridor) and is located within the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. The site is
currently free of structures. All adjacent properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas.
HISTORY
Parcel 60-68, which is divided by the rome of the proposed US 29 Western Bypass, is a 37.65-
acre parcel that is being converted from a rural state to residential development. This project is
proposed for "Lot 4" (see Attachment C). On August 13, 2001, a final subdivision plat (SUB 01-
167, Barracks Road Land Trust) was signed, permitting creation ora 2.19-acre parcel on this
site. However, this plat has not yet been recorded.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan defines this area as a Rural Area. Churches are located throughout the
Rural Areas. Churches are permitted in all zoning districts and are seen as a community service.
In the rural areas, scale and appropriateness to the surroundings are the major concerns with
churches. The Land Use Plan identifies limited service delivery as a major growth-control goal:
This church is limited in scale and is designed to operate on groundwater and septic drainfields,
rather than public water and sewer. The Land Use Plan also calls for protection of scenic
resources, and this church is located on a designated Entrance Corridor. This proposal has been
reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, and the recommended conditions for this permit
are designed to ensure that impacts on scenic resources are minimized.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of SP 00-61 (with conditions).
10
STAFF COMMENT (Special Use Permit)
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
The Board of SupervisOrs hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue aH special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses~as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not beof substantial detriment to
adjacent property,
Attachment C shows that this property will eventually be adjacent to two small
residential parcels (those lots have not yet been divided from the parent parcel.) The
parcels across Colthurst Drive and Route 654 are larger farm-scale parcels. Proximity of
a church'to houses on the residential lots could lead to noise and traffic impacts.
However, given that most use of the church will occur on Sunday mornings, and that the
applicants will maintain a buffer between this use and the adjacent properties (see
Attachment D), these impacts are not expected to cause substantial detriment.
The applicants do not intend to place a cemetery on this site. This is a small site
and placement of a cemetery would potentially conflict with water and septic services,
landscaping and buffers, and other aspects of site design. Also, while there is not
residence adjacent to the church lot yet, there will be in the near future (see Attachment
C). If there were already a residence within 250 feet ora planned cemetery, the state
Code would require the homeowner's consent before the cemetery could be built. This
suggests that there are potential concerns in placing cemeteries near residences. Taking
this as a guide, staff recommends that the County ensure that any future cemetery plans
be made contingent on an amendment to this special use permit.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
This is a new use, in effect most sithilar to a commercial Use (but more limited in its
times of activity), being created in a designated rural area. However, much of the
immediate surroundings have been (or will soon be) converted to suburban residential
uses. small churches serving rural communities are an established historic use in the
County. This church may or may not serve a rural community, but it will not be out of
character with other churches that have been considered appropriate in the'Rural Areas.
and that such use wilt be in harmony with the purpose and intent of thi3 ordinance,
This use does not significantly conflict with the purpose or intent of the ordinance,
although it does not actively promote the stated intents.of the RA zoning~district.
Churches are typically found in the Rural Areas.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
As long as buffers are maintained on the site, this use should not conflict with by-right
residential uses. As this church would be used infrequently, it is unlikely to conflict with
i1
by-right agricultural or forestal uses, which in any case are protected by state "right to
farm" laws.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed this project on February 4,
2002. The Board has made a recommendation on the SP and has provided comments to
the applicant on the preliminary site plan. The ARB action letter is included as
attachment E. When the ARB has received satisfactory responses to these comments,
they will issue a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Discussions with the applicants have covered the pattern of site development
shown in Attachment D. The ARB's recommended condition 2 (see Attachment E)
addresses the fact that the current design uses more site area than is necessary for the
1,800 square-foot building footprint and the required number of parking spaces. The. open
area to the south of the church (which splits the parking areas) and the travelway to the
north create increased impervious sUrface and significantly increase the site's visual
impacts on the Entrance Corridor.
Planning staff and the ARB have requested that the parking areas be consolidated
(using the space occupied by the open space) and the travelway to the north be removed.
The applicant has responded that the open space is needed for future expansion, and that
the travelway is desirable for vehicle circulation. In revising the site plan, the applicants
have acceded to staff's request to reduce the number of parking spaces from 40 to 32 (the
required number.) This reduces impervious area and moves the parking lot edge farther
from the Entrance Corridor (but not out of sight).
with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations in section 5.0.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Local and state agencies have reviewed SDP 01-117 and have provided Comments and
requirements intended to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are protected.
VDOT has addressed traffic concerns through site-plan comments. The applicant has
revised the preliminary site plan (under separate review) in accordance with VDOT's
requirements. However, several area residents have expressed concerns about increased
traffic impacts on the Colthurst subdivision, whose only access point is Colthurst Drive
(see copies of e-mails and letters included as Attachment G).
Attachment C indicates that residential development is planned for Parcel 60-68.
One approach to analyzing'the traffic impacts of this proposal is to compare it to a purely
residential development. The ITE Trip Generation Manual estimates the following
numbers of vehicle-trips per day for two development scenarios:
[a By-right residential development of parcel 60,68 (5 lots shown on Attachment
C, plus the adjacent residue), and
c~ One residential lot replaced by a church with a 1,800-square-foot meeting
area.
(a vehicle trip is one way; therefore, arriving and leaving equal two tripS):
1'2
Vehicle Trips Generated per Da~/
Day Church 6 By-right Residences Church + 5 Additional trips/day
Only (development scenario Residences (created by replacing one
without church house with this church
proposal) proposal)
Sunday 66 57 114 57
Saturday 17 57 65 , 8
Weekday 16 57 64 7
Staff does not feel that the additionof 57 trips per day on Sunday and 7 to 8 trips
per day therest of the week is a significant impact.
In reviewing the preliminary site plan for .this project, the Virginia Department of
Health has stated that soils on this site are suitable for septic drainfields for this use.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request:
1. This church's proposed size and scale is appropriate in the Rural Areas. The most recent site
plan indicates that future expansion may be planned, but this would be subject to another
special use permit review.
2. The church does not include facilities for schools, day-care, or other programs that would
increase traffic levels or noise impacts to urban levels.
Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request:
1. This church would be located on a small lot near an area of larger rural parcels. However,
there is a subdivision just to the south, and the south and east edges of the site will soon
border on more residential parcels.
2. Nearby residents are concerned that increased traffic from this use will impact the residential
character of the Colthurst subdivision and/or increase traffic hazards at the intersection of
Colthurst Drive and Barracks Road.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Planning Department recommends approval SP 00-57 with the following conditions:
1. The parking area (shown on the revised preliminary site plan entitled "Preliminary Site
Development Plans for Saint David's Anglican Church", prepared by Rivanna Engineering &
Surveying, PLC, and dated 11-12-01) shall be consolidated into a single parking area on the
southwest side of the building.
2. The travelway on the northeast side of the church building (shown on the revised preliminary
site plan entitled "Preliminary Site Development Plans for Saint David's Anglican Church",
prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC, and dated 11-12-01) shall be removed
from the site plan and not constructed.
13
3. Existingmamre trees on the Site shall be retained where possible and incorporated into the
proposed development t° the extent found satisfactory bythe Architectural Review Board.
4. Lar~dscaping determined to be acceptable by the Architectural Review Board shall be
provided tominimize negative impacts of the development on the Entrance COrridor.
5. The church shall be limited to one structure with a maximum 125-seat sanctuary.
6. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential or RA zoning districts.
7. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate
special use permit, or amendment to this permit.
8. There shall be no cemetery on the site without approval of an amendment to this permit.
9. Construction of the 125-seat sanctuary shall commence on or before the expiration date of a
signed final site plan based on preliminary site plan SDP 01-117. If SDP 01-117 expires
without the signing of a final site plan, this permit shall expire five years from the date of
approval of this permit.
10. Health Department approval of well and septic systems.
If the Planning Commission and the Board feel that the applicant's desire for future expansion
area and a loop travelway are justified, conditions 1 and 2 above could be replaced with:
1. The church, s improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be
developed in general accord with the revised preliminary site plan entitled '~Preliminary Site
Development Plans for Saint David's Anglican Church", prepared by Rivanna Engineering &
Surveying, PLC, and dated 11-12-01. This condition shall not be construed m limit the
Architectural Review Board's abihty to require further design changes on the site.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Parcel Map
C. Parcel sketch showing location of church lot
D. Preliminary site plan (SDP 01-117) revision entitled "Preliminary Site Development Plans
for Saint David's Anglican Church", prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC,
and dated 11-12-01
E. ARB action letter with recommendationS for Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
F. Letter requesting extension of special use permit expiration
G. E-mails and letters from area residents regarding SP 00-057
ATTACHMENT A
I
I
6
Farming~on
Country Ctub
MOUNTAIN Arrowhead
Cross Roads
North Garden
'~68 1167
E
2&
/ '
/, I ,, "%.
59
2~.D
/ vO0~'
/
/
\
SEE 5902
\,
SEE
· JZ&d3 ,
76
SAMUEL MILLER, JACK JOUETT AND
RIO DISTRICTS -.
--
16
DRIVE
T', ~ BEAUTIFUL WOODED LOT,.,c
~ Map 60 · Parcel 68 · Total Acreage 37.65 · Zmqng RA
Well & Septic Required
LOr 4
2. o ~
\
LOTS 1-5
PA R CEL A
8/3/99
LO/- 3
2.03
30' ,~ e,
LO/'2
LOt 1
$250,000 Each
$525, OOO
PAgC£L A
Z
,.SCHOOL SYSTEMS
Greer Elementary
Jack Jouet Middle
Albemarle High
VIRGINIA LAND- COMPANY
195 RIVERBEND DRIVE. · "PANTOPS" · P.O. BOX R 147 · CtlARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906 · (804) 979-8181 · FAX (804) 296-3 $ I 0
tfqtlle the h~ormation contained herein has beo! obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, we do not guarantee it
/t78
ATTAGI.-IMENT D
..... i
: ~ PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR
LEGAL REFERENCE: J i j
TM 60 PORTION OF PARCEL 68 ~ j ! '
A2.,9 ACRE LOT SH^~L.E S0.~,~.0 rRO~ PA=. FOR ~,~ ~,~. ~ SAINT DAvIDs ANGLIcAB CHuRcH
sOuRcE OF TITLE FOR PARCEL 88: J : j
DB 1666 PAGE 318 J ~
,~,,~.~m..o,,~, ' ' pORTION OF 68 (LOT 4)
,.o,,ox,,. : ' [ ~ TM 60 PARCEL
i
CHARLOTIES'LLE, VA 22g08 J
~,~... ~,~ ~,o~ 318
' ' DB 1666 PAGE
~ON~CT PUnCH~Sm : i
' ' JACK JOUETT DISTRICT, ALBEMARLE cOuNTY VIRGINIA
SAINT DA~D'S ANGLICAN CHURCH : i .
1870 WAYSIDE PLACE J J
CHARLOTTES~LLE, VA 22903 ] '
ZONING: RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT : ~ ........................... ] : ....................... ~
~o=~'~'~"'~' ~'~'"'~':o, ~o~,,~,~'~" ,o~.m,: ' ~' GENERAL NOTES ~, ALBEMARLE COUNTY ENGINEERING GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES
UNRECORDED SUBDIVSION PLAT GENERA~O BY ROGER RAY AND ASSOCIATES, j j
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: J ]. BONOT ~ mE~ BR~N~, U~ BIM[N~ONS SILO~ O~Ly, BRING ~ OI~aES TO ~ J t P$~ TO e~M~ME~T ~ ANY e~smuau~ ~m~ ~N~ ~x$~ PU~LIg RI~HT-~-~A~, INgLg]~g ~E~ T~ ~ [~S~ R~,
] ATTEN~ ~ ~E ~NEER. IT IS ~E C~ACTOR'S RESPON~BIU~ TO R~O ~RI~ A~ ~M~S. I J (V.D.O.T.). ~IS PLAN AS DRA~ MAY NOT AC~RA~LY REJECT ~E RETIREMENTS ~ ~[ ~RMIT, ~ERE ANY DIS~ANOES ~R
! TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY RIVANNA ENGINEERING A SURVE~N~; PEal,fJ 2. IT IS ~E C~ACT~'S RE~BIU~ TO F,[~ ~RIFY ~[ EXACT L~A~ ~ ALL [~SnNG U~IJ,[S. , 2. ~ PA~NG, DEAINA~ R~D MA~RIAm AND ~SmUC~ ~[mOBS S.ALL :~F~M TO CURRENT ~IOA.~S AND STANO~S ~ V.D,O.T., U"~ OmER.~ HOED.
BENCHMARK: : i 3. ~ERE IS NO 1~ ~AR FL~ PLNN ~ ~lS ~TE. 3. ER~ AND SILTA~ C~ M~SURES ~ALL BE PRO~DED IN ACCOROAfl~ ~ ~E APPRO~ [RO~ ~ ~fl AND ~ALL
SPIKE IN PO~R POLE, ASSUMED ELEVATION = 487.71 ~ 4, ~)~ ~E IS LOCATED ~IN ~E S~ F~K R!V~NA WAER ~PPLY ~O~C~ AREA. ' J 4~ ~ ~[S AND DIS~R~D AREAS ARE TO BE FER~LIZED. ~EEOED AND MULCHED. ~E MA~MUM ALLOW~ ~E IS 2:1 (H~IZ~TAb~R~cAL). ~ REA~NA~Y ~T~NA~, ~ER ~[S ~ N:I ~ ~ ~E ~
BUILDING SE~ACKS; (COMMERCIAL) ~
FRONT YARD: 30' FROM ROUTE 654 ~ 5. ~E ~ILLQ~R ~ LlmUN8 m~ ~ LUM~NAI~ES ~0 ~UBUC RO~S AND m~ER~ IN j
RE~DEN~AL OR RURAL A~AS Z~INg OIS~lG~ ~ALL NOT EXCEEO ~E-HA~ (,/2) F~T gAND~. 5, PA~, ]IP-R~ ~ STABIUZA~ MAT UNEB DITCH MAY BE RE~IREB ~[N IN ~E ~INI~ ~ T~E ~MA~ C~N~ ~EC~ ~
, . A ORAINA~ ~ANN~.
I 6' EArn ~0~ LUMINARIE E~I~P~ ~ A L~P ~lm EMI~ ] ~ ~ MmE INI~L LUMENS m~ ~E
sIDE YARD: 50' I A ~ ~T~F LUMINARIE AND mA~ BE A~R~O ~ ~IELOEB TO R~LECT UmT AWAY rR~ ~NN8 '6. ~L ~1~ ~ ]~S ~ALL C~M ~ ~E ~R~NIA M~UAL FOR UNJ~M ~A~I~ C~
REAR YARD: 50' j ~ RESIDEN~AL OISmlO~ AND AWAY FR~ ADJACENT
PARKING SE~ACK: 7. EXIS~NG LANDSCAPIN~ C~STS PRIMARILY ~ DEGDU~S ~ED AREAS. ~. UN~ O~ER~ NOrD ALL CON~E~ PI~ SHALL BE REINr~D ~N~E~ PIPE - CLASS ID.
FRONT: 10' j 8. ALL EXCAVA~ F~ UND~GR~ND PiPE INSTALLA~ MUST C~PLY ~ O~A STANDARDS F~ ~E C~S~UC~ INDUS~Y (~9 ~ ~ART
MAXIMUM AREA OF INPER~OUS COVER: 22,550 SF J J '
PARKING AREA: 6" - ~21A AGGREGATE BAS~ MATERIAL
1-1/2"-SMD.5ASURFAGEMATERIAL JSITE SPECIFIC NOTES I DRAWING INDEX 'APPROVALS
ENTRANCE: 6" _ ~2]A ~0~ BASE MAT
2".sM-g.5A SURFACE MAT j t ~a~ um P~JT ~.~Z ~Ng ~ ~URm ~ mis ~*RC~ ~S m mE APPROVAL ~R~SS *N~ AL I O~ 2 CO~R SHEET ~ ·
SIDEWALKS( 4" - 3000 PSI CONCRETE : CONOI~S ~ mE APPRO~D ~EOAL USE PERM!? ~A~ APPLY TO ~IS ~. J 2 of 2 SITE PLAN
I CURREN T J 2. REG~D~ EA~M~T F~ O~RHEAD E~C~IC g~LD NOT BE L~A~D. '
USE: VACA.~ i { ·
[ I 3' C~P~AL S~WAE, ,MP C~SIS. ~ A BIO-RL~ mN ~E ST~MWAER .ANA~.~T FAOU~, . PLANNING m~DEPARTMENT
PARKING SCHEDULE:
REQUIRED: ONE (1)SPACE PER FOUR (4)FIXED SEATS: ) ·
.o,,,.x~o,~,.~. :,, ' LEGEND ZONING DEPARTMENT
SPACES = 125/~ ~ ~] ,
OR ONE (1) SPACE pER 75 SF OF ASSEMBLY AREA. J I : ' '
~ACES = 1,800/75 = 24 j ] .-O/E-. Exist, Overheed Electric ~ Proposed Contour INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT/FIRE OFFICIAL
PROMDED: ~2 SPACES (INCLUDES 2 HANDICAP SPACES) ~ ~ ~ ~ Power Pole x [500] Proposed Spot Elewtion
LOADING SPACES REOUIR~D: 0 [ ~ Prop. Light Pole ,..- -,~
LAND uSE SCHEDULE ' ' SERVICE ApTHORITY
PRE-DE~LOPMENT ] POST-DE~LOPMENT ] j ..................... .,:.~...,.~ ~ ....... ......... LLL~...~_./~ .................................. ~. J : ·
BU~O~NO: o SF 0 ~ ~00 Sr ~ ~
PA'-D 0-F ' ' ~ '
~: S 0 20.750 SF 22~ ~ '
OPEN: 95.396 SF 100 72;84B SF 7Q] ~ ' ENGINEERt~ G DEPARTMENT
TOTAL: 95,396 sr 100 95,396 SF i00 l
, ii ~ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
T ' VRG ~ H~ L~ DEPARTMENT
: ~~ ~ ""- ~ [ BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
VI ~ ~,~ o~,CA,
~ SC~L~: r= ~0°0' ,
,)
~ BOTANICAL a UINIM'dN H~ii)GHT ~UANTI~ CANOPY TOTAL
~ COUUON NAME CALIPER[ PLANllNi PLAN)F.D lO YEARS CANOPY
T*I Cor~ua fl~ld~
Oo~wo~ 2-1/2" : -- r 4 254 sf 1,016 el
T 2 Carols Call(Idlxleltl 2.1/2" , 6 4t5 Il 2;490 SI
S'1 Ilex C~fluto "Buf~rdli HahN"
Dwarf ~f~rd Haly - 2, 36 _
.... ,' Totd C~op), 5~M4 of
ATTACHMENT E
Februa~12,2002
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department oi' P!annmg & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fmx (434) 972 - 40t2
Stephen M. Melton
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: ARB-2002-2-St. David's Anglican Church
Dear Mr. Melton:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board. at its meeting on Februa~'y 4, 2002, completed a
preliminary review of the above-noted request to construct a 2 story, 3,600 square foot brick church.
Regarding the request for the Special Use Permit, the ARB unanimously voted to forward the following
comments to the Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors:
The ARB supports the use of the church on this site but has concerns about the proposal because the
current site plan is not accurate. The ARB finds that the proposed development will impact the Entrance
Corridor. Consequently, the ARB strongly recommends that conditions of approval imposed by the
Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors on the SP should not limit the ARB's ability to modify
during site plan review the cl~aracter and/or appearance of the various components of the development.
including building form, size. scale, placement, siting of building orientation, materials, and details, and
other characteristics identified in the Albemarle County Design Guidelines. as necessary for creating a
development that is appropriate for the County's Entrance Corridors. Furthermore, the ARB recommends
the following conditions of approval for the Special Use Permit:
1. The siting of the building must continue to be studied. (The ARB could not support the siting as
shown, clue to the inaccuracy of the plan. Review of a plan with accurate information on site
conditions may or may not supoort the proposed Iocation.~
2. Consolidate the parking into a single area on the southwest side of the building and remove the
travetway from the Barracks Road side of the site.
3. Existing mature trees shall be retained, where possible, and incorporated into the proposed
development.
4. ~ Further review of the existing trees and other site elements to be preserved need to be studied and
accurately shown on the plan.
5. Landscaping shall be provided to appropriately minimize negative impacts of the development on the
EC.
Regarding the review of the preliminary site plan, the ARB offered the following comments:
1. Provide a revised site plan with accurate topography and .proposed grading.
2. Provide material and color samples for the church.
3. If signage will be proposed, provide complete information.
4. Provide final elevations for the three walls of the church that will be visible from the EC. Elevations
shall be to scale. Elevations shall accurately address wall heights, topography, and grading.
Page 2 ~_
February 12, 2002
5. Deletion of 8 parking spaces at the northeast end of the larger parking area was discussed as one
possible option for rec~ucing the impact of the parking on the site and EC.
6. If the travelway remains on the EC side of the site, it should be reduced to 12' in width. This comment
~s predicated on the understanding that information that will be submitted on existing mature trees
and other site conditions supports the travelway and layout as shown.
7. The addition of shrubs along the front travelway was discussed as one possible option for reducing
the impact of the travelway on the site and EC.
8. The applicant was encouraged to design the church from the perspective of the view'from the EC.
9. Provide additional information to clarify the visibility and appearance of the development from the EC.
Provide a perspective view from Barracks Road. Sections of the site through Barracks Road would be
appropriate.
10. Provide a landscape plan. Consult the ARB Design Guidelines for minimum requirements.
11. Show an accurate existing tree line.
12. Clearly delineate all areas of existing vegetation to remain, including those in the area of the
proposed drain field.
13. Show all existing trees 6" or greater.. These trees should be retained and incorporated into the
landscape plan. Provide a conservation plan.
14. Use landscaping to minimize the impact of the stormwater management channels/facilities and
parking area at the east corner of the site.
15. Coordinate landscaping with utilities. Show grading and utilities on the landscaping plan.
16. Submit complete information on proposed lighting. The lighting plan should be designed so that pole
lights have minimal impact on the EC. If wall lights are proposed include those details, as well,
17. Mechanical equIpment shall not be visible from the EC. Indicate the location of all mechanical
equipment and show how it will be screened from view.
18. Revise the concrete channel in the EC to reduce its visual impacts. A pipe outlet'ting unobtrusively
into the existing swate is recommended. Grass swales are recommended instead of concrete.
channels where possible.
Your application for final ARB review may i~e made at your earliest convenience. Revised drawings
addressing the comments listed above will Ue required. A submission and review schedule, an
application, and a checklist are attached for your convemence.
If yp~' haveany questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
Landscape Planner
JM/jcf
Cc:
File
Scott Clark
Francis MacCall
2!
ATTACHMENT F
VIRGINIAo. .. COMPaNY Realtors
195 RIVERBEND DRIVE ., P.O. BOX 8t47 ., CHARLO'I-I'ESVILLE VA 22906
TELEPHONE (804) 979-8181 ., FAx (804) 296-3510
February l9,2002
Mr. Scott Clark
County of Albemarle
Department ofPlanning & Community Development
401 MclntireRoad -Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
RE: SDP-2001-117 Saint David's Anglican Church
Dear Mr. Clark: -
The Site Plan and Special Use Permit (SP00-57) has been set up to run concurrent for' the ·
above mentioned project. I would like to request at this time, the Special Use Permit be
extended to mn the same term as the proposed site plan (5 years) if approved.
This extension of time is due to the fact that the church will most likely not be in a
poSition to build until the end of the five year Site Plan approval and would be a lot less
confusing if they expired simultaneously.
Thank you ve~ much for your consideration of this request and 9lease do not hesitate to
call if you have any questiOns or need additional information~
Sincerely,
Stepl~en M. Melton
cc: William Lee Anderson, Attorney
BROKERS BUILDERS LAND DEVELOPERS - P~OPERTY MANAGEMENT
ATTACHMENT G
Scoff Clark
From: ELLYT@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 7:53 AM
To: Scott Clark
Subject: Public Hearing # 89 and 90
Re: Public Hearing for #89 and 90
Dear Scott,
Although i won't be able to attend the public hearing for #89 and 90 at the entrance to
Colthurst Drive, ! would like to go on record expressing my opposition to the Anglican Church's
request to rezone the property at the entrance to Colthurst.
My first concern is the additional traffic and ensuing safety issues. At this time, we have 50
homes. We have only one way in and out of our neighborhood and that is Colthurst Ddve.
Having an additional 30 or so vehicles on Sundays and other days when there are events,
services, funerals, weddings, etc. will add to the probability that the one entrance will become
congested and thus unsafe at an already busy corner. Barracks Road traffic has become
increased and in effect doubling the traffic that we already have coming into our neighborhood
is adding another safety hazard.
My next concern is that of the reason that we bought property in Colthurst. We moved here
14 years ago. We purchased our house because of the beauty and tranquility of the
neighborhood. There are 50 homes here; most people bought their houses for similar reasons.
Because we have a secluded neighborhood, we have our kids out on bicycles riding and many
of our residents walk. All of the neighbors here know that this is the practice of our community
and drive carefully looking out for each other. Having curious drivers in our neighborhood, they
won't know our blind corners; they'won't be watching out for our kids, seniors, pets; they won't
abide by the slower driving conditions that this neighborhood warrants. We have already lost a
dog to this type of situation and I woUld hate for others to experience that pain.
Please express my opposition to this change in the zoning. The reason that this property is
zoned residential in the first place is that the county wants to allow some parts of our area to
remain residential, quiet, and uncongested. It would be a real shame to rezone this property
and risk having another Rio Rd. East with churches, convenience marts and gas stations use
the entrance to our neighborhood, resulting in increased traffic, congestion, and safety .risks.
Sincerely,
Elly Tucker
111 Reynard Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
293-3500
Elly Tucker
Career Resources Manager/Career Counselor
University Career Services
University of Virginia
PO Box 400134 - 1815 Stadium Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4134
924-6376 (ph); 924-7890 (fx)
elly@virginia.edu
3/4/2002
Scott Clark
From:
/~. nt:
~0:
Subject:
MiltMoore@aohcom
Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:17 PM
Scott Clark
Colthurst Church Proposal
Dear Mr. Clark,
I would like to voice my opposition to locating a church atthe comer of
Barracks Road and Colthurst Drive. An entrance on Colthurst Drive into a
50-car parking lot this close to Barracks Road creates a traffic hazard --
both for cars entering and departing from Colthurst Drive.
it is my understanding that this church was offered suitable free property
and turned it down. It is also my understanding that this property is not
authorized for hook-up onto city water.
Sincerely,
Milton Moore
106 Falcon Drive
Colthurst Subdivision
Charlottesville, VA 22901
1
Scott Clark
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Melanie Gillies [mbg4b@virginia.edu]
Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:20 PM
Scott Clark
Opposition to Rezoning Colthurst Property/Hearing #89/90
Dear Scott,
I am out of town for the public hearing for #89 and 90 but I would
like to voice my opposition to the rezoning initiative for the
Anglican Church at Colthurst.
I am concerned about the added traffic. My family frequently walks
and bikes along Colthurst and the prospect of more automobile traffic
is disturbing. We live in the 3rd house along Colthurst Drive and we
worry about the noisefrom a church especially on Sundays - one of
the few days/mornings when we can all be home relaxing.
Please express my opposition to this change in the zoning. The reason
that this property is zoned residential is to preserve the fragile
quality of residential life.
Thank you for considering this appeal,
Melanie Gillies
202 Colthurst Drive
972-7283
Scoff Clark
From:
/"'~nt:
,O:
Subject:
BigDaveParrish@aol.com
Monday, March 04, 2002 10:54 AM
Scott Clark
Rezoning # 89 & 90
Mr. Clark--As a resident of Colthurst F~rm I oppose the rezoning of the
property adjacent to entrance of our subdivision. Having lived adjacent to a
church in the past I can attest to the fact that it changes the ambiance of
the neighborhood. The entrance to Colthurst Farm is already dangerous.
Church traffic would make it even more so.
David W. Parrish, Jr.
'114 Falcon Drive
Scoff Clark
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
George Gillies [gtg@cms.mail.virginia.edu]
Monday, March 04, 2002 2:44 PM
Scott Clark
mbg4b@virginia.edu
Proposed church and cemetary in Colthurst
Dear Sir,
I am writing to state my concerns regarding the proposed construction
of a church and cemetary at the junction of Colthurst Drive and
Barracks Road. Having lived in the Colthurst community for some time
now, it is very clear to me that the Colthurst access road
intersection, which is the sole entry point into the development, was
never intended to support any more than the few residential drivers
that come and go routinely along it. Spikes in traffic flOw patterns
associated with church usage (including any special events that might
be held there) will at the very least cause back-ups for those seeking
to turn into or out of Colthurst Road, and with visibilityso limited
(especially for those ddvers attempting to turn left into Colthurst
Road from Barracks Road), I fear that the inevitable impatience
associated with that delay will lead sooner rather than later to a bad
collision with drivers oncoming from the West. Please consider this
all-to-real scenario in any discussions associated with granting
zoning permissions for an entity that would bring relatively large'
numbers of drivers into a setting for which that was never the
intended case.
Very truly yours
George T. Gillies
202 Colthurst Drive
Charlottesville, VA 2290
Scott Clark
SUbject:
JJDaggett [jjdaggett@sprintmail.com]
Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:40 PM
Sclark@albemarle.org.
Re: Hearing on St. David's Anglican Church and Cemetary
Dear Mr. Clark, I am writing to 'register my concerns regarding the
proposed building of St. David's Anglican Church at the entrance to
Colthurst Farms. As I'm certain you are aware, the amount of traffic on
Barrack's Road has increased considerably in recent years. Most of the
morning traffic is easterly in direction both during the week AND on
Saturdays and Sundays. It has become increasingly difficult for
residents of Colthurst Farms - via the only entryway, Colthurst Drive -
to both leave and enter Barracks Road during certain moming hours. On
Sunday mornings the problem is very evident as residents of Colthurst
and those communities farther west head eastward toward Charlottesville
and its many houses of worship. If a church is built at the entrance
to Colthurst Farms the resulting traffic WILL BE COUNTER in flow to that
which exists already at this time on Sunday mornings. Those worshippers
heading westward from Charlottesville in order to enter Colthurst Farms
to attend church on a Sunday morning WILL HAVE TO CROSS IN FRONT OF
east bound traffic on Barracks Road and, also, IN FRONT OF the outward
boUnd traffic of Colthurst residents. Further, any increase of traffic
during a specific time frame, such as gathering for a worship service,
will hinder the flow of traffic in and out of this residential
neighborhood precisely because there is only one entry way.
It is my understanding that it may be as long as five years before St
.~-""~avid's is built. Of course, we know that the amount of increased
~ffic from Colthurst residents will be be negligible no matter how far
into the future one projects. However, it is a certainty that there
WILL BE AN INCREASE in the traffic flow on Barracks Road in all
directions and at all times of the day. Therefore, the traffic problem
now evident at the entrance of COlthurst Farms will only be exacerbated
in future years.
It is my further understanding that the proposed congregation for St.
David's numbers fifty or so persons. I would hesitate to predict that
the congregation would not increase, for what church does not wish to
increase its membership? Is that not the very essence of founding a
church - to increase one's congregation? If the answer is no, then in
the not to distant future, we would be left with an abandoned building.
I am certain that this is not what the membership of St David's has in
mind! So, if the church is built, not only are the residents of
Colthurst Farms to face an increase in traffic on Barracks Road, but an
increase in the number of worshippers entering Colthurst Ddve.
ReSidents of Colthurst have no control over the amount of traffic on
Barracks Road, however, it does not seem prudent to burden us with an
increase in traffic at the entrance of our residential community and the
prospect of many accidents.
Janet H. Daggett
101 Cavalier Drive
Colthurst Farms
28
Scott Clark
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Knight [knightjj@mindspring.com]
Thursday, March 07, 2002 7:44 PM
Scott Clark
Parcel 89 and 90
I just want to say that I beleive the Anglican church should be
built AND the county should let them have water. I own property on
Colthurst drive.
29
3/4/02
Barry and Elise Schleifer
104 Cavalier Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
434-977-4666
fax: 977-3948
Mr. Scott Clark
Albemarle County Planning Dept.
401 Mclntire Rd.
Charlottesville VA 22902
Fax: 872-4012
Dear Mr. Clark,
We would like to register our objections to the proposed zoning change (Albemarle
County, #90) that would permit a church and cemetery to be built on Colthurst Drive
near its intersection with Barracks Road/Garth Road.
1) The intersection is already a difficult one when attempting to enter Colthurst when
driving westbound. Cars tend to pile up from behind and oncoming traffic is not
visible until one approaches Colthurst drive. The extra traffic that would result from
the construction and operation of the church will exascerbate the situation.
2) Colthurst Drive is not suitable for on-street parking. Although the church/cemetery
would, presumably, accommodate a number of vehicles, thers would be functions
(weddings, funerals, classes, fundraising events, etc.) that would necessitate on-street
parking. Because of the relatively narrow width'of the road, this would make it
difficult and dangerous for drivers attempting to enter and leave Colthurst.
Because of these safety concerns, we ask you to deny the request for a zoning
change.
Thank you,
Barry Schleifer
Elise K. Schleifer
May 2,2002
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of' Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
05-06-02AOB:50 RCVD
William Anderson
Summers & Anderson
415 Park St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-00-057 St. David's Anglican Church; Tax Map 60, Parcel 68
Dear Mr. Marshall:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 30, 2002, accepted without prejudice
your request for deferral. Therefore, this petition has been rescheduled as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2002
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WEDNESDAY. JUNE 5. 2002
The Planning Commission meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. Please note that review of the public
hearing items for the June 5th Board meeting will begin at 1:30 p.m. Both the Commission and Board
Meeting will be held in Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road~
Charlottesville, Virg nia.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
~incerely,
Scott Clark
Planner
//
SC/jof
Cc: ~lla Carey
Barracks Road Land Trust
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
SP-2000-057. St. David's Anglican Church {Siqns #~9&90)..
NAME (Please print clearly),
8
9
t0
11
PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
June 3, 2002
To the Board of Supervisors:
! am opposed to approving plans for St. David's Church at Barracks Road and Colthurst Drive due to safety issues from
increased traffic at this intemection. This outlet is on a hill which dses to the West with a speed limit of 55 MPH. The traffic
coming fra'n the west poses a threat to traffic both departing and entering Colthurst Drhe.
As a minimum, there should be a left-hand turn lane onto Colthurst dri~ and the speed limit should be reduced to 45 MPH for
1/4 to 1/2 mile West of Colthurst Drim.
The church plans should not be appm,z~ until these two traffic impro~ments are accomplished.
Sincerely,
Milton Moore
106 Falcon Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
979-2848
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Clerk s Initials: ~._._._~.~
Monday~ June Q3, ~00,2 Amedoa Online: Milt Moore Page: I
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Da~e:
Agen,da Item #:. ~_~--"'"~ ~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARIN'G
St. David's Anglican Church (SP 00-057)
June 5, 2002
Good afternoon Madame Chairman and members of the Board·
I am Robert Humphris and I have lived in Colthurst Farm fOr 32
years.
First, I need to touch upon some of the information in the
material available which I believe needs to be addressed:
In the staff report chart titled "Vehicle Trips Generated per
Day," staff uses the .number of 6 By-right residences on
Colthurst Drive. The developer's plat shows 4 residential
lots on Colthurst Drive. The Church plus only 3 residences
would result in different traffic numbers on the chart than
the church plus 5_.residences that the chart shows in the
column titled Additional trips per day.
m
The e-mail and letter comments from the public were not up
to date on the web site.
I basically agree, with what has already been stated here by other
Coithurst residents. There are two major problems with this
application - traffic and safety!!!
1. Concerning the fact that the Barracks Road 45-mph speed
limit provided to the Planning Commission wasin error, even
though VDOT says that the present 55-mph speed limit would
make no difference in their recommendation, it actually is a
major part of the problem at the Colthurst entrance. This
problem was recognized long ago. About twenty years ago,
our homeowner's association requested that VDOT lower the
speed limit on this section to 45-mph. However, after a study,
VDOT said that based on the average speed of travel on this
section and the terrain, the speed limit should remain at 55-
mph.' Based On VDoT's criteria, it is unrealistic to believe that
VDOT would change this now.
With a 125 church seating capacity and a 32 space parking
lot, there will obviously be many occasions resulting in
overflow parking occurring on Colthurst Drive. This road was
designed for residential use and is not wide enough to allow
for on-street parking. We have frequent examples of this
problem when the Sprint truck parks anywhere on the west
side of Colthurst Drive near the entrance or when joggers
leave their cars there while they run in the neighborhood. It is
very difficult and disconcerting to watch for oncoming fast
traffic from the west, to be aware of fast moving vehicles
approaching from behind, and to be aware of parked vehicles
on the incline at the Colthurst Drive entrance when it is
necessary to accelerate quickly to cross Barracks Road
safely.
Unless there is a guarantee of a safe left-turn lane onto Colthurst
Drive and, unless the church negotiates with the developer to
purchase a larger piece of property with enough road frontage to
allow a safer entrance farther to the south along Colthurst Drive
and to provide more parking spaces, I believe this application
should be denied.
Thank you.
Robert R. Humphris
109..Falcon Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
296-7806
May 14, 2002
C Jared Lowenstein, Chairman
William Edgerton
Tracey C. Hopper
Rodney S. Thomas
2ECEIVED AT BOS MEET/No
Date: ~
~Agenda/~em #:~
William B. Craddock~''lork'~ ~n~t~a~~ ~
William W. Finley
William D. Rieley
cc: Scott Clark
RE: SP 00-057 St. David's Anglican Church; Tax Map 60, Parcel 68
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We are owners of property adjacent to the parcel for which the above-noted Special Use Permit
is being requested. Although a church in our rural residential area is not unwelcome, we strongly
believe there are traffic safety issues related to the location and size of this property which have
not yet been properly dealt with.
Driving west on Barracks Road toward the entrance to Colthurst Farm, there is very short sight
distance before making the left turn into Colthurst Drive in which vehicles coming fi.om the west
at high rates of speed can be seen. It is often necessary to stop quickly and wait for a long line of
cars to pass before being able to safely proceed into Colthurst. It is then necessary to accelerate
up the incline on Colthurst Drive at this point, and if the church entrance were where it is
presently planned, there could be a backup of cars waiting to enter and park, causing a stacking
and safety problem both on Colthurst Drive and on Barracks Road.
In the event of an occasion at the church which would attract a large number of people, there
would be a parking problem with cars parking on both sides of Colthurst Drive, which is much
too narrow for that.
We know that some of you are familiar with the safety problems the location of the church
entrance so clOse to Barracks Road would present. For those of you who are not, we would
encourage you to make the short drive two miles west on Barracks Road fi.om the shopping
center into Colthurst Farm. Please notice how quickly you will have reached the lot line on the
parcel's south side where the entrance would be. Please think what it would have been like with
cars lined up for a church service or wedding at a specific time. It seems the applicant believes
the church will not grow, but it is the very nature of churches to grow and reach out to serve their
communities. Please visualize what this would be like now and what it would be like in the
future with a larger and more active congregation.
We regret not being able to be at your public hearing on this matter on May 21, but we will be
out of town. We know you will give your close attention to other Colthurst residents who will
appear before you.
Sincerely-yours,
Robert R. and Charlotte Y. Humphris
109 Falcon Drive~ Charlottesville, VA 22901
296-7806; RRHumphris~aol.com
ATTACHMENT B
PROFFER FOR1VI
Original Proffer: 4/3/02
Amended Proffer 4/29/02
(Amendment # ~
Date: 5/7/02
ZMA #: 99-59
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 76M-1 A4 and A3
2.20 Acres to be rezoned fi:om LI to HC (0.43 acres uazoned former VDOT fight-of-my)
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezonmg and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. The development of the site will be in general accord with the plan entitled "Conceptual Site Plan", prepared bv
John McNair and Associates, dated January 8, 2002 and revised on
2. The Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, truck stops,
convenience stores and gift, craft or antique shops.
3. Vehicle access from 5t~ street to development on the properties subject to ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 shall be
provided by a single entrance to be shared with the existing Holiday Inn. The f'mal site plan for development of th=.
subject properties shall cause the existing entrance to the Holiday Inn shall be modified to be used as an "in only"
entrance as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and the modified entrance shall meet Virginia Department of
Transportation standards for one-way commercial entrances. Additionally, the final site plan shall provide the
Holiday Inn with an additional entrance for two-way traffic flow. This additional entrance shall be at a minimum
safe distance from the "in only" entrance as determined by the Albemarle County Engineering Department.
4. All pro.~osed buildings shall be sited so that the fronts of the buildings are oriented to face 5t~ Street as generally
showau on the Conceptual Site Plan.
5. All fuel islands shall be located behind a building as generally shown on the Conceomal Sire Plan.
6. All existing and nc,,' utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The placement of these under~ound
utilities shall be shown and constructed as par:. of any final site plan for development of the rezoned propemes
,. As part of preliminary site plan submitted for any development on the rezoned property, the owner shall conduct a
Traffic Study which reflects the traffic impacts of all the proposed uses and the~£xisting Holiday Inn (Tax Map 76
Parcel 55C). All improvements identified bv the traffic study shall be subject to VDOT and Connty Engineenng
approval and provided prior to the isst/ance of a certificate of occupancy. These improvements, if required by the
traffic study, may include, but shall not be limited to, a traffic signal at the entrance fi:om 5m Street; an extension of
the mm lane in the northbound lane of 5~ Street coming from Interstate 64, and an extension of the existing turn
lane from 5m Street southbound to the entrance of the proposed development.
8. The Owners shall g-rant an easement to the County for the "Greenway Easement" as shownon the accompanying
Conceptual Site Plan provided that the County holds the owner harmless as provided in Virginia Code §29.1-509(E).
This easement shall be granted within 90 davs ofapprovaI by the Board of Supervisors of ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59.
In conjunction with the Greenway. the Owner(s) shall:
.4,. In addition to the screening requirements of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board and section 32
of the Albemarle County. Zoning Ordinance. the owner shall provide a vegetated buffer for the purposes of
screening the development from the proposed ~eenway trail shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. This
vegetated buffer shall be provided in a manner consistent with section 32.7.9.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance and the landscaping shall be shown on the final site plan and installed as part of any final site plan
for development of the rezoned properties.
Steps and a vehicle travelway from the proposed parking area to the edge of the proposed Greenway easement
shall be constructed in the approximate locations shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. These improvements
shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties and
maintained by the owner.
A contribution of five hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be made to the County to upgrade the existing bridge that
formerly served the Old Lynchburg Road that lies in the proposed Greenway easement. This contribution shall
be made prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Signatures of Atl Owners
Printed Names of All Owners
Date
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
OR
Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
6
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59 -- Young
America/Morris Creek Yacht Club
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requests a
zoning map amendment of approximately 3.50 acres to allow
for HC (Highway Commercial) uses. The properties are
located on approximately 9.099 acres zoned LI (Light
Industrial) and an unzoned, abandoned highway right-of-way.
The property is described as portions of Tax Map 76MI-
Parcel 1 and is located on the east side of Fifth Street
Extended just north of its intersection with Interstate 64. This
property is located in the ScOttsville Magisterial District and is
designated for Industrial and Regional Service uses in
Neighborhood 5 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Special Use Permit is for approval of approximately 4.00
acres for grading in the floodplain of Biscuit Run at its
confluence with Moores Creek. The properties, TMP 76M1-1,
TMP 76-55A, and the abandoned right-of-way, comprise
approximately 12.897 acres and are zoned LI (Light
Industrial), HC (Highway Commercial), and no zoning,
respectively.
STAFF CONTACT{S): Mr. Barnes; Mr. Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE:
May 7, 2002
ITEM NUMBERS:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: No
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
On May 22, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the
rezoning and special use permit requests for this project. The Commission
recommended denial of the requests to the Board of Supervisom based on the
applicant's inability to commit to or provide detail to the following broad concems:
~ The lack of a mitigation plan for impact to the stream buffer;
,~ The lack of a sufficient traffic study;
Undemonstrated ability to mitigate impacts to the Entrance Corridor;
GreenwaY trails shown in this area in the Comprehensive Plan were not
provided for; and,
,~ The inability to provide a proffered plan of development.
At its June 20, 2001 public hearing,, the Board of Supervisors agreed with the Planning
Commission and recommended that the applicant work with staff and the Commission
to provide information on the following 10 items before it would reconsider the request:
1. Provision of a 100-foot easement for the greenway trails
2. Provision of improvements to the gre'enway trails.
3. Mitigation of aesthetic impacts to the creek and greenway trail.
4. Restriction of all buildings (and land disturbance) outside of the waterward
50-feet of the stream buffer.
5. Allay staff's and VDOT's concerns related to traffic (by possibly revising the
traffic study).
6. Place all new the utilities underground.
actual traffic impacts adsing from the eventual users of this. Therefore, Proffer 7
(Attachment B) lays out the conditions whereby the applicant will perform a traffic study
to the satisfaction of the County and YDOT. Then, the mitigating improvements, shown
as necessary by the study, will be required on the site plan. The appliCant is also
working with the Holiday Inn to better manage traffic around the interface of these
properties and 5th Street through the modification of the Holiday Inn's current two-way
entrance to an "in-only" entrance, This modification will minimize traffic turning conflicts
adjacent to 5th Street.
Stormwater Management
The appliCant has provided a conceptual plan for managing stormwater on the site.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's proposal and believes that a
viable solution can produced at the site plan review stage. The precise location of the
stormwater best management practices will be determined at the site plan stage.
The Engineering Department has also reviewed the impacts to the floodplain. The
impacts to the floodplain have been deemed to be within acceptable limits by both the
County Engineering Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Mitigation of impacts to the Entrance Corridor
The most recently submitted concept plan meets many of the concerns raised by the
initial Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and the later reviews by the ARB staff.
The applicant has proffered to bring the convenience store up to the setback line from
5th Street. Additionally, the store will provided a fa~:ade onto 5th Street and align the
store parallel to 5t~ Street. The applicant is alSo pr-offering to place the fuel canopy and
pumps behind the store. The exact loCation of the pumps and canopy may be altered
slightly at the site plan stage, but the applicant will keep the majority of the Canopy's
visual impacts obscured from 5th Street by placing it behind the building. Furthermore,
the concept plan also shows a landscape area adjacent to 5th Street. Finally, the
applicant has proffered to underground the utilities on the site. Most of these proffered
items could only be recommendations of the ARB. By incorporating these items into
the proffered concept plan, the ARB will have more control when it reviews the project
at the site plan stage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 99-13 with the attached proffers and SP 99-59.
3
SITE INFORMATION ~Y:
ROUDABUSH. GALE AND ASSOCU~TES
914 MONTICELLO ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, V1RDINtA
DATE: JANUARY 26, 2000
EXISTING TOPO TAKEN FROM
ROUOABUSH, GALE AND A~$0CIATES
SITE PLAN DATE0 JANUARY 26. 2000
SITE DATA:
TAX MAP 76M (1)-1
TAX MAP 75-55A
BENCHMARK IS EST/~LISHEO ON SOUTH~ST CORNER
OF H~cAOWALL STAMPE0 ALBEMARLE COUNTYBENCHMARK
16 ELEVATION . ,180.60
ZONING:
PARCEL At - TMP 76-BSA : HC - HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
PARCEL AZ - TMP 76M(I)-i ; LI- UGHT INOUSTRIAL (EXISTING)
REQUESTEO REZONINC TO HC - HICI-R~AY COMMERCIAL
PARCEL A,T - OLD TEBB'S LANE : NOT CURRENTLY ZONED
REOUESTED REZONING TO HC - HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
PARCEL A4 - TUP 76M(1)-1 (RESIDUE) : L1- UGHT INDUSTRIAL
NOTE: PARCEL At. A2 ANn A3 BOUNDARY UNES TO BE ADJUSTED
BASED ON FUTURE SITE PLAN
SETBACKS:
30' FROM ANY PUBLIC STREET RIGHT OF WAY
S0' FROM N%'Y RESIDENTIAL OR RURAL AREA DISTRICT
LOCATION:
ON 5TH STREET NEAR INTERSECTION OF 5TH STREET & INTERSTATE ROUTE 64
N~EUARLE COUNTY. MRDINIA
M~IS?ERIAL DISTRICT:
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
MORRIS CREEK YACHT CLUB. INC.
1200 FIFTH STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22902
EXIST1NG CONDITIONS:
PARTIALLY WOODED LOT
UTILITIES: (APPROX. LC4T. ATION OF EXISTING
WATER: ON ADJACENT SITE & Sth STREET
FIRE HYDRANT: ON AO, La, CENT SITE
~ITARY SEWER: ON SITE
ELECTRICITY: ON SITE
IMPROI/[MENT
S.000 sq. It.
9,360 Sq. It.
TO BE DETERMINED WITH SITE PLAN
CONVENIENCE STORE (BLD. 11): I SPACE PER 200 SO. I~. GROSS FLOOR AREA
GAS SALES: NONE RE~dlREO
EATING ESTABLISHUENT (OLD. 12): 13 SPACES PER 10oo SO. iq'. GROSS FLOOR AREA
BUIL01NG ii: 25 SPACES (g'xIB') INCLUDING 2 H/C SPADES
BUILDING 12- 122 SPACES (g'xlB') INCLUDING S H/C SPACES
SITE PARKING TALLY:
REOUIRE0 REOULA~ PARKING: 147 SPACES
PROPUSEO REGULAR PARKING: IO7 SPACES (9'xlB)
47 SPACES (10'xlB')
REDU~RED H/C PARKING: E SPACES (B'X18)
PROPOSED H/C PARKING: 7 SPACES
REOUIREO TOTAL: 155 SPACES
PROPOSED TOTAL: 161 SPACES
rutH SITE PLAN
01RECTIONAL SIONAGE WILL BE SUBMITTED AT THIS TIME
LATER AS A SEPARATE SITE PLAN AMENOMEN1
PLAN
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
OETENNON NOT R~OU RED
STDRMWATER OUAUTY TO B AND SASINS
USING INTERNN. DRAINN;E WITH
PLAN TO BE SUPPUED WITH SITE PLAN
E & S PLAN WILL BE PHASED TO INSURE THAT NC BEYONO
~'LOO OWAY UNE
ENGINEERED Ell I:
F1LL PLACED IN THE FLOOD PLAIN SHALL BE COMPACTED TO gSZ OF THE kl, U(IMUU
DENSITY PER FEi4~ REOUIREMENTS. [HE STABILITY OF THE FILL WILL BE ASSURED
THROUGH AR ENGINEERED FILL DESIGN WITH VEGETATIVE STABIUZATION AND CEOTEXTILE
FABRIC REINFORCEMENT OF THE SLOPES. AS NEEDED, FACING THE FLOODWAY
THIS ~S BASED ON THE MEAN VELOCRY OF THE 100 YEAR FLOOD O? 4.¢ F,P,S. FOR
MOORES CREEK AND 44 E.P,S, FOR BISCUIT RUN. PER THE EEMA LOMR DATED
7-05-2000
BASED ON
ALBEMARLE COUNTY 8ENCHMARK ~6
METAL 01SK ON S.E. CORNER OF HEADWALL~
ELEVATION - 580.60'
~ I~00DWAY
./ LINE ~
/--~LOODPLAIN LINE
I
PROPOSED
CONVENIENCE
STORE
i /
T.M.P. 76-55C
N !5,T01'20" E
eLD. t2 /
PROPOSED
RESTAURANT /
/
pRO.O~ED WA~. ou~uTY ~,.
/
/
~ FLOOOWAY/FLOODPLNN LINE BASED OH FLOOD INSURANCE
RATE MAP FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY. PANEL 220 OF 47S.
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUIdOER S1DO0~ 0220 B, EF'F'ECTNE
OAI~:: DECEMBER lB. IgBO: REVISED TO REFLECT LOMR
DATE0 JULY S. 2000.
BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (BEE) BASED ON
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY (PANEL
220 OF 475, COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 510006 0220 B.
EFFECTIVE DATE: DECEMBER 16. 1980; REVISED TO REFLECT
LOMR DATED JULY 5, 2000) AND DEWBERRY &DAVIS
TECHNICAL MEMORANOOM DATED APRIL 5. 2001 USING THE
APPROVED FEMA FLOG0 MOOEL OF THE JULY S, 2000 LOMR,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FLOG0 STUDY FOR MOORES CREEK AND
BISCUIT RUN DATED 199S AND APPROVED FEMA LOMR DATED
JULY S. 2000 SET THE PROJECTED FUTURE WATER SURFACE
ELEVATION' AT 5BS. S
PROPOSED
LIMIT
,?--.-FLOODPLAIN/
INTERSTAT~ 64
86'32'09' W
~ FLOODWAY
UNE ~c
650..,97'
City OF
C~LDTTESVILLE
UMITS
COUNTY
":'i:i !: ?.::i:!!!!..i:.:: !:!::~:! i:!:! .:: ::{. !:. !::: !: .::'::: ;:;~ '~ c.. ~...: ', :..: :.: :::.': :::::;: :::.~ ::::
STILLING
BASIN
"
,/" /
FEMA
lDO--YEAR
FLOOD UMIT
(BEE - 364)
C,', ,--~
~' STRE, M,I BUFFER
76M 1 -I
RESIDUE
6.33 AC.
ZONED: L1
S ~2'0A'42' w 308,74'--
/
/
40' 80' 120'
CONTOUR INI[RVAL m 1'
(UNLESS LA~ELED OTH£RWlSE)
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
A'i'TA¢.JlI~rlEN I A
O z
O
z~ ~
Z ~Z
u~ ~m
D~ ~:'
C2
4
ATTACHMENT B
PROFFER FORM
Date: 5/7/02
ZMA #: 99-59
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 76M-1 A4 and A3
Original Proffer: 4/3/02
Amended Proffer 4/29/02
(Amendment # ~
2.20 Acres to be rezoned fi.om LI to HC (0.43 acres unzoned former VDOT right-of-way)
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent; hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ffrezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezonlng itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. The development of the site will be in general accord with the plan entitled "Conceptual Site Plan", prepared by
John McNair and Associates, dated January 8, 2002 and revised on
2. The Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, truck stops,
convenience stores and gift, craft or antique shops.
3. Vehicle access from 5t~ street to development on the properties subject to ZMA 99-I3 and SP 99-59 shall be
provided by a single entrance to be shared with the existing Holiday Inn_ The fmaI site plan for development of the
subject properties shall cause the existing entrance to the Holiday Inn shall be modified to be used as an "in only"
entrance as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and the modified entrance shall meet Virginia Department of
Transportation standards for one-way coim~iercial entrances. Additionally, the final site plan shall provide the
Holiday Inn with an additional entrance for two-way traffic flow. This additional entrance shall be at a minimum
safe distance from the "in only" entrance as determined by the Albemarle County Engineering Deparmaent.
4. All proposed buildings shall be sited so that the fronts of the buildings are oriented to face 5~ Street as generally
shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.
5. ' All fuel islands shall be located behind a building as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.
6. All existing and new utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The placement of these underground
utilities shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties
As part of preliminary site plan submitted for any development on the rezoned property, the owner shall conduct a
Traffic Study which reflects the traffic impacts of all the proposed uses and the existing Holiday Inn (Tax Map 76
Parcel 55C). All improvements identified by the traffic study shall be subject to VDOT and County Engineering
approval and provided prior to the issuance ora certificate of occupancy. These improvements, if required by the
traffic study, may include; but shall not be hmited to, a traffic signal at the entrance from 5~ Street; an extension of
thereto lane in the northbound lane of 5th Street coming from Interstate 64, and an extension of the existing turn
lane from 5th Street southbound to the entrance of the proposed development.
The Owners shall grant an easement to the County for the "Greenway Easement" as shown on the accompanying
Conceptual Site Plan provided that the County holds the owner harmless as provided in Virginia Code §29.1-509(E).
This easement shall be granted within 90 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors of ZMA 99-13 and SP 99-59.
In conjunction with the Greenway, the Owner(s) shall:
A. In addition to the screening requirements of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board and section 32
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner shall provide a vegetated buffer for the purposes of
screening the development fi.om the proposed greenway trail shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. This
ATTACHMENT B
vegetated buffer shall be provided in a manner consistent with section 32.7.9.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance and the landscaping shall be shown on the final site plan and installed as part of any final site plan
for development of the rezoned properties.
B. Steps and a vehicle tmvelway from the proposed parking area to the edge of the proposed Greenway easement
shall be constructed in the approximate locations shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. These improvements
shall be shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for develOPment of the rezoned properties and
maintained by the owner.
C. A contribution of five hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be made to the County to upgrade the existing bridge that
formerly served the Old Lynchburg Road that lies in the proposed G-reenway easement. This contribution shall
be made prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Signatures of All Owners
Printed Names of All Owners
Date
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper power of Attomey)
OR
Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
6
SEE
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ON CONSENT AGENDA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department o£ Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
May.15,2002
Robert T. Smith
P O Box 7120
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE:
ZMA-1999-013 Young America and SP-1999,059 Young America
Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 1
Dear Mr. Smith:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 2002,by a vote of 4-1,
recommended approval of ZMA-1999-013 Young America, subject to the attached proffers and
SP-1999-059 Young America as presented.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors wilt review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on June 5, 2'002. Please note that review of public headng items begins
at I:30; Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
~cerely.
/ Michael Barnes
Planner
MBgcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Ketsey
Steve AIIshouse
05-7 7-02A08:12 RCVD
COUNTY ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN DA TITLE: Fill and Waste Z'FA 01-006
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant
has requested that the County expand its current
definition of permitted fill and waste materials to
include asphalt and inert materials which are
allowed under the State Code.
STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Barnes; Mr. Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE:
June 5, 2002
ITEM NUMBER~
ACTION: INFORMATION:
Yes
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: No
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
,INFORMATION:
At its April 30, 2002 public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
zoning text amendment ZTA 01-06. However, Commission's recommendation to the Board
excludes asphalt from the list of acceptable fill and waste materials. The Engineering
Department has provided a supplemental memo. for the Board outlining the reaSon why asphalt
should be included in the list of acceptable fill and waste material (Attachment I). As an update
and to simplify the differences between the existing and proposed regulations, staff has included
a matrix of the differences for the Board (Attachment ID. Please note that the term "road
pavement" has been struck through under the "List of Acceptable Materials" column in this
matrix. Finally, the original staff report from the Commission's March 26th W°rksession is
included as Attachment III. The executive summary with the proposed text change language as
provided to the Planning Commission for their April 30th public hearing is provided as
Attachment IV.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
May 7, 2002
Katurah Roell
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: ZTA-01-06 Fill & Waste
Dear Mr. Roell:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 30, 2002, by a vote of 5-2,
recommended approval of the above-noted zoning text amendment as recommended by staff.. However,
they expressly stated that asphalt materials will not be allowed within the definition of inert materials. The
County Attorney's office will be revising the recommended text amendment prior to the Board of
Supervisors meeting.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this amendment at their June 5, 2002 meeting.
Pubic hearing items for this meeting will begin at t:30 in Meeting Room 241, Second Floor, County Office
Building.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not i~esitate to contact me.
Planner
MB/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
ATTACHMENT I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Amelia McCulley, Director of Building Code and Zoning Services
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Comprehensive Development
Michael Barnes, Planning and Community Development
FROM:
Mark B. Graham, Director of Engineering and Public Works
DATE: 14May 2002
Fill and Waste Zoning Text Amendment
Inclusion of Asphalt Based Pavements in allowed fill
I am offering this as Engineering's recommendation that asphalt pavement be considered an
acceptable fill material under Section 5.1.28 of the Zoning Ordinance. This recommendation
is based on 3 factors: 1) environmental and health risks, 2) consequences of the alternatives,
and 3) economics.
1. Environmental and Health Risks
After a thorough search of the available information, I have found no conclusive evidence that
there is any harm in burying this material.-I have fo~d a number of situations that show
asphalt concrete is considered safe. Perhaps the best ~xample of this safety is asphalt
pavement is currently being used to line water reservoirs in California and this use is being
~lanned for future reservoirs. This is a situation wh~e the asphalt pavement is in direct
contract to water being used for consumption. Simildrly, both the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and'the Virginia Department of Efivironmental Quality material find it -
acceptable to bury asphalt pavement without regulatiOn, while materials that we might
consider somewhat benign (e.g. tree stumps) are regulated wastes.
I appreciate the concern the Planning Commission expressed that nobody has proven this
material is'absolutely safe to bury. I seriously doUbt ~atanyone ever will be able to
conclusively prove this material is safe, but that appears to be caused by the difficulty of such
a scientific proof rather than any observed risk. To eyplain this, I would consider the
similarities between asphalt pavement and peanut butter with regard to risks. Both substances
contain chemical compounds that are suspected health risks. Both substances have been
extensively tested for risks, but neither substance has been proven to be a risk. Despite this
testing, both substances continue to have their long-term safety questioned because of
concerns with some of the chemicals in the substance.
Finally, I believe we need to ask ourselves why asphalt pavement is cOnsidered an
unacceptable risk in fill but we plan to continue using it on roads. When used on rOads, this
asphalt pavement is directly exposed to rain that will wash any residues into nearby streams
and rivers. If the same asphalt pavement is buried, the time required for groundwater to flow
from this material to a point where there is exposure, such as wells or reservoirs, will be
orders of magnitude longer than what happens with existing roads. For buried asphalt
pavement, that means there is considerably more time for biodegradation of any harmful
compounds. Even if it were eventually proven that asphalt pavement has harmful compounds
in the residue leaching from it, which appears highly unlikely, the risk associated with the
buried pavement would be insignificant compared to what is happening right now with the
existing roads.
2. Consequences of the Alternatives
If asphalt pavement cannot be used as fill in the County, we should consider what will happen
to that material when it is taken from a demolition site. The obvious answer is the contractor
will need to separate the materials at the demolition site from materials that can be handled in
another way. Potentially, we could have three separate types of loads leaving a site; fill
material (including concrete but not asphalt), regulated construction debris that goes to a
landfffi (e.g. wallboard, wiring, metal), and asphalt pavement. I believe there are five disposal
options for the asphalt pavement that need to be discussed.
1) The contractor will mix this asphalt pavement with regulated construction
debris that will be taken to the County designated waste transfer station for
disposal in a regulated landfill. That could answer the questions as to a safer
method of disposal, but I don't expect this option will be used. As it will cost
the cOntractor $46 per ton to dump this material at the waste transfer site and
much cheaper means of disposal exist, I expect few contractors will ever use
this option.
2) The contractor will take the asphalt pavement to the Ivy landfill where they
will pay $8 per ton for disposal as clean fill. It is important to note this
material will not be buried in a regulated landfill cell but it will be used as fill
material on the site outside of a controlled landfill cell. From an
environmental perspective, the disposal of the material at the landfill would be
no different than the contractor using it on a site that needs fill. The only
difference being this is allowed at Ivy because that disposal is regulated by
DEQ while the County regulates the disposal at other locations under the
Zoning Ordinance.
3) The contractor will haul this to an adjoining locality where it is legal and
routinely used as fill. That happens now and I expect this practice would
continuel
4) The contractor will illegally dump this material in the County. That happens
now and I expect this practice would continue. A circumstance we have noted
in the past is for the contractor to make an arrangement with a landowner to
fill in some gullie.s on a property in the rural area. That provides the
contractor a cheap way of disposing of this material and provides the
landowner some remediation of erosion occurring on their property, albeit, an
illegal one.
5) The fiffia option is the asphalt pavement could be recycled. That recycling
would either mix the old pavement material with new asphalt pavement or
would simply crush it for use as base material in parking lots and driveways.
While we strongly encourage the recycling of this material, it remains
debatable whether some private business will find this a profitable enterprise.
There are also County complexities to such an enterprise. While the zoning
classification of such an enterprise could depend on the other uses on the
property, it appears this enterprise, would probably require a Special Use
Permit before it could be done in the County. All in all, while I would like to
ATTACHMENT I
3
ATTACHMENT I
see us encourage recycling of this material, I don't feel we can reply on there
being a demand for this product anytime in the near future.
Of these five options, I believe the first will almost never be used due to the cost. Of the next
three options, the asphalt pavement will be used as fill in an identical manner as it would if
pem-dtted by the Zoning Ordinance. Thus, whatever risk might exist is unchanged. The fifth
option, while it would solve a number of problems, appears to have an uncertain futurei
There is one more potential consequence that should be discussed. In considering sites that
require fill material, every ton of fill that is created using demolished asphalt pavement is
equal to one less ton' of dirt that comes from a borrow area. Itis important to recognize that
the only permitted borrow sites are in the rural area. While I won't claim that this amount of
fill would make an appreciable difference in the number or size of these borrow areas, it is
focusing on the idea that we want to minimize this type of disturbance in the rural area.
3) Economics
I believe the above two factors demonstrate there is no real benefit to prohibiting the use of
asphalt pavement as fill material. The remaining consideration is whether treating asphalt
pavement differently creates an economic disadvantage. In my opinion, this is clearly an
economic disadvantage. If a contractor is required to take expend extra time, equipment and
money to handle these materials, there is little question this will be reflected in the ultimate
cost of development in the County. Similarly, if the County staff must verify how the
contractor is handling this separate material and spend more time on enforcement of illegal
waste areas, the cost to'the County for enforcement has also increased. Thus, I believe there
are real costs to both the County and the community at large in requiring asphalt pavement to
be treated differently than other materials, without a demonstrated benefit.
L ~
Matrix Comr)arino Existino and Pror)osed Reoulations
Where Permi~ed~ Where Acceptable Required Required E&S Time Limitations Required Cover/ Wate~ay Wasting on
, Permi~ed materials Approvals Approvals on Activity Reclamation Protection Critical Slopes
~~,: Allowed ~AIIowed in all Allows only No site plan or E&S permit No current time Only generally Limited stream Allowed if activi~
::'~~-: exclusively in RA~zoning soil and rock building permit required for limits on fill and'regulated over buffer protection, meets basic
.:~t~; with approved ~districts in fill and is required for a'borrow, fill or waste activities; 10,000 cubic Contains environmental
..~,~:~: site plan as ,i waste, fill or waste waste areas over Fill and waste as yards; no floodplain protections
......~ .:,~.~,~:,v~t.~ ,~..,~,,~ regulated by I area 10,000 cubic prima~ use of a requirement to protection.
~Xisti~'~,,:,,~:~ Section 5.1.28. ~ yards with no prope~ is not cover with clean Requires special
~egu~t~O~::~ ~ regulations allowed fill. use permit for
..'..,: :~..~,,~,,~ ~ under that streambank
~.; ..;;::~:.;~j ....~:~ ,/:;;:~..~,~.. ':., ~ threshold stabilization.
~ I
.. :'::." ~.~'. Maintains status ]Maintains Allows only Maintains E&S permit Limited to 1 year Over 10,000 sq. ~ Increases stream Maintains status
. .~: :~'..-quo. ~status quo. soil, rock, status quo. required for with provision for ff requires clean buffer protection, quo.
:.... ;.':~: .~: I brick,, block, borrow, fill or extensions; Fill fill and Keeps the
,~;,,:.~ ';~.. I broken waste areas over and waste as vegetative cover; floodplain
..;: .... ~.
-..r::¢ .....~.:,: I concrete, and 10,000 square prima~ use of a under 10,000 sq. 3rotection intact.
~ropb~d :~'~: I .... feet with some prope~y is not ff with some No change to
{eg'a~ti~:~:~: i ~ in general allowed general streambank .
. '~.~:~::..~;~.~.:~ ' fill and waste regulation under regulation stabilization
. '~':~ ,: I ' 10,000 square ' proposed at this
.... ~ **":' ' feet time.
ATTACHMENT iii
STAFF PERSONS:
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION:
ZTA 01-06 FILL AND WASTE'
MICHAEL BARNES
MARCH 26, 2002
Origin and Description of Request:
On April 20, 2001, the Virginia Land Company requested a ZTA to change Section 5.1.28 (See
current County regulations - Attachment A). They wish to expand the current list of permitted
fill and waste materials from soil and rock to include brick, block, broken concrete, and road
pavement.
Applicant's Justification for the Request:
The Virginia Land CompanY states that the current regulations arc more restrictive than thc
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) regulations governing the content of fill
and waste materials. They argue that the County's current regulations force contractors to haul
building rubble and old road pavement to a landfill or out of the County. This hauling cost
represents an undue financial burden on the contractors and property owners. Secondly, while
the applicant recognizes the County's prerogative to be more restrictive than the State, the
applicant feels that there is no proven protections or benefits to the more restrictive stance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's text amendment proposal with additional staff
recommended text changes and modifications (Sec recommended changeswAttachment B).
Description of Staff Review and Proposed Text Modifications:
(Attachment ,4 is the current ordinance. Attachment B provides the recommended text changes.
Attachment C is a matrix that provides a summary of the following discussion.)
Staff set out with three goals~ The first goal was to analyze the applicant's request to expand the
list of acceptable fill and waste materials. The second goal was to determine if reorganization
and/or additional text changes were warranted as a result of an expanded acceptable fill material
list. The third goal was to seek input on the proposed changes from interested members of the
community and incorporate their comments where possible.
I. In achieving the first goal, staff contacted DEQ officials and researched various other sources
to assess the environmental impacts of the requested fill materials. State officials explained
that the State regulations (9VAC 20-80-60 (D.7) and 9VAC 20-80-180) allow for the
landfilling of solid waste including only soil, rocks, brick, block, broken concrete and road
pavement without becoming a permitted activity. The officials also stated that a contractor or
landowner that dumps other illicit materials (e.g., asbestos, lead paint, etc.) would be in
violation of several State regulations. Staff's chief concern with the list of acceptable
materials was with potential environmental impacts of asphalt. These same state officials
ATTACHMENT III
stated that asphalt, as well as the other materials, is considered to be inert and to have either
no or very limited environmental impacts when buried in a fill or waste operation. Other
literature research proved inconclusive as to the environmental impacts of asphalt.
Staff reached the following conclusions on the question of acceptable fill materials. First, the
expansion of the list to include brick, block and broken concrete poses no environmental
problems. Secondly, the petroleum products and other chemicals in the older asphalt have
either been bonded as part of curing process or lost due to weathering. This fact mitigates
their potential environmental impacts. Thirdly, the removal and disposal of asphalt, concrete,
etc. to approved and regulated disposal sites within the County represents most efficient
method for disposal. Permitting these materials in fill also reduces the incentive to illegally
"dump the materials in the back of some farm." Fourthly, the alternate disposal option,
besides recycling the materials, is to transport the materials to the Zions Crossroad area or
similar areas outside the County. This represents an expensive waste of petroleum among
other things. Finally, expanding the list of acceptable materials will keep our regulations in
line with the State regulations.
To implement finding from staff's first goal, staff has recommend amending the list of
acceptable waste material to include Soil and inert waste (defined by DEQ Regulations as
brick, block, broken concrete and road pavement) (Attachment B - subsection"a.3"). This
section will satisfy the applicant's text amendment request if approved as proposed.
I1. In reaching the second goal in staff's review, staff examined Section 5.1.28 as well as other '
portions of the Ordinance to assess the effectiveness of the regulations governing the disposal
of fill and waste materials. Potential environmental and aesthetic impacts were of the
greatest concern. We are recommending the following changes or updates to Section 5.1.28
to limit these impacts.
1. The current Section 5.1.28 mandates a 300-foot buffer from a stream within a water
supply watershed. It also only protects the streams within the water supply watersheds.
Finally, Section 5.1.28's buffer width is inconsistent with the WPO's buffer widths
(Attachment A - subsection "a.2").-Therefore, staff recommends amending Section
5.1.28 to restrict fill and waste activities within the stream buffers established by the
WPO in Chapter 17 (See Attachment B - subsection "a.2").
2. Presently, the. ordinance only requires a grading permit for fill and waste operations in
excess of 10,000 cubic yards (Attachment A' Subsection "a"). The staff recognizes that
small fill operations do not necessarily need to be regulated; however, we believe that
I 0,000 cubic yards is too large as this could be a fill area covering several acres.
Additionally, it is also more difficult to enforce the volume of the fill because the
inspector must excavate to determine the depth. Instead, the staff recommends reducing
the 10,000 cubic yards to 10,000 square feet (Attachment A - Subsection "b"). Finally,
10,000 square feet of disturbance coincides with the point at which an Erosion :and
Sediment Control Plan is required. This will ease the administrative burden by
combining the plan and narrative requirements for a large fill and waste sites with the
requirements for an Erosion and Sediment Control permits.
3. The current ordinance only regulates the impacts of fill and waste activities with respect
to drainage (Sections 4.3 and 30.4.13), the floodplain (Chapter 30.3), and stream buffer
2
ATTACHMENT I!1
impacts (Chapter 17) when the operations are in excess of 10,000 cubic yards
(Attachment A- subsections "a.l" and "a.2"). Even if the Board approves a reduction to
10,000 square feet, staff believes that these impacts should be regulated independent of
the amount of fill or waste material. Therefore, staff is recommending a reorganization of
the em'rent ordinance which would move Subsections "a.l" and "a.2" in the current
ordinance (Attachment A) and make them stand alone and thus apply to all fill and waste
activities (Attachment B - subsections "a.l" and "a.2").
In the current ordinance, the Zoning Administrator is listed as the responsible agent for
ensuring that dust and debris does not impact adjoining properties (Attachment A -
subsection "a.4"). Staff feels that this responsibility is more in the County Engineer's
area of operations because the Engineering Department akeady enforces this as part of the
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. The proposed text changes transfer this
responsibility to the County Engineer by listing the ,'program authority" as the
responsible agent (Attachment B - subsection "b.2").
In the current ordinance, the Director of Emergency Services is listed as the responsible
agent for declaring a public emergency (Attachment A - subsection "a:5"). The County
no longer maintains this position. Therefore, staff recommends altering this subsection to
meet the procedure established in Section 2-1003 for declaring a public emergency
(Attachment B- subsection "b.3").
In order to address the questions of aesthetics, staff has crafted the proposed text change
to place two limitations on fill or waste areas. The first hmitation restricts the amount of
time that a site can be used as a fill or waste area and the second defines the ultimate
appearance of the site (Attachment B - Subsections "a.5" and "b.5").
Staffhas recommended that all fill and waste operations be limited to one year and may
only be extended by the County Engineer (the "prOgram authority") upon demonstration
by the applicant that an extension is necessary (Attachment B - Subsection "b.5"). A
longer initial permit period would be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates the
need is consistent with the project schedule. It would be possible that the same general
waste area could be used for multiple permits, but that would be included as part of the
permit for the source of the materials. If a receiving site's primary purpose is to receive
fill and waste for more than one year and from multiple sites, then staff believes that this
constitutes a primary use for the property and should be handled separately, perhaps as a
Special Use Permit. However, staffbelieves that resolving the means for regulating this
type of situation is beyond the :scope of the resolution of intent and the original request by
the applicant. Therefore, if the Commission or Board would like staff to investigate this
question further, staff recommends that a second resolution of intent be passed.
To deal with the second question of the ultimate appearance ora site, staff is
recommending that fill and waste sites be restored to a natural contour. Furthermore,
staff is recommending a requirement for capping these fill areas with two feet of clean
fill. In cases where the applicant could demonstrate that the area is never likely to be
developed, a reduction to one foot of clean fill could be allowed upon written request.
Finally, staff is recommending a requirement that the fill site be revegetated with
permanent vegetation (Attachment B - Subsection "a. 5").
ATTACHMENT III
Staffbelieves that these two items will allow contractors m successfully accomplish a fill
or waste operation, while at the same time protect citizens from unsightly bare ground or
expoSed inert waste that could be visible for an extended period of time.
III. To achieve the third goal of community involvement, staff held a focused discussion on
February 28, 2002 with contractors, land use lawyers, and other members of the development
community to ascertain their opinions on the effects of the proposed changes.
Those persons in attendance identified five general potential problems: the required amount
of clean fill, the time limitations on fill and waste operations on a site, the use of inert waste
materials for streambank stabilization, the ability to waste on a critical slope, and the revised
threshold for the requirement of a permit. Staff has addressed the public's concerns in the
following manner:
A. The required amount of clean fill - Staff altered its original proposal of requiring 2 feet
of clean fill covering every fill site to allow for a reduction to one foot of clean fill in
areas where future development is demonstrated to be unlikely.
B. Time limitations on fill and waste operations - As mentioned above, staffis
recommending that fill and waste operations be limited to one year with an extension
possibility for a short time period. If wish landowners to use their property as a more or
less full-time, longer duration facility for the receipt of fill and waste material, staff
recommends that they should be held to a higher level of public review. Impacts to
public roads or neighboring properties, such as track traffic, dust, noise, etc, are possible
by-products of fill and waste operations. If these impacts are to extend for a period of
several years, then the effects to the neighbors or roads should be reviewed, possibly
under a special use permit. Staff recommends that if the Commission or Board wish to
examine the appropriateness of this type of use, then a separate an resolution of intent
should be drafted because this type of review is beyond the scope of the applicant's
request.
C. Use of inert waste materials for streambank stabilization - Currently, fill and waste
activities within the floodplain require a special use permit. The proposed text changes
will not change this requirement. Staff has discussed the possibility of changing the
ordinance to allow streambank stabilizationwith a plan approved by a recognized
authority (i.e., the Soil and Water Conservation District or the County itself). Again,
while there may be merits to making this change, it is beyond the scope of this review and
staff recommends a separate zoning text amendment process review the question.
D'. Fill or waste on critical slopes - The current ordinance permits fill and waste on critical
slopes as long as the other environmental protections are met (e.g., tree protection, stream
buffer protection, etc). The proposed text changes will not effect the status quo.
E. Revised threshold requirement for a permit - The public was concerned that a
reduction from 10,000 cubic yards to 10,000 square feet could prove to be an unnecessary
burden to development. As outlined above, staff feels that it makes for a more efficient
permitting process for both the applicant and staff to require a fill and waste grading
permit at the same threshold as the Erosion and Sediment Control Permit. It is also easier
enforcement a surface area as opposed to a volume. Finally, it is difficult to place 10,000
4
ATTACHMENT II
cubic yards without disturbing less than 10,000 square feet. Therefore, in staff's opinion,
it makes sense to keep the thresholds consistent.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. It brings the County's "acceptable fill material list" in line with the State's regulations.
2. It makes economic sense with limited environmental impacts.
3. The staff recommended changes update the ordinance and provide additional safeguards
against potential environmental and aesthetic impacts.
Staffhas identified the following factors, which are not addressed by this amendment:
1. The amendment does not provide for a solution for long-term landfilling of inert wastes on a
single site. This issue is beyond the scope of the resolution of intent.
2. The amendment does not address the possibility of performing streambank stabilization with
something less stringent than a special use permit. This issue is beyond the scope of the
resolution of intent.
If necessary, staff recommends that these issues be addressed in a second phase of fill and waste
amendments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the text amendment as proposed in Attachment B.
Attachments:
A. Current Regulations
B. Proposed Text Changes
C. Matrix Comparing current ordinance to the proposed changes
ATTACHMENT I!
Current Ordinance
5.1.28 BORROW, FILL, OR WASTE AREAS
Each borrow, fill or waste area shall be subject to the following: (Added 10-3-0t)
No grading permit shall be issued for any borrow, fill, or waste area activity
exceeding an aggregate volume of ten thousand (10,000) cubic yards on any one
parcel of record on the adoption date of this provision until, in addition to approval of
a grading plan, the county engineer has approved a plan and/or narrative for' such
activity in accordance with the following requirements:
The site, both during and after such activity, shall be shaped and sloped for proper
drainage in accordance with sections 4.3 and 30.4.13 of this chapter; (Amended
10-3-01)
No such activity shall occur in any flood plain area except in accordance with
section 30.3 of this chapter nor within three hundred (300) horizontal feet of the
edge of any water supply impoundment or tributary thereof without approval of
the watershed management official. Provision shall be made for the minimization
of ground and surface water contamination; (Amended 10-3-01)
All vehicles used to transport excavated or waste materials shall be loaded in such
manner that the material cannot be unintentionally discharged from the vehicle.
All such vehicles shall be cleaned of all material not in the load-bed prior to
entering onto any public road;
4. The area of such activity and access roads thereto shall be treated or maintained in
such a manner as to prevent dust or debris from blowing or spreading onto
adjacent properties or public streets. Dependending on the anticipated intensity
and duration of the activity and the character of development of adjoining
properties, the zoning administrator may require, for the protection of adjoining
properties, public roads, and public safety, such setback, fencing and/or
landscaping requirements as deemed appropriate; provided that the same shall not
exceed the requirements of sections 30.4.6, 30.4.7 and 30.4.9 of this chapter;
(Amended 10-3-01)
o
Operations involving power equipment of an industrial type shall be limited to the
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. except in cases of a public emergency as
determined by the director of emergency services for the county. Blasting
operations shall be restricted to Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m.;
Regarding lateral support, all operations shall be conducted in a safe manner with
respect to the likelihood of hazard to persons, physical damage to adjacent land
and improvements, and damage to any public street by reason of slides, sinking,
or collapse;
//
ATTACHMENT III
Fill and waste areas shall only be for the disposal of soil and rock. Disposal of
trash and garbage, as defined in section 13-100 of the Code of Albemarle, shall be
accomplished in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 13 of the Code of
Albemarle; (Amended 10-3-01)
Provision shall be made for site reclamation including but not limited to
restoration approximating natural contours .and establishment of permanent
vegetative ground cover. Such reclamation shall commence within fifteen (15)
days of completion of borrow, fill or waste activity, provided reclamation
activities of a seasonal nature shall be completed by a date to be established by
the county engineer.
bo
In the case of fill or waste activity, the county engineer may refer such plan to the
Waste Division of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for comment
and recommendation. The county engineer may require additional information and
plans fi.om the applicant to facilitate, such review. (Amended 10-3-01)
c. In lieu of a plan and narrative as required by this section, the county engineer may
accept a contractual agreement between the Virginia Department of Transportation
and its contractor for a public road .project; provided that the county engineer shall
determine that such agreement satisfies at least to an equivalent extent the
requirements and intent of this section. (Amended 10-3-01)
The zoning administrator may require posting of a bond in an amount adequate to
insure compliance with the requirements of this section prior to commencement of
such activity. (Added 7-6-83)
(§ 5.1.28, 12-10-80, 7-6-83; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
ATTACHMENT I!i
PROPOSED DRAFT LANGUAGE
13
Draft: 03/19/02
ATTACHMENT III
ORDINANCE NO. 02-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, AND ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, 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 I, General Provisions, and Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code
of the County of Albemarle arc amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 5.1.28 Borrow, fill or waste areas
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Fill area or waste area: A location at which soil or inert materials is placed on a site other than
the site where the material was excavated or removed. The placement of soil or inert materials
as necessary to establish a permitted use on the parcel or development from which it was
excavated shall not be considered a fill area or a waste area.
Inert materials: Solid materials that are physically, chemically.and biologically stable from
further degradation and considered to be nonreactive, including rubble, concrete, bricks, broken
bricks, and blocks.
Program authori~: The department of enQneering and public works, including any officer or
employee of the department authorized by the county engineer to act pursuant to Chapter 17 of
the Code of Albemarle.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.28 Borrow, fill or waste areas
a. Each borrow, fill or waste area shall be subject to the following:
1. Each active borrow, fill or waste area shall be shaped and sloped so that no undrained
pockets or sta, ,~nant pools of water are created to the maximum extent reasonably
practicable as determined by the program authority. All undrained pockets and
stagnant pools of water resulting from drainage shall be treated as required by the
Vir,m,'nia Department of Health to eliminate breeding places for mosquitoes and other
insects.
ATTACHMENT III
Draft: 03/19/02
2. No borrow, fill or waste area shall be located either within the flood hazard overlay
district, except as authorized by section 30.3 of this chapter, or in any stream buffer
area as defined by Chapter 17 of the Code of Albemarle.
3. Each fill or waste area shall be only for the dist~osal of soil or inert materials. The
disposal of any other materials in a fill or waste area is prohibited_
Each borrow, fill~or waste area shall be reclaimed within seven (7)' days of
completion of the borrow, fill or waste activity, or such later time authorized by the
orom:am authority for reclamation activities of a seasonal nature. Reclamation shall
include, but not be limited to, restoring the area so that it anproximates natural
contours; shaping and sloping the area to satisfy the requirements of subsection
(a)(D; covering the area with clean fill to a minimum depth of two (2) feet in order to
allow for permanent stabilization and reclamation; and establishing a permanent
vegetative ~round cover; provided that the program authority may reduce the
minimum depth of clean fill to one (1)foot if the area is tmlikely to be redeveloped
The zoning administrator, or the program authority for those borrow, fill or waste
areas subject to subsection (b), may reauire a bond or other surety in an amoun!
adecluate to insure comoliance with the requirements of this section prior to
commencing any borrow, fill or waste activity.
b. If the aggregate area of a borrow, fill or waste activity will be greater than ten thousand
(10,000) square feet, then, as t~art of any permit issued pursuant to section 17-207 of the
Code of Albemarle, .the program authority shall first approve a plan or a narrative for
such activity that satisfies the requirements of subsection (a) and the following'
1. All inert materials shall be transported in compliance with section 13-301 of the Code
of Albemarle. Before a transporting vehicle leaves the parcel or parcels on which the
borrow, fill or waste area is located, it shall be cleaned so that no inert material.q
Outside of the vehicle's load-bed can be deposited on a public street
2. The borrow, fill or waste area and the access roads thereto shall be treated or
maintained to prevent dust or debris from blowing or spreading onto adjacent
properties or public streets. Depending on the anticipated intensity and duration of
the activity and the charaCter of the development of adjoining properties, the program
authority may require setback, fencing and landscaping reo. uirements as deemed
apr~ropriate, but which shall not exceed the reauirements of sections 30.4.6, 30.4.7
and 30.4.9 of this chapter.
3, Borrow, fill or waste activity involving industrial-type power equipment shallbe
limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., except in cases of a public emergency
declared pursuant to section 2-I003 of the Code of Albemarle
4..Borrow, fill or waste activity shall be conducted in a safe manner that maintain.q
lateral Support, in order to minimize any hazard to persons, Physical damage to
ATTACHMENT III
Draft: 03/19/02
adjacent land and improvements, and damage to any public street because of slides,
sinking, or collapse.
5. Fill or waste activity shall be completed within one (1) year of its commencement.
The program authority may extend the date of completion uoon the.written request of
the applicant3 demonstrating that factors beyond the control of the apr~licant prevented
the completion within the one-year period. The program authority may then extend
the permit for a.period of time thah in its sole discretion., is determined adeauate to
complete the work.
In lieu of a plan or narrative, the program authority may accept a contractual
agreement between the Vir,m.'nia Department of Transportation and its contractor for a
public road project; provided that the program authority~determines that the
agreement satisfies at least to an equivalent extent the requirements-and intent of this
section:
3
ATTACHMENT III
Draft: 03/19/02
(§ 5.1.28, 12-10-80, 7-6-83; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to __, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
4
/7
ATTACHMENT III
Draft: 03/19/02
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Aye
Nay
Borrow Areas-.. ', ' ' , - Fill & Waste , '
WherePermited!WherePermittedI Acceptable Thresholdfor TimeLmitationslRequiredCover/ Waterway I Wastingon '
I materials grading permit on Activ t¥ I Reclamation Protection Critical Slopes
:' · .::--:ii.':"',"'i'.. Allowed in RA,' iAIIowed in all' Allows only soil Regulated over No current time Only generally _imited stream Allowed if activity,
·. '~.~'' as regulated by izoning districts and rock in fill 10,000 cubic limits on fill and regulated over buffer protection, meets basic
..... .: · Section 5.1.28. i and waste, yards with no waste activities; 10,00 cubic feet; Contains environmental
"'~" i regulations Fill and waste as no requirement floodplain protections
Existing .' I under that primary use of a to cover with ~rotection.
Regulations ~ threshold property is not clean fill. Requires special
· ~ , allowed use permit for
::.i "~:. , streambank
.--..... I stabilization.
;-~-:. ,,:, ... ',~¢~:;~, ::.
I I
~.AIIowed ~n all Allows only soil, Regulated at 1
!~.--.;~!~,.~No change Limited to year Over 10,000 sq. Increases stream Maintains status
~,.,~,~,~ proposed -iz°ning districts rock, brick, 10,000 square with provision for ff requires clean buffer protection, quo.
~',~:~<~'~- allowed block, broken feet with some e~ensions; Fill fill and Keeps the
~-'~,¢';~:~;~"':-~:~'*; exclusively in RA~ . concrete, and general and waste as
~ ........ ~,:..~ .... vegetative cover; floodplain
~:~;~-~:'~(~'~,~.....~:.:.~ :~:~,:.,:~'.~ road pavement regulation under prima~ use of a under 10,000 sq. ~rotection intact.
· ,.~:~.~?~' ~:~ ~ in flit and waste 10,000 square prope~ is not ff with some No change to
R6g~!~ti~h'~,
,:~:~,~:.~.- ~ :eet allowed general streambank
.......... ~ ..... ~ regulation stabilization ·
,'.~ ~..-,~; ....... proposed at this
-~g~- ~ time.
m
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA 01-006
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant
has requested that the County expand its current
definition of permitted fill and waste materials to
include asphalt and inert materials which are
allowed under the State Code.
STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Barnes; Mr. Cilimberg
ATTACHMENT IV
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBERS
April 30, 2002
ACTION: INFORMATION
Yes
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: No
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held a worksegsion on March 23, 2002 to discuss the proposed zoning
text amendment requested under ZTA 01-06. Since that time, staff has met to address concerns
raised by several members of the development community. Staff has agreed to several of the
requested changes and these changes are outlined below. One of the remaining isSUes of
contention between Certain members of the development community and staff is the one-year
time limit placed on the filI and waste activities. Staff believes that the flexibility allowed in the
proposed regulations for extending the time period will enable staff and the deVelopers to work
out a mutually agreeable time table for fill and waste activities and does not represent a burden to
the development community. The intent of the one-year time limit is to control potential fill and
waste sites where the responsible party is unwilling to stabilize a site within a reasonable time
period. Unstabilized sites can have aesthetic and erosion impacts. Therefore, staff encOurages
the Commission and Board to retain the one-year time period. Attached is the latest version of
the proposed text amendment. Finally, staff has continUed its research on the impacts of asphalt,
but has found no evidence concluding that it may pose an environmental threat if buried as part
of a fill or waste operation.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
1. "Asphalt pavement" is added to the definition of"inert materials" in order to clarify that it is
allowed under state regulations.
2. The first sentence of 5.1.28(b)(5) was revised to state: "The placement of fill or waste shall:_
be completed within one (1) year of its commencement, except for reclamation activities and
any other activities asSociated with the final stabilization of the area." This allows the
applicant to use the full year for the fill and waste activity and excludes the time for
stabilizing the fill area. The stabilization time is usually 7 days.
3. "Borrow" was deleted from 5.1.28(a)(2) because borrow is allowed in the floodplain.
4. The surety language from the E&S regulations was added to 5.1.28(a)(5).
Draft: 04/16/02
ORDINANCE NO. 02-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, AND ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, 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 I, General Provisions, and Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code
of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1
Sec. 5.1.28
Definitions
Borrow, fill or waste areas
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Fill area or waste area: A location at which soil or inert materials is placed on a site other than
the site where the material was excavated or removed. The placement of s°ii or inert materials
as necessary to establish a permitted use on the parcel or development from which it was
eXcavated shall not be conSidered a till area or ~ waste area.
Inert materials: Solid materials that are physically, chemically and biologically stable from
lixrther degradation and considered to be nonreactive, including rubble, concrete, bricks, broken
bricks and blOcks; and asphalt paVement.
Program authority: The department of engineering and public works, including any officer Or
employee of the department authorized by the county engineer to act pursuant to Chapter 17 of
the Code of Albemarle.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.28 Borrow, fill or waste areas
a. Each borrow, fill or waste area shall be subject to the following:
Each active borrow, fill or waste area shall be shaped and sloped so that no undrained
pockets or stagnant pools of water are created to the maximum extent reasonably
practicable as determined by the program authority. All undrained pockets and
stagnant pools of water resulting from drainage shall be treated as required by the
Virginia Department of Health to eliminate breeding places Ior mosquitoes and other
insects.
Draft: 04/16/02
No fill or :waste area shall be located either within the flood ha?ardovertay district,
stream buttbr area a~q
inert materials. The
Each borrow, fill or waste, area. shall, be reclaimedwithin seven 17. da: s of_
. onzed by the.
program authority I6r reclamation activities of a seasonal nature. Reclamatior~ shall
inclUde, but nOt be limited t°, restOrin~ the area so that ital~ roximates natural
contours; sba m and sic in the area to satis ' the re Uirements of subsection
~n ~rder to
vegetative grom~ ~,
minimum depth of clean Iill to one (1)' t6ot if the area is un Ii kely to be redeveloperl
for or waste
or
shall be based on unit
all
exceeds the of the surety. Within sixty (60) days
after the. reclamation work is completed and inspected and approved byth~ co ~unty
engineer, .the bond or other surety, or any unexl~ended or unobligated portion the{eof
shall be refunded to the owner. ·
b. If the aggregate area of a borrow, fill or waste activity will be greater than ten thousand
(10,000) square/bet, then, as pm of any pcmtit issued pursuant to sectiOn 17-207 of th¢
Code of Albemarle, the program authority sba Il Iirst approve a Clan or a narrative
such aCtivit that satisties the re uirements of subsection a and the lblloWing:
1. All inert materials shall be transported in compliance with section 13-301 of the Code
ct' Albemarle. Bet0re a transporting vehicle leaves the parcel or parcels on which the
borrow, till or waSte area is located, it shall be cleaned so that no inert materials
oUtsi
Draft: 04/16/02
2. The borrow fill or waste area and the access roads thereto shall be treated or
acent
3. Borrow, fill or waste activity
be
shall be conducted in a safe manner that maintains
5. The placement of fill or waste shall be completed within one(!) year of its
commencement, except I6r reclamation actiVities and any other activities associated
with the tinal stabili?ation of the area. The program authority may extend the date of
completiOn upon the written request of the applicant, demonstrating that I~tctors
beyc~nd the control of the applicant prevente[1 the completion within the one-year -
period. The Program authority may then eXtend the permit fbr a period of time that,
in its sole discretion, is determined adequate to complete the work.
6. In lieu of a plan or narrative, the program authority may accept a contractual
agreement between the Virginia Department of Transportation and its contractor for a
PagUblic road project; provided that the program authority det~mmies that the
reement satisfies at least to an equivalent extent the requiremetas and intent of this
section.
........ h~ ......... a ~ -~,- ~nd/er n~t~ve fer such ~ct~v:ty in acserd-_nce
fol!ev. Sng ...........
-ot)
Draft: 04/16/02
!0-3
4. The o~ea of such acff~4~, "_nd access reo4~- +~ereto ~on be treated er
from the o_~Hcant to f~cHitate s"_ch review. (Amended
4
Draft: 04/16/02
ef this sect;mn. ()~mended ! 0-7-0 !)
(Added 7-6 83)
(§ 5.1.28, 12-10-80, 7-6-83; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing ,~-iting is a tree, correct copy. of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
__ to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Martin
'Mr. Perkins
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department o£ Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
May 7, 2002
Katurah R0ell
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: ZTA-01-06 Fill & Waste
Dear Mr. Roell:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 30, 2002, by a vote of 5-2,
recommended approval of the above-noted zoning text amendment as recommended by staff. However,
they expressly stated that asphalt materials will not be allowed within the definition of inert materials. The
County Attorney's office will be revising the recommended text amendment prior to tt~e Board of
Supervisors meeting.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this amendment at their June 5, 2002 meeting.
Pubic hearing items for this meeting will begin at 1:30 in Meeting Room 241, Second Floor, County Office
Building.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Planner
MB/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
05-10-02Al1:14 RCVD
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
ZTA,-2001-06. Fill and waste.
NAME (Please print clearly)
8
9
10
11
'12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)
ZTA 01-06 Fill and Waste
Statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, June 5, 2002
I am Jeff Werner and I am speaking for the Piedmont Environmental Council.
Asphalt is a.petrochemical product. I am not an organic chemist, but I know that petrochemical products are not
inert. I also know that asphalt is a highly recyclable material. There are numerous websites and advertisements
for asphalt recycling so it is not some cottage industry for tree-huggers. I would hope that no decision by the
County would ever incentivize dumping in lieu of recycling.
I read the report that was included in your Board package. With all due respect to the Engineering Department,
their comments relative to environmental risks are opinions not facts and I hope that this letter does not serve as
the rationale for including asphalt in'this ZTA.
The letter states that no conclusive evidence was found to suggest that asphalt is harmful to the environment.
Few credible scientists would base a conclusion on a lack of evidence that neither rejects nor supports a
hypothesis. In short, the proper conclusion on whether or not it is environmentally acceptable to openly dump
asphalt must come from clear evidence not a lack of it. Most certainly, approval should not be granted as a
default in the face of conflicting information.
I conducted my own level of"research" and I found a mixed bag of pros, cons, and inconclusive views. In fact,
based on logic alone, I had generally reached a conclusion similar to the Engineering Department. This stuff is
already everywhere, what's the big deal? Then I came across a report for Army Corps of Engineers that stated,
"In the most recent revision of the nationwide general permit conditions, the list of 'unsuitable' forms of fill
material has been expanded to include 'asphalt.'" There must be a reason for this conclusion and I humbly
suggest 'that before the County makes this decision, it might be worthwhile to find out what that reason was.
The Engineering letter discusses alternatives. As a former general contractor, I can attest to the fact that on some.
projects, it is near impossible to separate waste. For some projects, I would support the letter's conclusions.
However, this ZTA is for all_ projects and if approved as worded, I must ask this. que'stion. The next time a road
is stripped and paved in Albemarle County, will the old material be recYcled or dumped onto a rural field
because that means of disposal is cheaper and more convenient for the contractor? Furthermore, to suggest that
this should be legalized as it is already being done illegally is logic that I have difficulty following. To suggest
that the proper disposal of construction materials will inflate development costs concerns me. What will be the
- next legitimate code item that should be relaxed? If we can't expect better in this County, where can one expect
it?
The letter discusses the economic disadvantages of proper disposal versus dumping it in a field. A good
contractor accounts for all known costs when estimating a project. This includes accounting for the proper
handling and disposal of construction materials. Any contactor that anticipates ignoring a law but later loses
money after being forced to comply is not someone that I would have sympathy for. Nor should they get
sympathy from a legitimate contractor that maybe lost the original bid because they considered the regulations
in their initial job costing~
In conclusion, it is the PEC's opinion that this question must be discussed on one level and one level alone. Is it
in the interest of this community--not just the construction community--to allow asphalt to be dumped on our
countryside? In all honesty, it really won't trouble me if a thorough and conscientious analysis shows that this
stuff is as inert and harm~!ess as concrete and brick. What troubles me is that some rather shaky arguments have
been forwarded to ~dv0cate for rural dumping over recycling or proper disposal. If the logic presented is to be
adhered to, then I wonder how long until we can legally dump things like inert fiberglass insulation, non-
biodegradable asphalt roof shingles and other environmentally stable items such as old tires and used appliances.
' Asphalt Pavement Recycling
httP://www, ciwmb.ca, gov/Publications/ConDemo/43195067.doc
RECLAIMED ASPHALT PAVEMENT Material Description
http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/re%rcte/waste/rap 131.htm
RECLAIMED ASPHALT PAVEMENT User Guideline
http ://www.t fhrc. gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/rap 135.htm
EVALUATION OF RAP FOR USE AS A CLEAN FILL
http://www:asphaltinstitute.org/environ/leachrap.html
EVALUATION OF HOT MIX ASPHALT OR LEACHABILITY
http://www.asphaltinstitute.org/environ/leachma, html
ASPHALT USE IN WATER ENVIRONMENTS
http://www.asphaltinstitute.org/environ/is- 186.html
Waste Asphalt Doesn't Pollute Groundwater, UF Researchers Say
http://www.junkscience.com/news2/asphalt.htm
Workers build up piles of the old pavement, and concerns have been raised about rain water filtering through the
piles and leaching toxins into groundwater, Page said. Because of these concerns, DOT does not commonly use
the material as fill, he said.
Federal Register: April 20, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 77)
From the Federal Register Online Via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
Department of Defense
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
33 CFR Part 323
http ://www.epa. gov/fedrgstr/EP A-W A TER/2000/April/Dav-20/w9940.htm
3. Suitable material ......... In the most recent revision of the nationwide general permit conditions, the list of
"unsuitable" forms of fill material has been expanded to include "asphak." (See 65 FR Page 12896, March 9,
2000).
Asphalt Recycling & Reclaiming Association
PMB 250
#3 Church Circle, Suite 250
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Telephone: 410-267-0023
Fax: 410-267-7546
E-Mail krissoff(-¢_ ~arra.org
http://www.arra.org
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETINt3
Clerk's lnitialsL.· {r,~?/ _
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID P. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SAI,LY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORR1ER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
-compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden 'from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change, could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded.
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote~N~O
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general weffare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
12) ~-
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAV~ P. SOWEaM~N
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landffil/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos - as
well. as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 'of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
Address
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lO)
11)
12)
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID P. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLE S~RTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
R ·
F OM. CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006' is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widesprg~d
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of,~aste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs~
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbesto~ - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
Address
,.~<~, - . ~...~ -_ . ~ -~.~ .~ -
10)
ii)
12)
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID P. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
guy attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to usc the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about: the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; .asbestos - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout thc county that-would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
6)
7)
S)
9)
10)
11)
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID P. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE TllE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as yoUr fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.2t.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
me ,
$)
Address
6)
7)
8) ,
9)
10)
12)
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID P. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
- lt' has come to our attentiOn that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNE D,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
Name
6) 0
Address
7)
8)
9)
10)
i2)
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAV/D P. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
9)
10)
11)
12)
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID P. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS~ Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs,
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vOte NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place lbr the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
Name
3)
5)
Address
6)
7)
8)
9)
~o)
11)
12)
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID ?. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that woUld Weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general weffare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
Name Address
3) ..
s)
9)
10)
11)
12)
OPEN LETTER OF
PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF 'SUPERVISORS: °Av~ p. ~owE~
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the !aws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
11)
12)
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID P. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
'~ TITLE: Fill and waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the countv. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITO~RED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
a ress
4)
$)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lO)
11)
12)
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID P. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namelv "AGENDA
I'ITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITO~RED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the ID, Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
.... compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
1)
3)
4)
5'
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
Name Address
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID P. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namelv "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UN, MANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
'i" "_ _ "We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity;' both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos- as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra~-
state ng as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dm te county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO C to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that-
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
Name
1)
2)
Address
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID P. BOW. ERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. M~RTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE: Fill and Waste ZTAOI-O06" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
any attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throughout the county. WE
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The Ivy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long and short term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos -as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden fro,m., sight but not from the winds;
and
chemical~and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughout the county that would be an easy target to dump anything at anytime.
We, as your fellow citizens, implore you as our County Supervisors to allow
NO CHANGES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that changes or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
generalwelfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
Name Address
~~ o. ~W,E.~ -P.o.~x ca/ /~-~evs~,~e~ V,~
) ~ c~ t c~~ 'zz~: ' - - - :-'
OPEN LETTER OF PETITION
TO: THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: DAVID P. BOWERMAN
DENNIS ROOKER MRS. SALLY H. THOMAS Chairman CHARLES. MARTIN
LINDSAY G. DORRIER, JR., Vice-chair WALTER F. PERKINS
FROM: CONCERNED ALBEMARLE CO. RESIdENTS/TAXPAYERS
It has come to our attention that a change to our ZONING LAWS, namely "AGENDA
TITLE:Fill and Waste ZTA01-006" is being seriously considered. We strongly oppose
.. anY attempt that would weaken the existing law and that would allow widespread
dumping of construction waste and debris throuahotit the conntv
PARTICULARLY OPPOSE THE PROSPECT OF UNMONITORED,
UNMANNED,UNREGULATED SITES.
The IVy Landfill/Transfer Station has, and still does, accept this kind of waste. And
the Ivy Landfill IS MONITORED, MANNED, AND REGULATED and there is no
compelling need or reason not to use the Landfill for Albemarle's dumping needs.
We have many concerns about the proposed amendment including: toxicity; both
long andshort term ground water pollution; increased rodent infestation; asbestos - as
well as other airborne carcinogen - dumping hidden from sight but not from the winds;
and chemical and Bio-Hazards. This amendment change could also easily lead to intra-
state toxic dumping as there would inevitably be many unfenced, ungated, unguarded
dumps throughouf the county tha! would be an easy target to d~mp anything at anytime.
~ We, as your fellow citizens, ~mplore you as our COunty sUPervisors to allow
NO CHA GES to Section 30.3.05.1.1 of the Zoning Ordin;~ee and to vote NO
Against ZTA 01-006 and anything similar that i~hanges or weakens our current laws
concerning Fill and Waste. In addition, We would very much like to see the laws that
currently exist concerning illegal dumping, laws that are in place for the protection and
general welfare of the residents of Albemarle County, be actively enforced. Signed:
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
~enda Item #:, ~ -
Clerk's Initials:, ~
Points of Opposition to Fill and Waste ZTA 01~006
[~ Mentioning Tree trunks in the staff report from engineering as an
inappropriate fill material highlights a concern about using demolition
materials for fill. The reason tree trunks are not appropriate is because
they eventually degrade and form a soft pocket, which can lead to
settling, sink holes, and much damage to structures and roadways built
over this fill. By the same token, large slabs of concrete and asphalt,
which are not properly broken and compacted, will over time and under
pressure of buildings and roadways, crack and collapse causing the
same problems. The Zoning Text Amendment does not address the
issue of proper compaction, and due to the impossibility of monitoring a
myriad of dumpsites it is likely that there would be a failure of proper
compaction methods. Is the county ready to accept liability down the
road when there is a failure of the fill to stand up to the test of time and
weight?
~The asphalt used in the California Reservoirs is a special Hot Mix
asphalt NOT contaminated demolition material. It is new material,
specifically designed, applied, and compacted for these specific
projects and NOT simply material torn up from roadways, parking lots,
and gas station pavements. Comparing the 2 in terms of leachage is
misleading and totally inappropriate. One only need to check the
website of the Asphalt Institute, which is very PRO asphalt, to find the
differences between this application and fill use of old asphalt. In
addition, the studies cited as promoting use of asphalt as fill clarify that
they do not take into account contamination from spills, etc. We are
talking about gas and oil spills and leaks, anti-freeze leaks, asbestos
fines from brake pads, and many other possible contaminates. If there
is a question as to the safety we should err in the side of caution and
NOT change the zoning laws simply to accommodate large developers
and contractors who do not want to dispose of their material in a legal
manner. In addition, asphalt is a material that is one of the most easily
and efficiently recycled products. It is also in high demand. Why would
the county discourage such efforts to recycle the materials in order to
make it easier for a certain class of businessmen? Surely Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority could use the tipping fees generated by disposal as
much as the contractOrs could use the extra money. Certainly the
county does not wish to be in the position of subsidizing contractors
rather than supporting our waste disposal services. Every dollar that
the RSWA collects at Ivy is a dollar that the city and county does not
have to give to the RSWA to keep them afloat. Also, if it is difficult and
expensive to dispose of asphalt there is an, increased incentive to
recycle and or re-use it. The county has an interest in recycling. What
interest does the county have in subsidizing the profits of developers?
[~ When discussing the contamination in Asphalt, we must also
recognize that used concrete also carries contains contaminants and
materials that deteriorate. If you have ever gotten out at a 7-1 1 and
been inclined to be very cautious where you put your feet, you know
that concrete can also harbor contaminates that one would not want
leaching into the environment. We are not discussing clean concrete
here--,-it is old, probably contaminated material. It is fine to say that
contaminated materials will be screened but the reality is if there are
unmonitored sites the contractors WILL NOT uniformly separate
materials. The county currently finds it difficult to keep up with
monitoring illegal dump sites and farm road fill for contaminates. One
only need peruse county records to discover many such violations, as
well as many instances of contractors pushing the envelope of
illegality. Can we assume that everyone who takes advantage of this
backyard dumping amendment will act pure as the driven snow. Nope,
don't think so. It is hard to believe that adding to the number of dump
sites is a reasonable thing to do. Are we as taxpayers going to be liable
for cleanup or contamination issues due to accepting a fill that has a
high chance of having contaminates?
[~ After 4 plus years of drought conditions there are many small
washes and seasonal springs that are dry. By changing the zoning
laws to encourage filling, these areas can be considered to be available
to be reclaimed by dumping and covering. They would not be at all
monitored if the surface area was under 10,000 square feet, regardless
of the depth of the fill. It is an inappropriate change to consider. We also
need to wonder what will occur when the dry conditions are alleviated.
Are these wet weather springs and wash areas going to degrade the fill
from underneath? Are the contaminants in the fill going to be subject to
washing through? There are too many sites such as this in the county
that could be affected, and when a problem appears years later who will
be liable? The contractor will have been unregulated in the dumping,
have come and gone, and the property may have changed hands more
than once. Suppose a wash is filled, covered and vegetation has grown.
It was not properly compacted, and the dry spring starts running agin
after the water table has recovered. The land is sold. A house is built.
Due to the weight of the structure and the infiltration of water we have a
great potential for contanimation as well as severe settling. In addition
what about drain fields and wells? Are all sites going to be noted so that
when there is building on them wells Would not be drilled too close to
sites with contaminates? Will there be notations so that drain field
contruction will not run into snags? Is the county going to keep a
database of fill areas and have them engineer tested prior to allowing
building on them? This ZTA leaves too many questions open and offers
no one other than the developers and contractors any benefiL
[~ln rural areas we need to deal with separate issues also. Suppose I
want to start a small scale organic truck farm. Without knowing I
purchase a property that has been used as a dump site, or next to a
site. In soil testing what might be found down grade from this site? Who
is responsible for insuring that these issues will not come up? Another
issue is the water displacement. While we have been in drought
conditions recently and many washes have been dry, what will happen
when they are filled and the water must go elsewhere? Since these
sites will be unmonitored if they fall below 10,000 square feet the county
may not even be aware of them. So again, who is liable?
[~The engineer'S report asks the question why asphalt pavement is
considered an acceptable risk while fill is not. To me this is a no-brainer.
We have a NEED for roads and parking lots that at the current time can
only be met by concrete and asphalt. We make the trade off. We do not
NEED to have dump sites scattered all over the county at the will of
contractors. We do not need to subsidize contractors who simply do not
want to use available options for waste disposal. The engineer's report
also goes to great lengths to explain why it is not fun for contractors to
abide by the law. One of his conclusions is that they dump illegally,
therefore make it legal. My conclusion is to enforce the penalties and
insist on compliance with the current law so they will not be tempted to
continue the practice. As far as erosion control, there are many
preferred remedies for this problem, none of which involve the dumping
of waste and debris. The prospect of having contaminants scattered all
over the county, Whether covered or not, is not pleasant. The health
risks are not as minimal as one would think. An issue as simple as the
rodent haven provided by open fill is not addressed here. The
engineer's report also addresses the desire to minimalize disturbance in
rural areas by the decreased need for borrow pits. The problem with
that reasoning is that the rural areas will be the areas most likely
subjected to this dumping of demolition debris, especially out of site
areas that can be used as a repository for dumping from who knows
what demolition project. The engineer's report also mentions the
economics of separating waste materials. I agree with his conclusion
that is will be a problem and for this very reason encourage the county
to reject this ZTA in entirety, as the separation process will most likely
fail: Many materials that are not appropriate will not be separated.
Administering and enforcing this ZTA will create real costs to the
county and community at large. It appears that it is strictly for the benefit
of contractors who would like the county to subsidize their businesses.
The county certainly does not seem to have a problem with too little
growth; so it is not as though we need to beg these contractors to come
here through monetary incentives. Just consider: Who is sponsoring
this ZTA? And ask? Has RSWA been consulted for their input? Does
the county truly benefit from the increased risk and liability? Do we
really want to add a new tier to the enforcement demands that zoning
and engineering currently face?
~1 live next to a dump site. The dumping has been going on for
several years and has been a rodent haven, and eyesore, and a
drainage problem. The trucks rumbling in have been intrusive and the
dust has raised a real frustration. There was material dumped that was
not approved fill, and when the county tried to make contact the
owner/contractor ran trucks of dirt way into the night to cover it up and
then cry farm road. The county has evidently been powerless to do
anything about it since the dumper has designated the site as a farm
road. It is obvious to anyone that it is a farm road to nowhere, but the
law seems to have this loophole. For the county to consider allowing the
creation of more such offensive uses of the land is beyond my
understanding. Albemarle should recognize that it has a stake in the
aesthetics within the county, and this is not moving in the right direction.
[~ Does anyone at all question the origination of this amendment? The
Virginia Land Company, a very large and profitable company, has
requested the county dilute its ordinances to suit their bottom line. I
personally am rather offended that the county would spend the time,
money, and resources to even entertain this change when it would
benefit only a select number. Using as a reason that the county regs
ore more restrictive than what the state allows is a non-reason. In our
chools do we only seek to offer our students what the state requires or
a step further? There is no adequate reasoning behind that
j~Jstification. As far as the reasoning of wasting petroleum to transport
that too holds little water. The material will have to be transporte~l
somewhere, and in the case of asphalt, declining to recycle surely
wastes petroleum. The argument about changing the zoning laws to
revent illegal dumping by making dumping legal does not hold water
ither. Unless the county plans to supervise each and every load that is
dumped the bottom line is that the sites will be no better than illegal
umping. Has anyone on staff researched the background of illegal
umping, or found out where the material is actually being disposed of
(~urrently? These are questions that should be answered prior to
8onsidering this amendment.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
05-29-02?03:00 RCVD
~ ^~un& TITI F'_ = AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
II ~pI~3POSALIREQUEST: I CONSENT AGENDA:
I[ ~'°~e'i~d~ ~l~vt:ln~s-t~-S u pplement C° nstituti°nal Officers' staff t ACTION: INFORMATION:
Il ........ ~ i ATTACHMENTS: No
BACKGROUN._ _ D:
~,t the May 8th meeting, the Commonwealth Attorney, Mr. Jim Camblos, presented a written request to the Board, signed also
by Sheriff Ed Robb and Circuit Court Clerk Shelby Marshall, asking for a pay increase for their staffs to offset the lack of any
salary increase from the state for FY03. In response to this request, the Board asked staff to provide some alternatives at the
June 5~ meeting.
DISCU__SSION:
Currently the state provides approximately 71% of the total salary and benefit costs for all the constitutional officers and their
staff, with the remaining 29% coming from local sources. For the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, the County pays
approximately 18% of the salary and benefit costs. In addition to a 2% stipend for everyone, six out of seven staff members
receive a fiat stipend, some of which are attached to the position and some of which are attached only to the current staff
member in that position. These stipends have been granted at different times for retention purposes, as well as equity concerns
with the County Attorney's staff. The County also pays approximately 18% of the salary and benefit costs for all Circuit Court
Clerk staff members, who all receive a 2% stipend on top of their state salaries. The Sheriff's deputies receive a 6% stipend
on top of their state salaries with the County paying approximately 40% of compensation and benefits (this includes six locally
funded positions). None of the Constitutional Officers themselves, i.e. Sheriff, Clerk and Commonwealth Attorney, receive a
stipend, but receive the salary set by the state budget act. The Registrar had been receiving a 5% stipend up until this year,
but during budget work sessions, the Board approved a 10% stipend upon the Registrar's request.
The current system of administering differing levels of compensation to the various constitutional officers' staffs is difficult to
mai ntain and creates inconsistencies among the different offices. Many of the past adjustments were recommended to bring
salaries up to market and/or to address retention or equity issues with county scale positions. However, each year any logical
schedule or system of salary enhancements can be sidetracked by what the state decides to give or not give. Comparable
market data for these positions has not been collected or updated since 1999.
In the absence of a comprehensive and market driven analysis of constitutional officers staff salaries, the following two short-
term options are presented for your review and consideration:
Option 1. Provide a one-time 2.5% bonus to all constitutional officer staff members, which is comparable to what the State is
doing for all other state employees in FY03. Although this does not address many of the commonality or market issues raised
by Mr. Camblos, the constitutional officer staff positions could be part of the market data collected over the summer with a
Ion get-term solution deferred until the following year. Placing the constitutional officer staffs on the County payroll plan would
require a more in depth analysis than is possible before the start of the fiscal year this July. Therefore, the one-time bonus
could be a short -term solution until staff could analyze a longer-term solution and present it to the Board. The cost of this one-
time option for FY03 is $48,176.
Option 2. Increase Sheriff percentage stipends by 1.5% (from 6% to 7.5%) and increase Clerk of the Circuit Court and
Commonwealth Attorney's stipends (excluding flat stipends) by 1.8% (from 2.0% to 3.8%). This option provides a 3.8%
: Officers' Staff
compensation - Constitutional
June 5, 2002
· e 2 ' F¥03 This option
Pag . ,._. ~.., County employees~_~n~ ~fin;nd than the
, o fit oot rece!vuu ~:. .. ~rner percema9° ~' 7 ...... ~ine~d
. . . .ncrease, tothe.3.sY~me ~ alrea~yre~eW~_~5%ootionorthentg"~'~"~
e ~n s~ze. not ~0. t · e urges, s~nce th ~. s~m~tar tu ,, .... ~7 in ~03.
· ¢ is comparabt . to me Sheriff d_~ tion adjustment .......... d cost $22,~-,-
st,pe~_th · ht~ sma~er 'ncr~.~a a one-time ~u~pe~ .... ars. This opt,on ~
others. ~"?~%..~, i-to their annua~ o0,-, ¢ -
coutd atso be Du.. ,,,
number o~ other permuta6ons with their associated costs coed be
and $22,447 for Option 2. Shoed the Board
~ here and obviously a ..... ~or Ootion I ....... .l~theo~ces or dacethem°n
Only ~o options are presented _, . FY03 costot ~o,.~.,~,~ commonattty am~-~ Resources
..... the anbc~pat~d -~ ish compuuo ..... by the Human
develope~ th~ ,~,,e be,~;; anatysis that would est.-t included in the market study undedaken
be interested ~n a longer g propose thc they be
the county pay scare, staff woutd
Depadment this summer.
02.081 2
Form.'3
7/2'5/86
· reas ·
2. 'Possible Discussion TOpiCs:
·
Neighborhood Model: (DISC) and
the
· Recommendation
develop
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
THE NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL
BUILDING BLOCK FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY'S
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
THE 12 PRINCIPLES
FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT,
AND FOR
MASTER PLANNING THE
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
As TAKEN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD MODEl-.
ADOPTED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON MAY 16, 2001
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
Principles of the Neighborhood Model
This vision of how the Development Areas should develop is the Neighborhood Model
Embodied in the model are 12 principles, which emerged from the Land Use Plan and the
goals for the Development Areas.
The following pages illustrate the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model. The Neigh-
borhood Model was adopted on May 16, 2001. For more information please see the entire docmm~
which is available in the Albemarle County Department of Plauning and Community Development.
1
Principles of the Neighborhood Model:
1. Pedestrian Orientation
2. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
3. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks
4. Parks and Open Space
5. Neighborhood Centers
6. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
7. Relegated Parking
8. Mixture of Uses
9. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability
10. Redevelopment
1 I.Site Planning That Respects Terrain
12. Clear BoUndaries with the Rural Areas
2
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Are~,,~
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
1. PEDESTRIAN ORIENTATION
The Neighborhood Model proposes
a walkable communiO: with
sidewalks and paths provided in
new development and a varie~ of
destinations within a five-mimtte
walk for residents. Pedestrian
orientation requires a high degree
of coordination among the other
principles. All elements -- densiO;
building placement, street and path
connections, mzrture qf use$-
must be designed with pedestrians
m mind The'result shouM be a
walkable communin' that
remfomes all qf the other goals for
the ne~hborhood
Pedestrian orientation, by definition, is designing
ne?ghborhoods at a human scale. Walking is
convenient only when all of the elements of
development fit the proper dimensions. A true test
ofwalkability is when children can safely walk or
bike to school or activities rather than being driven.
Another test is the ability of someone to walk to
wodc
Providing sidewalks is only one part oftbe picture.
Streets must also be connected to offer various
routes. Density is needed topmvide destinations.
Siting parking .lots behind buildings gives
pedeslrians a shorter and safer approach. Trees
along streets and in parking lots provide shade and
make walking comfocuable. Mixed uses place
destinations in walking distance of residents.
Paths and open space make walking safe and
pleasant. As the list below shows, the entire form
of the neighborhood determines whether people
will find walking useful and pleasant.
What Pedestrians Need:
· Convenience and Safety- continuous
sidewalks and paths that are short and at
clearly defined crossings
- Destinations- mixture of uses with buildings
close to the sidewalk and to each other that are
reachable from a variety of routes
· Comfort- trees, shelters, and other
streetscape elements
Figure 2:4 (Iqft) Sidewal-ks~
lined with reMdences and
wide enough to walk two
abreo~st such as this example
in Kentland& Mao,land,
invite pedestrian activity and
help to animate a
netghborhood. While this
example features brick
paving, the Neighborhood
Model does not _favor one
paving material over
another
Figures 2:5
and 2:6 show a
narrowed
pavement width.
sidewalks
;adjacent to
street, street
trees and houses
closer to the
street in a photo
enhancement of
a conventional
suburban
neighborhoo~
Illustrations
courtesy ~/'the
Pennsylvania
State Uinversio'.
Departme,t of
Landscape
,4rchitectura.
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
Figure 2:7 Chew). Chase.
Matytand demonstrates
mare' q/' the principles of
the Neighborhood Model as
it pertains to the making of
welI-deJined streets In an
American context. Any
number of elements.
including a row of street
trees, and a white picket
Jbnce at the properO' line
dq/ines the space of the
street. In addition, the
house is set close enottgb to
its pont properO, line so
that conYersatioH between
passersby is possible when
people are seated on the
.lront ,9orch.
2. NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY
STREETS AND PATHS
777e Neighborhood Modet proposes
that road desi~7 addresses character
and appearance as well as design
speed and capaciO: Specjficall3;
streets should 1j be narrower. 2)
include streetscape elements such as
street trees, 3) provide paths for
pedestrians and bicyclists. 4) allow
better distribution of traffic, and 5)
accommodate potential pubtic
tr'ansportation connections, These
changes would make transportaliot~
routes work better. Iht all citizens.
not just those tn cars.
Roads make up thelargest component of public
open space. Typically, traffic engineers have
designed roads based on capacity. Less
recognized is how much roads influence the
character of an area and how much they are a
setting for human activity.
Reducing required street widths has a number of
advantages. Narrower pavement area can enhance
property values, provide public amenities, do less
environmental damage, and increase pedestrian
safety. Alleys. forexample, greatlyimprovethe
network without requinng wide pavement.
Providing just as good a network for bicyclists and
pedestrians makes long-term sense, particularly in
combination with planned public transportation
connections. Bike paths can be sited along roads
and also as part of greenways or other path
systems. Steep terrain for example, can make
pedestrian paths a sensible alternative to excessive
roadcuts.
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
Advantages of Reduced Road Width:
Reduced water pollUtion. Roadways are a major
contributor of erosion and water pollution and
narrower streets have less impervious surface than
wider streets.
Enhanced Pedestrian Safety. In some instances,
narrow residential su'eets may be safer than wider
ones. Drivers tend to drive slower when streets are
narrower. Slower speeds give drivers more reaction
time to avoid accidents, and reduce the severity of
injury when there are accidents.
Reduced Cost. Reducing pavement width should
produce a pm-mm savings on the cost of the mad.
Cleanng and grading costs also would be less, as
would long-term maintenance.
Figure 2:g P~ew of narrow
street qf new townhornes in
Kentlands. Ma~. Iand.
Figure 2:9 These two
upper and loss, er
alternatives depict identical
densities and land uses.
However. the bottom half
provides interconnectivit),
through a network of
thoroughfares minimizing
travel distances and the
burden on an), one road.
while assuring discrete
locations .for differing land
uses. The upper half relies
on a conventional cul-de-
sac. collector, and arterial
system .for planning
thoroughfares. Used with
permission. Duan); Ptater-
Zyberk. Architects.
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
3. INTERCONNECTED STREETS AND
TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS
The Neighborhood Model calls for
an interconnected network of streets
within new developments, and
connections with existing
development. This network is
essential to support the pedestrian
environment, mixed use
developments, and compact.
livable neighborhoods envisioned
for the Development Areas.
Conventional suburban development
uses a stem pattern of streets. Like a
tree, main branches (arterials) lead to
the mink but not to each other: stems
go to the branches (collector streets)
but are dead ends, with no other
connections. Travel is planned to be
most efficient from the outskirts to the
center. Often neighboring development
projects donor connect. With only
single routes available, traffic
congestion can lead to a demand for
increasingly wider arteries.
The Neighborhood Model suggests a
network of streets which is more web-
like, more adaptable, and less
vulnerable to pressures for widening.
Streets are interconnected within and
between developments, providing
multiple routes to any destination.
In addition to streets, pedestrian paths and
bikeways can interconnect areas. They do not
have to be vehicular in nature. For example, as
shown in the section on parks and open space,
open space corridors can link neighborhoods to
each other and to other sites. Bus and train
routes also provide for connection and,-when
used, reduce reliance on the single-occupancy
vehicle.
There are five types of transportation networks:
1) streets and roads. 2) pedestrian paths, 3)
bikeways, 4) bus routes, and 5) light rail lines.
Th e primary network is the road system and in
many cases the other networks will parallel the
roads.
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Area,Sr~:,~:,~; .
4. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
The Neighborhood Model proposes making
open space, integral to overall community
design. This should result in residents
having convenient access to parks, public
gathering places,, and natural views
whether they are at home, work or play.
The open space system should provide an
important framework for the organization
of development. It should serve as a
connective element to join different
development areas, in addition to
preserving important aspects of the natural
environment.
Open space includes recreational areas, public
gathering places, and natural and landscaped
areas. Communities need open space of various
size and functions. In conventional development,
however, many areas, particularly oflow-deusity
single-family housing, contain no open space or
recreational areas. Even when open space is
required as a ratio of housing umts to land area.
often the open areas are poorly sited afterthoughts.
Treating open space as integral to the design of the
community, opens the oppommity for providing all
of these types of open space efficiently and well.
Relating park areas.to larger open space systems,
for example, or extending preserved areas to
adjacent parcels can result in better-sited and more
productive open space. Similarly, locating parks or
gathering places adjacent to major destinations can
enhance safety and usage.
Size and location of open space should, reflect its
purpose. To provide recreation areas within
walking distance of all resident~ for example, small
mini-parks should be frequently spaced in
residential areas. Similarly in core areas, many small
gathering places are appropriate, such as plazas or
small courtyards. These plam~ and courtyards, in
addition to a major focal point, such as a "main
street." might serve as the heart of the community.
Landscaped areas can be spots of beauty and of
quiet enjoyment. Importanmamralareas like
stream comdors can be set aside to protect
environmentally sensitive areas and provide places
for recreation and enjoying the outdoors.
On a conmmnity level, green space can relate to the
underlying natural systems. This al~mach provides
the opportunity for simultaneously meeting diverse
goals such as stormwater management, groundwater
recharge, and habitat protection.
The design and location of open space determines
how fully it will be used. For example, a public
space framed by building fi'onts, surrounded by
neighborhood thoroughfares, and accessible to
nearby residents is inviting and safe. Such
principles of Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) can improve siting
decisions, as can such criteria as locating parks
near paths or major destinations like schools and
other public facilities.
Figure 2:10 To*~ Square.
New Be4[brd. New~brk-
Figure 2:11 Residential
Square at the head of a
stream valle), park.
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
NEIGHBORHOOD CV. NTERS
The Neighborhood Model proposes
an overall increase in density in the
Development Areas and suggests
that each neighborhood have a
designated center. Along with this
density would be changes in
community design to minimize
incompatibilities and provide
significant amenities. The overall
effect should be an increase in
appeal and livability of the
Development Areas.
A center is a focal point of a neighborhood. A mix
of uses is important to a neighborhood and usually,
the mix will occur at the center. The center is within
a 5-minute walk of other uses in the neighborhood.
The appearance and character of the center should
have a positive effect on the surrounding uses. In
some cases, a center will be a high-intensity area.
containing a mixture of businesses, services, public
facilities, and employment that connects to
residential.areas and attracts activities of all kinds.
Figure 2:12 The Square in Crozet. F~rginia.
A center may also take the form of park or
recreational area surrounded by residences. It
functions as a public place and a destination from
which activity emanates.
Figure 2:13 Sketch of King
Farm Town Center in
Rockville. Mctrytand. an
example o. f planning with
The Neighborhood Model.
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
6. BUILDINGS AND SPACES
OF HUMAN SCALE
To create livable urban areas,
buildings and spaces should be
attractive, and inviting. The
elements of building height,
setback, yards, architecture, and
spatial enclosure all contribute to
the appearance and function of a
place. When proportionate to the
human body and considered in
their context, buildings and spaces
of human scale improve the 7uality
of a place.
People like to be in places that are built
on a "human scale." In other words, the
proportions relate to the size of the
human body. A person can feel
overwhelmed in a place ofhigh-rise
buildings where so much enclosure
reduces light, air, and the ability to see to
Figure 2:14 Typical
Business Park Develop-
ment. The area is made
up of what have been
termed. "single family"
office buila~ngs. Each
building, surrounded ~v
parking., is an indepen-
dent object, not created
as part of a "whole."
Figure 2:15 Lucca.
Italy is ~pic?l q£ mom,,
European cities. It ts
composed in a manner
opposite to the ,typical
business pork above.
The space is the object.
and each budding is an
asset becmtse it
contribute~ to the
definition of the space.
Figure 2:16 First Street in
Charlottesville creates a
sense o./enclosure by the
proximity of buildings and
landscape to the street.
Coupled with the richness of
the architecture, the elements
create a charming
residential street.
The NeighbOrhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
Figure 2.'17 (left) This
street in Obidos. Portugal
is lined with the simplest
of whitewashed buildings.
The charm of the street
comes from its degree of
enclosure, its gentle
curvature, and a distant
view of the city ~ boundary
wall beyond. While such
narrow streets would not
work in an American
context, the.}, oiler a lesson
on the importance of
enclosure, carej'ul
building alignment, and
on the concept of the
space being more
significant than an5' of the
individual buildings along
the street.
Figure 2:18 (/br lq/?) )brk
Place on die Downtown
Mall in Charlottes*:ille tins a
residential density o/' 57 du/
acre pitts an additiongl
commercial density ot l.O
E4R (Floor Area Rather_
IgTffle the combined E4R
tcommercial plun residen-
tiaD ot approximate(v 2.5
wouhl he considerml h~zh by
current .41bemade Counn'
standards, it is indeed this
density: combined with the
huma. scale and propor-
tions qf I~' detai{ lhat
e~bles it to c'ont~bute to
the MaR~ sotse ot place.
For a discusshm qf E4R see
page 97
the top ora building. Similarly, open
areas with wide streets can overwhelm by
producing an expansive area only
suitable for cars. The interrelationship
among the elements of height and yards.
parking and architectural features affect
the scale ora development. The urban
design principles so evident in traditional
villages and towns are an excellent model.
Other good examples are The Lawn of the
University &Virginia, the Downtown
Mall, and the downtown of Crozet.
Spatial enclosure ~s essential to creating
such livable spaces. People tend to be
most comfortable outdoors when the
space is defined. Streets, like squares,
plazas, and greens, are like outdoor
rooms. This is why quaint European
villages are such a joy to experience even
when they are architecturally simple.
American streets are typically wider than
the buildings are tall. Street trees or other
elements, however, can be used to help
enclose the space and restore a
comfortable human scale. In fact, much
of the value added by the Neighborhood
Model stems from such improvements to
the character of streets and other spaces
that the public enters.
Figttre 2'.19 The 'Ahamont' in downtown
Charlottesville has a net densio~ of 88 .du/acr~ Neverthe-
less. it sits comfortably at the end o.f a residential street of
considerably less demi.tv providing an architectural focal
point at the street's terminus.
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
7. RV~C;AT~ P
The Neighborhood Model proposes
reassessingparking standarCls and
finding ways to make parking areas
less dominant from the street, Such
steps should improve the visual
character of the community and
make possible a more functional
and appealing pedestrian
environment.
Parking is critical to today's lifestyle. Generally,
however, parking areas are over-produced, poorly
sited, and unattractive. What is needed is for the
amount, location, and
character of parking to be
reassessed, Standards set for
the largest shopping period
o f the year result in.parking
spaces that are more often
empty than occupied. This is
because conventional
development
on parking capacity, The ?'"
typical location ofparking in
front of buildings ruins views
and discourages pedestrian
access by isolating buildings
far from the main sidewalk
and presenting a
monotonous and
inhospitable space,
Disadvantages of Excess Parking Areas
· raises cost to developers
· increases water pollution
· diminishes pedestrian environment
· wastes land
Ways to Reduce Excess Parking
· Use realistic parking standards, which would
result in fewer spaces for many uses} more spaces
in others.
· Place parking out of view.
· Fully use on-street parking.
· Encourage and allow shared parking.
Figure 2:20 Typical shopping
mall surrounde~ by parking lot.
Figure 2:21 M~ner Park
in Boca Raton, Florida,
Parallel parking ~s provided
for convemence and to stow
traffic. Structured parking
is provided behfnd the
building.
Figure 2:22 (right) This
shopping center in Florida
could have been designed as
a town center and connected
to residential
neighborhoods, had it been
designed as part oj'a
network of thoroughfares.
As it is. residents o. f the
adjacent community do not
have convenient access to
the shopping center. The
chain link.[bnce, 6 fi. high
wan and drainage ditch
separating the land uses
prevent the connectton.
Figure 2:23 (righO This
shopping center at the end
of a boulevard in Shaker
Heights, Ohio Jbrms a
· gateway to a residential
neighborhood. Uses can be
mixed by placing them in
close proximtO, and assuring
easr connection.
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
8. MIXTURE or UsEs
The Neighborhood Model allows
and encourages compatible uses
side by side. This mixture is the
key to the walkabili~ of the.
neighborhood and to achieving the
desired densities.
Just as older villages and towns contain a
mixture of uses, newer neighborhoods can
develop the same friendly blend of useful
services and close-in housing. Complementary
uses, such as those that have staggered hours
of operation, can make shared parking possible
and increase the efficiency of land use.
Conventional development of recent decades
rigorously separates land uses. Zoning
categories specify certain uses and exclude all
others. Buffers and setbacks further increase the
separation.
The Neighborhood Model, in contrast, plans for
compatible uses to be side by side. It is
beneficial to be able to live in close proximity to
work and to be ablem walk to a store fora loaf
of bread, a Cdp'of coffee or a video.
Figure 2:24 A new
apartment building tlr
Dallas with "lq/?" style
residential nnits over retail
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas ,, .
9. MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES
AND AFFORDABILITY WITH
Dreary
The Neighborhood Model proposes
mixed housing types and
incorporating affordable units
within the Development Areas.
13
Undermany zoning ordinances, large-lot single-
family houses are built in one area, smalMot,single
family houses are generally built in another area,
duplexes and townhouses are in a separate area,
and apartments are separate from all three of these
other housing types. This practice separates
different age groups and income levels in a
community and it often separates generations
within families, as they require specialized housing
at different points m a lifetime. By contrast, many
traditional American neighborhoods and towns
provide a mix of housing types within close
proximivy, often next door.
It is possible to have a mix of uses in today's
market and achieve diversity of housing within a
highly marketable development. Additionally,
providing housing in a range of sizes and styles
and prices makes sense especially because the
nuclear family (two parents and children) no longer
makes up the majority ofbouseholds. Housing
options need to fit the lifestyles and budgets of
retirees, sin~e parents, and others.
Rather than having affordable housing "enclaves;'
the physical form of"affordable" housing should
blend into the neighborhood and not stand out,
either for tack of quality or detail~ Units should be
scattered throughout the neighborhood rather than
concentrated in one place. Such uses as accessory
apartments and "live/work" units, with apartments
above grotmd-floor shops, add both affordable
units and variety m the neighborhood.
Figure 2:26 (above) A llve/work unit under cons.truction
in Kentlands. Maryland. The ground floor space is
available for a small professional o. ffice or small shop.
Figure 2:25 A dupl,,r unit
in Charleston. South
Carolina. Built for the
Housing Authority, it
resembles a typical
Charleston side porch house.
(Image from Good Neigh-
bors: Affordable Family
Housing)
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Ar_~--
10. REDEVELOPMENT
The Neighborhood Model
emphasizes re-using existing sites
and buildings rather than
expanding the Development Area
boundaries into the Rural Areas to
obtain more "raw" land. This
strategy encourages greater
efficiency in the use of land and
infrastructure, relievingpressure on
the Rural Areas and maintaining
value of existing neighborhoods.
Significant portions of the Development Areas
are'already developed today but, in time, may be
suitable for redevelopment or infill. These areas
represent additional lands over and above the
vacant developable areas. As land values
increase, under-performing shopping centers will
offer opportunities for retrofit, transforming the
entire site- buildings, parking lots, and roads
into appealing human-scale activity hubs.
The Master Planning process offers the
opportunity to recognize and plan for the
transformation of such sites into new mixed-use
centers. Another important category for
redevelopment is underused or vacant pockets
of land. "Infilling" these gaps provides the
opportunity for more efficient use of land and
resources by filling in gaps in the commumty.
Benefits of redevelopment:
· Redevelopment of existing sites will help
prevent sprawl elsewhere.
· Redevelopment may reduce visual blight.
· Utilities and roads are usually in place and can
cost the developer and the community less
than it would to provide extensions.
· Land is placed in a higher use, improving the
tax base.
e Redevelopment areas may include old
"centers" that can be revitalized, rather than
building new "centers".
Sites often contain parking areas large'enough
to support more mixed-use developmem.
Redevelopment offers the opportunity to
transform large "sprawl" type development
into a new form in keeping with the
Neighborhood Model.
Figure 2:27 Areas which
could oflbr greater densit, v
potentially in the J~tture b)'
adding residences and
relocating parking,
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas
11. SrrE PLm~ T~T RESPECTS
The Neighborhood Model calls for
sensitivity to existing terrain
through site design and architecture
that fits into grades. Where
sig~ficant re,grading is necessary,
reconstructed slopes are called for
that are attractive, functional, and
easy. to maintain. Minimizing
destruction of natural terrain will
help Albemarle County retain its
beautiful landscapes.
The topography of the Blue Ridge Mountains
and foothills poses specific challenges to
appl.ving the Neighborhood Model, but it also
holds opportunities. In fact, the natural changes
in topography can be the foundation for an
appealing built environment. Some steep sites
can be preserved as enclaves of green. On
others, clever development can create distinctive
and memorable building sites. When developing
on hillsides, however, care must be taken to
preserve prominent views for others to enjoy.
The Neighborhood Model must recognize both
the constraints and the opportunities of the
topography of Albemarle County. The 1/4-mile,
majesticall)
overlooking a neighborhood Parle
five-minute walk mustbeadapted in terms of
"uphill" and "downhill." Where diffiCUlt, steeply
sloping terrain will impact the distance that can
be covered in five or ten minutes, the distance
should be reduced in area. Pedestrian circulation
in these areas requires special consideration.
Roads in mountainous areas can become quite
steep and especially difficult to traverse even in
good weather. A good plan considering such
sites will often provide alternative paths for
circulation that are easier on the pedestrian and
more direct.
15
Figure 2:32 giew of
townhouse development.far
steeply sloping terrain.
Groupings of eight
townhouses are arranged to
form parking courts where
slopes make the provision oJ
rear all~.s impossible. ,4
, pedestrian stair is provided
as part of a garden sequence
in order to navigate terrain
much too great for vehicular
navigation. Access to the
upper areas by the disabled
is ajjbrded by an alternative
thoroughfare network that
navigates a more gently
sloped area of the s~te.
The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Area;
Figure 2:33,4n aerial view
O.~;[brd. England at the town
b-igure 2:34 Village of
Stemon. Scotlamt This
is a planned comrnu-
nitv ~vith a variety of
houxing sizes and
prices clustered around
a villa.~e .o. reen ~e!
within rollisE4 pastttres.
T/dx practtce ~nables
retentton q[' open space
a,d agricultural uses.
Tt~is village is
cons/stent with the
Neighborhood Model.
12. CLEAR BOUNDARIES WITH
THE RURAL AREAS
The Neighborhood Model propos~s
maintaining the existing borders to
the Development Areas and having
distinctive boundaries between the
Development Areas and the Rural
Areas. This principal increases the
incentives to build the Development
Areas efficiently while minimizing
threats to the Rural Areas.
Historically, towns and villages had discrete
boundaries, easily perceived on the landscape.
The clear edge between the urbanized areas and
the rural area beyond is often blurred, For
example, it is typical to apply a low-density
residential zoning as a "transition." Such
transitional areas rarely possess the physical
beauty and natural amenity of the rural areas
they replace, nor do they offer the amenities or
sense of community of the adjacent town.
Instead development often takes place in a way
that creates neither "town" nor "country" and
not a community~ Such.transitional zoning is
discouraged for the Development Areas as
contrary to the Neighborhood Model.
In most instances, it is anticipated that
development will occur up to the boundary with
the Rural Area. New development in the
Development Areas should be sensitive to existing
development in the Rural Areas. There may be
circumstances in wMch a buffered area adjoiniflg
the Rural Areas is important for protection of
adjacent properties.
The direction of the 12 Principles for New Development, Redevelopment, and for
Master Planning the Development Areas needs to be determined soonest! They
need to become ordinances or maybe its time to move on*. This needs to be resolved
by the Board of Supervisors so the School Board can understand the implications
for the Capital Improvement Program and to aid the School Board in deciding on
school size, location, and the amount of land at the school site. All of this plays a
critical role in the School Board's redistricting decisions and ultimately can impact
the quality of instruction.
Other points:
This meeting is to build from our meeting last year with the Planning Commission.
We need to avoid any misunderstandings concerning the school design and location,
either by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors.
Time is now, especially with Crozet Master Plan occurring NOW. There are already
questions as to just what legal empowerrnent the commtmity has to affect the Crozet
growth area.
Yes, it involves Middle and High Schools from a ClP_point of_view.
It involves how the Boards address land for the school, especially if the location of
additional playing fields is at a site near but not at the school site.
2oo ,
6/17-
8/16 -
9/10 -
9/t3 -
9/25-26 -
9/30-10/11 -
10/16-17-
11/8 -
11/13-14 -
12/19 -
2003
1/14 -
2/4-
2/18 -
3/5 -
3/5 -
3/12 -
3/24 -
4/9 -
4/16 -
FY 2004-13 Capital Improvements Program Schedule (Draft),
FY 04-13 CIP Instructions & Forms sent to Departments, Agencies, School Div.
DepffAgency/School Div Project Justifications & Cost Data due to County Exec
Engineering Dept sends evaluations of CIP Project Requests to OMB
CIP Project Requests & Engineering Evaluations sent to the CIP Technical Review
Committee (TRC)
CIP Technical Review Committee (TRC) meets to review CIP Project Requests &
10-year Assessment
Agencies respond to TRC Questions & Comments
TRC meets to review CIP Project analyses, responses & initial CIP financial
overview
OMB prepares recommended CIP projects balanced to revenues for TRC
TRC meets to review draft CIP & make final recommendations
Recommended FY 04-13 CIP document (based on TRC action) prepared
Recommended CIP document sent to Planning Commission for comment
Planning Commission holds Work Session on CIP Recommendations
Planning Commission holds Public Hearing on CIP Recommendations (optional)
County Executive's FY 04 Recommended Budget & FY04-13 Recommended CIP/
10-yr Needs Assessment ~locuments sent to BOS
Planning Commission sends its recommendations on the CIP to BOS
Public Hearing on Recommended Budget & CIP
Board Work session - Proposed CIP
BOS Public Hearing on Proposed Budget, CIP & 2003 Tax Rate
Board Adopts FY 04 Budget, FY 04-08 CIP, and FY 09-13 Capital Needs
Assessment
DISTRIBUTED TO
JUN 0 5
BOS on
06-05-02P01:26 RCVD