2002-05-01May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 1,
2002, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Paul Grady, a resident of Crozet, said he spoke at the Boards November meeting about the
=
Material Utilization Facility and Cell #5 at the Ivy landfill. He tried to explain that by not building Cell #5
would increase the cost of housing in the western part of the County, as well as deny the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority (RSWA) the revenue stream it needs to continue the monitoring and cleanup of the older
part of the landfill. He said the RSWA is supposed to be a service authority, but all it is doing lately is
reducing services. After the public outcry last week at the public hearing on RSWAs budget, he hopes the
=
Board will revisit its November decision. He does not go the landfill as often as he used to go. He has a
dump truck that he would fill up with construction debris which he would take to the landfill, and then bring
home a load of mulch. He does not do that anymore. Also, the Encore Shop is about dead since its
stream of recycled building materials has about dried up, and its customer based depleted.
Mr. Grady said that about two years ago he spoke before the RSWA and suggested that the City
and County change their demolition ordinances to encourage contractors to dismantle buildings and
recycle as much of the construction material as possible. Since he has never heard anything more about it,
he assumes the idea never left this room. He said it is obvious the RSWA needs more money. It will cost
money to open Cell #5. However, if Cell #5 is not build, it will say to the Ivy Steering Committee that if you
sue a government entity long enough and often enough, eventually it will cave in and give you what you
want. That is a bad precedent.
Mr. Grady said the RSWA needs to have a reliable tax revenue stream other than tax dollars. The
community needs to commit itself to recycling building materials instead of turning their backs and shipping
them out of the area and abdicating their responsibility to recycle. RSWA should not give the impression of
caving-in to the Ivy Steering Committee. The future of recycling in this community should not hinge on the
cost of building Cell #5. In the long run, it would be cheaper to build Cell #5 than not to build it.
Mr. Grady next mentioned what he called a fiasco where VDOT cut trees on Route 250 West. He
thinks it is a horrendous mess. The stumps are already starting to sprout. He thinks Albemarle County
should take over its own road maintenance. He read in the newspaper where VDOT said they would plant
2000 dogwood trees along Route 250 West, but he has not seen even one tree planted to date.
Ms. Thomas said the Board can ask staff to look at a demolition ordinance, but as to Cell #5, that is
a decision that has already been made. She said the Board can discuss Route 250 West later on the
agenda under Highway Matters.
_______________
Non-Agenda. Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. John D. (Dan) Eggleston and asked that the Board
appoint him as Director of Fire/Rescue effective April 15, 2002.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to appoint Mr. John D. Eggleston as
Director of Fire/Rescue effective April 15, 2002. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr.
Rooker, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.11, and to accept the remaining matters on the Consent Agenda for
information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
__________
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 2001; January 16, February 6, February 20, March 6,
March 13, March 20 and April 17, 2002.
No minutes were approved for reading.
__________
Item 5.2. Proclamation recognizing May as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following proclamation
recognizing May as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month.
TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH
WHEREAS, the consequences of pregnancies to teens (between the ages of 10 and
19) and teen parenthood tend to lead to a greater chance of the mother's
dropping out of school, obtaining a poorer job and becoming dependent
on welfare;
WHEREAS, the children born to teen parents tend to have less supporting and
stimulating home environments, poorer health, lower cognitive
development, worse educational outcomes, more behavior problems, and
are more likely to become teen parents themselves; and
WHEREAS, the 1999 Community Strategic Plan for Preventing Teen Pregnancies and
STDs indicated that conservative estimates place the cost to our taxpayers
of each teen birth at $37,000 over the lifetime of the mother and child; and
WHEREAS, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexually active teen using no
contraception over the course of a year has a 90 percent chance of
pregnancy; and
WHEREAS, the teen pregnancy rate in Albemarle County increased by more than 25
percent between 1996 and 1999, which calls for increased support for our
community's prevention programs; and
WHEREAS, teens sexual activity leads not only to unwanted pregnancies but
increasingly to sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS; and
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to increase knowledge and awareness of issues
related to teen pregnancy among young people, parents, youth leaders
and others;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize
MAY, 2002 as
TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH
and call its importance to the attention of all our citizens.
(Ms. Thomas read the following proclamation into the record, and then presented same to Ms.
Laurie McDade.
Ms. McDade accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Teen Pregnancy and STD Prevention
Work Group of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families. She said she has
been working for this group for a little over a year, and has worked with many individuals from Albemarle
County, particularly in the School System. She said teen pregnancy is beginning to occur less often in
Albemarle County. In 1999 the rate was 22.6 to 1000 females. In 2000, it was 18.4 for every 1000
females. That is better than four-fifths of all Virginia localities. It is an indicator that the Boards support of
=
prevention programs, the good Family Life curriculum in Albemarle County schools, and the schools
willingness to utilize lesser things like the Teen Help Card which provides teens with resources they need to
prevent teen pregnancy is helping. She acknowledged the fact that County Schools have taken a vital step
in obtaining base line information which will be needed in the future to update and make sure the prevention
programs are pertinent and are the ones needed. She said the School Board has decided to include sexual
behavior questions in the 2001 Youth Risk Behavior Survey which is administered to County middle and
high school students. This survey which comes from the CDC has always contained a small number of
sexual questions, but for the first two years of the Countys administration of that survey, the questions were
=
left out. The results of the 2001 survey will be available in a couple of months. It will provide a needed
portrait of the extent and nature of sexual risk taking among Albemarle County youth. This information will
help determine if and what additional prevention programs are needed. She hopes the City of
Charlottesville will follow the County in obtaining this critical information. She thanked the Board for its
support and for proclaiming May as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month.)
__________
Item 5.3. Proclamation recognizing the week of May 12 through May 16, 2002, as Business
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Appreciation Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following proclamation
recognizing the week of May 12 through May 16, 2002, as Business Appreciation Week.
BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK 2002
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to
representing private enterprise, promoting business and enhancing the
quality of life in our community; and
WHEREAS, the overall quality of life of our community is directly and substantially
related to the continued vitality and success of private enterprise; and
WHEREAS, this dynamic Chamber, founded in 1913, today numbers 1,400 member
businesses and civic organizations, together employing more than 45,000
people in our community, representing an estimated total payroll of more
than $1.3 billion a year; and
WHEREAS, well beyond these direct employment payrolls, these Chamber member
enterprises generate even more economic benefits such as allied
business purchasing and contracting, local tax revenues, charitable
contributions, and educational enhancements from which the entire
citizenry of our community benefit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf
of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize and
express appreciation to our Chamber member enterprises -- both private
and public -- and by virtue of this proclamation hereby give notice to our
business partners, neighbors and citizens that these businesses exemplify
the 2002 Business Appreciation Week theme of "Tradition & Innovation:
Powering Virginia"; and:
FURTHER RESOLVED that May 12 through May 18, 2002, is hereby proclaimed as
Business Appreciation Week in the County of Albemarle and we extend
our appreciation for the many businesses that strive to help make this a
better community.
__________
Item 5.3a. Proclamation recognizing May 12 through May 18, 2002, as Historic Preservation Week.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following proclamation
recognizing May 12 through May 18, 2002, as Historic Preservation Week:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK
WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing
neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character
while enhancing livability; and
WHEREAS, historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both
urban and rural, and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all
ethnic backgrounds; and
WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the
contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the
tangible aspects of the heritage that has shaped us as a people; and
WHEREAS, "Preserving the Spirit of Place" is the theme for National Preservation
Week 2002, co-sponsored by Albemarle County, the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the National Trust for Historic Preservation;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, do proclaim
May 12 through May 18, 2002
as
Historic Preservation Week,
and call upon the people of Albemarle County to join their fellow citizens
across the state in recognizing and participating in this special observance.
__________
Item 5.4. Camp Springs Development - CDBG Activity - waiver of bond for private road
construction and water and sediment control.
It was noted in the staffs report that in 1998 the County received a Community Improvement Grant
=
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
(CDBG) from the Department of Housing and Community Development for the Porters Road/ Yancey
School Neighborhood. One of the proposed activities was the development of five homes on property
purchased by the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). These homes would be for sale to
lower-income, first-time homebuyers. Development plans have been completed and values for activities
have been set as follows: Storm Water Management, $8000; Erosion and Sediment Control, $15,000; and,
Road, $45,300. The estimated cost for the bond is $1800.
The original estimates used to request CDBG funds were developed more than three years ago. It
is expected that increases in costs since that time may exceed budgeted amounts for development. Since
this is a County-sponsored activity and the County Office of Housing will approve payment for all
construction activity, we believe the bond will not be necessary. At a minimum, it will add to the cost of
developing houses for lower-income residents. If deemed necessary, the Office of Housing will not approve
payment until Engineering also approves the work. To facilitate development of affordable housing and
minimize the costs, staff recommends waiving the bond required for road development and water/sediment
control management.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board waived the bond required for road
development and water/sediment control management for the Camp Springs Development.
__________
Item 5.5. Resolution to readopt the Emergency Operations Plan developed by the Emergency
Operations Center Management Board which includes emergency operations procedures for the County,
City and University of Virginia.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires
=
that all jurisdictions pass a resolution adopting a local Emergency Operations Plan every four years. As the
Countys last adoption was in 1997, Mr. Kaye Harden, Emergency Services Coordinator, is requesting
=
readoption of the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, University of Virginia Operations Plan.
(Ms. Thomas said she had received a communication from an organization which wanted to be
sure the County was including handicapped people in its planning both in terms of having representatives
on boards, and considering handicapped people in all plans. Mr. Tucker said he did not know if that is
included in this plan, but the plan can be amended. A handicapped person is to be included on the
committee working on planning issues.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a summary of the plan. Mr. Tucker there is a full plan available in the
County Executives Office.)
=
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors is concerned with the
health and well-being of its citizens and desires that the best possible emergency service
be available to them; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Services and Disaster Law
of 1973 requires that each city and county develop and maintain an Emergency Operations
Plan which addresses its planned response to emergency situations; and
WHEREAS, such a plan has been developed by County staff in coordination with
the Virginia Department of Emergency Services with input from local agencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors, on this 1st day of May, 2002, does hereby officially readopt the City of
Charlottesville, County of Albemarle and University of Virginia Integrated Emergency
Operations Plan, to include plans and procedures for both peace time and war-caused
disasters (copy of Plan is on file in the Clerks Office).
=
__________
Item 5.6. Appointment of Ches Goodall to the Thomas Jefferson Water Resource Protection
Foundation.
It was noted that several weeks ago, Mr. Nick Evans, Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and
Water Conservation District, reviewed with the Board the recently-created Thomas Jefferson Water
Resource Protection Foundation. He asked that the Board appoint someone from the County to serve on
the Foundation Board. Mr. Tucker had reviewed their mission and direction and recommended that the
Board appoint the ACE coordinator, Mr. Ches Goodall to their Foundation Board. He said the work this
Foundation Board will be doing will be beneficial to the ACE program.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board appointed Mr. Ches Goodall to serve as a
member of the Thomas Jefferson Water Resource Protection Foundation.
__________
Item 5.7. Holstein Lane Road Name Change Request.
It was noted in the staffs report that Part I, Section 6(e) of the Albemarle County Road Naming and
=
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Property Numbering Manual allows road name change requests to be approved by the Board. A request to
change the name of Holstein Lane to Valmont Lane at the request of the landowner has been received.
The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. Staff recommends that the
Board approve the new road name as requested and grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the
above referenced change.
By the recorded vote above, the Board approved changing the name Holstein Lane to
AA@@
Valmont Lane, and grants staff the authority to coordinate/implement this change.
AA@@
__________
Item 5.8. Yancey Elementary School - Deed of Easement for Simpson Park.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Simpson Park improvements require a sewage disposal
=
system, but a suitable site for the septic drainfield was not found on the property. Therefore, it was
necessary to find a site on an adjoining property. The Yancey Elementary School property is on the
opposite side of State Route 627 from Simpson Park. The Albemarle County School Board agreed to
dedicate a sewer easement to Albemarle County to allow Simpson Park use of their sewage disposal
system and VDOT agreed to give the County a permit for the sewer line to cross Route 627. The use of the
Yancey Elementary School system has been reviewed and approved by the State Health Department. The
County School Board has executed the deed of easement. Staff requests that the County Executive be
authorized to sign the deed of easement for Albemarle County.
(Ms. Thomas noted that the dedication of Simpson Park is set for May 11th at 11:00 a.m. She said
this is a park of which the County can be proud.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
following deed of easement:
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT made this 3rd day of May, 2002, by and between the
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantee.
W I T N E S S E T H :
For and in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does
hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the Grantee, its
successors and assigns, a perpetual right-of-way and easement across a portion of certain
property of the Grantor described as Yancey Elementary School and identified for tax
purposes as Albemarle County Tax Map 128A, Section 2, Parcel 18, for use by the
Grantee to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend a sanitary sewer line,
consisting of pipes and appurtenances thereto, within an easement shown and designated
as "Proposed 20' San. Sewer Easement" on attached plat (on file) made by Rivanna
Engineering & Surveying, PLC, dated October 31, 2001, revised November 12, 2001, said
plat to be recorded herewith. Reference is made to the plat for a more complete
description of the property.
The Grantor, its successors and assigns, agree that new shrubs, trees, fences,
buildings, overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall not be placed within the
easement conveyed herein. As part of this easement, Grantee shall have the right to enter
upon the above-described property within the easement provided for the purpose of
installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing, replacing and extending the water line and
appurtenances thereto, within such easement, and the right of ingress and egress thereto
as reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend the
water line.
If the Grantee is unable reasonably to exercise the right of ingress and egress over
the right-of-way, the Grantee shall have the right of ingress and egress over the property of
the Grantor adjacent to the right-of-way. Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within
the easement, Grantee agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike
manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as practicable to the same condition
as prior to the excavation, including the restoration of such paved surfaces as may be
damaged or disturbed as a part of such excavation.
The facilities constructed within the easement shall be the property of the Grantee,
which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such
changes, alterations, additions and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the
boundaries of said easement as are consistent with the purposes expressed herein. The
easement provided for herein shall include the right of the Grantee, its successors and
assigns, to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions, and take other similar
action reasonably necessary to provide economical and safe water installation, operation
and maintenance. The Grantee shall have no responsibility to the Grantor, its successors
or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of said trees, brush or shrubbery, or
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
obstructions, if cut, removed or otherwise damaged.
By its acceptance and recordation of this deed of easement, the Grantee
acknowledges that it, its successors and assigns, shall be bound by the agreement
contained herein.
WITNESS the following signatures.
GRANTOR: COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
BY: Stephen Koleszar
ITS: Chairman
GRANTEE: ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
__________
Item 5.9. Set public hearing for May 15, 2002, on Albemarle County's Annual Plan for
Administering Housing Choice Vouchers.
It was noted in the staffs report that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
=
requires each public housing agency to prepare a five-year plan for administering public housing assistance
programs. Administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers makes Albemarle County subject to
this requirement. In addition to completing a five-year plan, an Annual Plan must be submitted each year.
The Annual Plan provides an outline for the implementation of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program including information on current needs from the Consolidated Plan for the Thomas Jefferson
HOME Consortium, the makeup of the County's existing waiting list, and the proposed funding available for
activities during the program year. Much of the Plan is developed based on Federal requirements with little
or no opportunity for local discretion. There are two areas for which local options are available where
changes are proposed from last year's plan. They are:
1) Payment Standards - Currently the County uses a payment standard of 100 percent of the fair
market rent. Fair market rents are based on the 40th percentile rents in the area. For one-bedroom units,
the market is very limited within the current rent structure. HUD regulations allow the locality to raise rents
to 110 percent of fair market rent. The Annual Plan reflects this proposed change. This allows gross rents
(including all utilities) on one-bedroom units to increase from $530 to $583 per month. Two- and
three-bedroom rents will be closely monitored for possible future change to 110 percent.
2) Admissions Preference - Currently the Housing Office uses date and time of application as the
only admissions preference (first-come, first-served). Due to the limit on the number of available vouchers,
it is proposed that preference be given to those who live in or work in Albemarle County. In addition to the
limited number of vouchers, the Housing Office is investing a lot of time working with applicants from other
jurisdictions, some from out-of-state. By requesting approval of the proposed preference by HUD, it can
initially focus time on serving Albemarle residents. A recent analysis of new applicants to the waiting list
indicated that 21 percent were living in the County and 43 percent were living in Charlottesville. Information
on where the applicants work will not be available until a full application is taken.
The Plan is currently available in the Office on Housing for a 45-day review period. It may also be
reviewed in the Board Clerks Office and on the Countys website. A public notice was advertised in the
==
Daily Progress. Housing Committee members have a copy of the Plan and will discuss it and make
recommendations at their next meeting on May 8. All comments will be considered in the final draft Plan
to be presented at the public hearing. Staff recommends setting a public hearing on the proposed Annual
Plan for the Boards meeting on May 15, 2002.
=
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set May 15, 2002, as the public hearing date
for the Annual Plan for the housing assistance program.
__________
Item 5.10. Authorize County Executive to sign agreements to use private facilities as polling places.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
=
requires that localities assure that polling places are accessible to handicapped and elderly voters. In order
to comply with the Act, access to four private polling places must be upgraded. Because public moneys will
be used to upgrade three of the polling places, and because the County will be using private facilities, the
County Attorney advised that it would be in the best interests of the parties to express the terms and
conditions of the County's use of these facilities as polling places in an agreement. The four polling places
subject to an agreement are Berean Baptist Church, Buck Mountain Episcopal Church, Free Union Baptist
Church and Union Grove Baptist Church. Berean Baptist Church will pay for the improve-ments to its
premises needed to comply with the Act. The County will pay for the improvements to the other premises.
The improvements primarily consist of establishing handicapped parking spaces, ramps and railings.
The agreements were prepared by the County Attorney. Each agreement describes the premises
that may be used for a polling place; the term of the agreement; the days and times the County may use
the premises as a polling place and the extent of that use; the County's cost to use the premises as a
polling place; and, other miscellaneous provisions. The three agreements for the premises on which the
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
County will install the improvements include an additional section pertaining to that issue. Staff
recommends that the County Executive be authorized to sign the referenced agreements to use private
facilities as polling places.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to sign
agreements with Berean Baptist Church, Buck Mountain Episcopal Church, Free Union Baptist
Church and Union Grove Baptist Church to use these private facilities as polling places.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 7th day of April, 2002, by and between County of
Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter
referred to as the "County," and Berean Baptist Church, located at 1284 Sunset Avenue
Extended, Charlottesville, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the "Church."
WHEREAS, the County's Electoral Board is required to conduct elections in the
County; and
WHEREAS, the Church has offered to provide a polling place for the Country
Green Precinct.
WITNESS:
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Premises Licensed for Polling Place: The Church hereby licenses to the
County that part of the Church's property marked "Polling Place," as shown on Attachment
A, which is attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement for all elections within the
Precinct, as provided in paragraph 3. The Church also licenses to the County adequate
parking areas and a means of access to and from the Polling Place for all elections within
the Precinct, during the dates and times in paragraph. The premises containing the polling
place, the parking area and access between the parking area and the polling place are
collectively referred to as the "Polling Place."
2. Term: The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of no less than five (5)
years from the date hereof, and shall automatically renew for an additional one (1) year
term on the anniversary date. Either party, however, may terminate this Agreement by
giving six (6) month's written notice to the other party of its intent to terminate.
3. Use of the Premises by the County: The County's use of the Polling Place for
elections shall include:
A. Permission to deliver voting equipment to the Polling Place on the day
before election day, and to remove the voting equipment the day after election day,
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
B. Permission for elections officers to enter the Polling Place at 5:00 a.m.
on election day and to remain at the Polling Place until 9:00 p.m. on election day, or later if
necessary for election purposes.
C. Permission for adults and minors to enter the Polling Place as allowed
by law on election day.
D. The use of Church tables and chairs on election day, as requested by
the County's Electoral Board.
E. Permission for elections officers to use restrooms and kitchen facilities
(if any) on the Church property on election day.
F. Permission to erect signs on the day before election day and on
election day, designating the poll area, providing notice of prohibited activities in the vicinity
of the Polling Place, and otherwise pertaining to the election. Elections officers shall
remove only those signs posted by elections officers at the end of election day or the day
after election day.
G. Permission for elections officers and law enforcement officers to take
all actions authorized by Virginia Code 24.2-604 through Virginia Code 24.2-608.
''
H. Permission for elections officers to use a Church telephone for local
calls on election day.
4. Reimbursement: The County shall reimburse the Church for reasonable
expenses incurred due to the use of the Church as a Polling Place, not to exceed one
hundred dollars ($100.00) per election. The County will reimburse the Church within thirty
(30) days of receipt of invoice.
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
5. Liability: The County agrees to add the Church to its general liability insurance
policy as an additional insured for the County's operation of a Polling Place on the
Church's property on election days.
6. Title, Access and Authority: The Church covenants and warrants to the County
that it presently owns the fee simple interest in and to the Church property; that the Church
is duly authorized and empowered to grant this License; and that each person(s) executing
this license on behalf of the Church warrants himself to be duly authorized to bind the
Church hereto.
7. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between
the parties and supersedes any prior understandings or oral or written agreements
between the parties respecting the within subject matter.
8. Modifications: This Agreement may not be modified, except in a writing signed
by the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto bind themselves to this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.
_____
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 30th day of March, 2002, by and between County
of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter
referred to as the "County," and Buck Mountain Episcopal Church, located at 4313
Earlysville Road, Earlysville, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the "Church."
WHEREAS, the County's Electoral Board is required to conduct elections in the
County and is required to have all polling places comply with the Voting Accessibility for the
Elderly and Handicapped Act; and
WHEREAS, the Church has offered to provide a polling place for the Northside
Precinct, and is willing to allow the County to make improvements to the Church property in
order to bring the polling places into compliance with the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly
and Handicapped Act.
WITNESS:
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Premises Licensed for Polling Place: The Church hereby licenses to the
County that part of the Church's property marked "Polling Place," as shown on Attachment
A, which is attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement for all elections within the
Precinct, as provided in paragraph 3. The Church also licenses to the County adequate
parking areas and a means of access to and from the Polling Place for all elections within
the Precinct, during the dates and times in paragraph. The premises containing the polling
place, the parking area and access between the parking area and the polling place are
collectively referred to as the "Polling Place."
2. Term: The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of no less than one (1)
years from the date hereof, and shall automatically renew for an additional one (1) year
term on the anniversary date. Either party, however, may terminate this Agreement by
giving six (6) month's written notice to the other party of its intent to terminate.
3. Use of the Premises by the County: The County's use of the Polling Place for
elections shall include:
A. Permission to deliver voting equipment to the Polling Place on the day
before election day, and to remove the voting equipment the day after election day,
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
B. Permission for elections officers to enter the Polling Place at 5:00 a.m.
on election day and to remain at the Polling Place until 9:00 p.m. on election day, or later if
necessary for election purposes.
C. Permission for adults and minors to enter the Polling Place as allowed
by law on election day.
D. The use of Church tables and chairs on election day, as requested by
the County's Electoral Board.
E. Permission for elections officers to use restrooms and kitchen facilities
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
(if any) on the Church property on election day.
F. Permission to erect signs on the day before election day and on
election day, designating the poll area, providing notice of prohibited activities in the vicinity
of the Polling Place, and otherwise pertaining to the election. Elections officers shall
remove only those signs posted by elections officers at the end of election day or the day
after election day.
G. Permission for elections officers and law enforcement officers to take
all actions authorized by Virginia Code 24.2-604 through Virginia Code 24.2-608.
''
H. Permission for elections officers to use a Church telephone on election
day.
4. Improvements to the Premises: The Church grants permission to the County,
its officers, employees and agents, to enter the Church property to install improvements, at
the sole expense of the County, so that access for handicapped and elderly voters
complies with the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C.
'
1973ee et seq). The improvements consist of installing concrete and stone for
accessways and signage. The improvements shall be installed after the date of this
Agreement until completed. The work shall be performed between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., Monday through Friday.
5. Reimbursement: The County shall reimburse the Church for reasonable
expenses incurred due to the use of the Church as a Polling Place, not to exceed $200.00
per election.
6. Liability: The County agrees to add the Church to its general liability insurance
policy as an additional insured for the County's operation of a Polling Place on the
Church's property on election days.
7. Title, Access and Authority: The Church covenants and warrants to the County
that it presently owns the fee simple interest in and to the Church property; that the Church
is duly authorized and empowered to grant this License; and that each
person(s) executing this license on behalf of the Church warrants himself to be duly
authorized to bind the Church hereto.
8. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between
the parties and supersedes any prior understandings or oral or written agreements
between the parties respecting the within subject matter.
9. Modifications: This Agreement may not be modified, except in a writing signed
by the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto bind themselves to this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.
_____
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this _____ day of March, 2002 by and between
County of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
hereinafter referred to as the “County,” and Union Grove Baptist Church, located at 471
Black Cat Road, Keswick, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the “Church.”
WHEREAS, the County’s Electoral Board is required to conduct elections in the
County and is required to have all polling places comply with the Voting Accessibility for the
Elderly and Handicapped Act; and
WHEREAS, the Church has offered to provide a polling place for the Keswick
Precinct, and is willing to allow the County to make improvements to the Church property in
order to bring the polling places into compliance with the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly
and Handicapped Act.
WITNESS:
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Premises Licensed for Polling Place: The Church hereby licenses to the County
that part of the Church’s property marked “Polling Place,” as shown on Attachment A,
which is attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement for all elections within the
Precinct, as provided in paragraph 3. The Church also licenses to the County adequate
parking areas and a means of access to and from the Polling Place for all elections within
the Precinct, during the dates and times in paragraph. The premises containing the polling
place, the parking area and access between the parking area and the polling place are
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
collectively referred to as the “Polling Place.”
2. Term: The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of no less than ___(___)
years from the date hereof, and shall automatically renew for an additional one (1) year
term on the anniversary date. Either party, however, may terminate this Agreement by
giving six (6) month’s written notice to the other party of its intent to terminate.
3. Use of the Premises by the County: The County’s use of the Polling Place for
elections shall include:
A. Permission to deliver voting equipment to the Polling Place on the day
before election day, and to remove the voting equipment the day after election day,
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
B. Permission for elections officers to enter the Polling Place at 5:00 a.m. on
election day and to remain at the Polling Place until 9:00 p.m. on election day, or later if
necessary for election purposes.
C. Permission for adults and minors to enter the Polling Place as allowed by
law on election day.
D. The use of Church tables and chairs on election day, as requested by the
County’s Electoral Board.
E. Permission for elections officers to use restrooms and kitchen facilities (if
any) on the Church property on election day.
F. Permission to erect signs on the day before election day and on election
day, designating the poll area, providing notice of prohibited activities in the vicinity of the
Polling Place, and otherwise pertaining to the election. Elections officers shall remove
only those signs posted by elections officers at the end of election day or the day after
election day.
G. Permission for elections officers and law enforcement officers to take all
actions authorized by Virginia Code § 24.2-604 through Virginia Code § 24.2-608.
H. Permission for elections officers to use a Church telephone on election
day.
4. Improvements to the Premises: The Church grants permission to the County, its
officers, employees and agents, to enter the Church property to install improvements, at
the sole expense of the County, so that access for handicapped and elderly voters
complies with the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. §
1973ee .) The improvements consist of installing eighty (80) square feet of concrete
et seq
for an accessway and signage. The improvements shall be installed after the date of this
Agreement until completed. The work shall be performed between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., Monday through Friday.
5. Reimbursement: The County shall reimburse the Church for reasonable expenses
incurred due to the use of the Church as a Polling Place, not to exceed
________________ per election.
6. Liability: The County agrees to add the Church to its general liability insurance
policy as an additional insured for the County’s operation of a Polling Place on the
Church’s property on election days.
7. Title, Access and Authority: The Church covenants and warrants to the County that
it presently owns the fee simple interest in and to the Church property; that the Church is
duly authorized and empowered to grant this License; and that each person(s) executing
this license on behalf of the Church warrants himself to be duly authorized to bind the
Church hereto.
8. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties and supercedes any prior understandings or oral or written agreements between
the parties respecting the within subject matter.
9. Modifications: This Agreement may not be modified, except in a writing signed by
the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto bind themselves to this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.
_____
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this _____ day of March, 2002 by and between
County of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
hereinafter referred to as the “County,” and Free Union Baptist Church, located on
Millington Road, Free Union, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the “Church.”
WHEREAS, the County’s Electoral Board is required to conduct elections in the
County and is required to have all polling places comply with the Voting Accessibility for the
Elderly and Handicapped Act; and
WHEREAS, the Church has offered to provide a polling place for the Free Union
Precinct, and is willing to allow the County to make improvements to the Church property in
order to bring the polling places into compliance with the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly
and Handicapped Act.
WITNESS:
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Premises Licensed for Polling Place: The Church hereby licenses to the County
that part of the Church’s property marked “Polling Place,” as shown on Attachment A,
which is attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement for all elections within the
Precinct, as provided in paragraph 3. The Church also licenses to the County adequate
parking areas and a means of access to and from the Polling Place for all elections within
the Precinct, during the dates and times in paragraph. The premises containing the polling
place, the parking area and access between the parking area and the polling place are
collectively referred to as the “Polling Place.”
2. Term: The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of no less than ___(___)
years from the date hereof, and shall automatically renew for an additional one (1) year
term on the anniversary date. Either party, however, may terminate this Agreement by
giving six (6) month’s written notice to the other party of its intent to terminate.
3. Use of the Premises by the County: The County’s use of the Polling Place for
elections shall include:
A. Permission to deliver voting equipment to the Polling Place on the day
before election day, and to remove the voting equipment the day after election day,
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
B. Permission for elections officers to enter the Polling Place at 5:00 a.m. on
election day and to remain at the Polling Place until 9:00 p.m. on election day, or later if
necessary for election purposes.
C. Permission for adults and minors to enter the Polling Place as allowed by
law on election day.
D. The use of Church tables and chairs on election day, as requested by the
County’s Electoral Board.
E. Permission for elections officers to use restrooms and kitchen facilities (if
any) on the Church property on election day.
F. Permission to erect signs on the day before election day and on election
day, designating the poll area, providing notice of prohibited activities in the vicinity of the
Polling Place, and otherwise pertaining to the election. Elections officers shall remove only
those signs posted by elections officers at the end of election day or the day after election
day.
G. Permission for elections officers and law enforcement officers to take all
actions authorized by Virginia Code § 24.2-604 through Virginia Code § 24.2-608.
H. Permission for elections officers to use a Church telephone on election
day.
4. Improvements to the Premises: The Church grants permission to the County, its
officers, employees and agents, to enter the Church property to install improvements, at
the sole expense of the County, so that access for handicapped and elderly voters
complies with the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. §
1973ee .) The improvements consist of cut work, brick work, demolishing and
et seq
disposing of existing concrete; and installing one hundred ten (110) feet of sidewalk, one
asphalt handicapped parking space, railings, signage, and seed and straw. The
improvements shall be installed after the date of this Agreement until completed. The
work shall be performed between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
5. Reimbursement: The County shall reimburse the Church for reasonable expenses
incurred due to the use of the Church as a Polling Place, not to exceed
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
________________ per election.
6. Liability: The County agrees to add the Church to its general liability insurance
policy as an additional insured for the County’s operation of a Polling Place on the
Church’s property on election days.
7. Title, Access and Authority: The Church covenants and warrants to the County that
it presently owns the fee simple interest in and to the Church property; that the Church is
duly authorized and empowered to grant this License; and that each person(s) executing
this license on behalf of the Church warrants himself to be duly authorized to bind the
Church hereto.
8. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties and supercedes any prior understandings or oral or written agreements between
the parties respecting the within subject matter.
9. Modifications: This Agreement may not be modified, except in a writing signed by
the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto bind themselves to this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.
__________
Item 5.11. Resolution recognizing Albemarle County's Twin Community of Pacific County,
A@
Washington.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the following resolution:
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and citizens of the
County, Ms. Thomas said she would like to honor and recognize Pacific County,
Washington, as Albemarle County's sister county, and officially welcome representatives
from Pacific County to our community.
Albemarle County and Pacific County entered into a sister county relationship in
1999 at the same time that the City of Charlottesville was pursuing a similar relationship
with the City of Long Beach. These relationships are intended to promote our
community's mutual association with the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
Albemarle County is where Thomas Jefferson's curiosity and national ambitions
gave birth to the Lewis and Clark exploration; Pacific County is where those intrepid
explorers met the ocean and stood, "beholding with astonishment the high waves dashing
against the rocks of this emence ocean" in November of 1805
Albemarle County saw the birth and life of the man who wrote that All men are
created equal; Pacific County saw the first vote, in equality, of white men, a black man,
and a Native American woman, as they decided where to spend the winter.
Albemarle County is where Meriwether Lewis learned to look westward to
mountains; Pacific County is where the Corps of Discovery at last saw no more
mountains and plains to the West.
Albemarle County is proud of the writings of Thomas Jefferson; Pacific County is
proud of a short notation on a tree somewhere overlooking the ocean, "By land from the
U. States in 1804 & 1805," which may outweigh all Jefferson's writings for its understated
eloquence.
We welcome the representatives from Pacific County and from Long Beach to
Albemarle County and the Charlottesville area for our upcoming Lewis and Clark
Festival. We look forward to exchanging information and resources that can link our
communities closer together, particularly as we approach the bicentennial celebration of
the Lewis and Clark Expedition beginning in January, 2003.
__________
Item 5.12. 2002 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development, was received for information.
__________
Item 5.13. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for March 26, 2002, was received for
information.
__________
Item 5.14. Letter dated April 16, 2002, from Norma C. Job, Regional VWP Engineer, Department
of Environmental Quality, to Sally Thomas, Chairman, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0027065,
Cooper Industries, for existing industrial discharge resulting from the operation of six groundwater recovery
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
wells, discharge flow 0.04 MGD at one outfall, was received for information.
__________
Item 5.15. Copy of letter of correction dated April 18, 2002, from John Shepherd, Manager of
Zoning Administration, to David J. or Goldie Belle Feigert, re: Official Determination of Development Rights
and Parcels: Tax Map 43, Parcel 25E (Section 10.3.1), was received as information.
__________
Item 5.16. Copies of orders from the Virginia State Corporation Commission Case Nos.
PUA020010 and PUA020012, re: Joint Petitions of Comcast Business Communications of Virginia, LLC,
Jones Telecommunications of Virginia, Inc., Comcast Corporation, AT&T Corp. and AT&T Comcast
Corporation, for approval to change control of AT&T Broadband Phone of Virginia, Inc., to AT&T Comcast
Corporation, was received for information.
__________
Item 5.17. Copy of resolution adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of
Directors on April 18, 2002, setting forth proposed changes to the Service Authority's schedule of fees and
charges. A public hearing on the proposed rate schedule is to be held on June 20, 2002. Notice was
received for information.
__________
Item 5.18. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, May 2002, was received for
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Proffit Road, Request to restrict trucks between
Route 20 and Route 29, discussion of.
Mr. Cilimberg said the residents of Jefferson Village Homeowners Association, Landford Hills
Homeowners Association, Meadowfields Homeowners Association, Pritchett Lane Homeowners
Association, Proffit Community Association, and residents of Chesterfield, Forest Ridge, and Terrybrook
subdivisions have requested that the Board of Supervisors restrict through trucks on Proffit Road between
Route 20 and Route 29.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff presented the request and petition to the Board at its March 6, 2002,
meeting. The Board directed staff to conduct the analysis required by VDOT to determine preliminary
eligibility for the restriction. Staff conducted that initial review and based on it, found that the request meets
three out of five VDOT criteria. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board hold a public hearing on the
request.
Mr. Martin said the residents of the area would prefer that the hearing be held at a night meeting.
Ms. Thomas said a map furnished with the staffs report shows alternative routes for trucks going
=
south, but not for trucks going north. She asked what alternative route is available for those wanting to go
north. Mr. Cilimberg said the most reasonable route would be to continue on Route 20 up to Route 33. Ms.
Thomas said that should also be shown on the map.
Mr. Martin said another alternative would be to continue on Route 20 to Route 15 to Culpeper.
That would be the quickest route to Northern Virginia. He said the Orange County Board has been lobbying
VDOT to get Route 15 widened to four lanes. Route 15 and Route 20 are both straighter in Orange than
they are in Albemarle, and there are many more opportunities for passing. He then offered motion to set
this matter for a public hearing on June 19, 2002.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6b. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, was present. He expressed support for what the staff has
recommended concerning Proffit Road. He said he would provide an analysis for the public hearing.
__________
Mr. Bryan said he has nothing new to add to his monthly report. A copy of that report goes to the
Culpeper District Office and to some people in Richmond. The District has a yearly maintenance
conference, and the local Residency Office is hosting it this year on May 10. The Superintendents and
Maintenance people who attend will look at different sites around Albemarle County. The highlight of the
tour will be going to Crozet Park for lunch.
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
__________
Mr. Bryan said in reference to the newly sprouted tree stumps on Route 250 West mentioned by
Mr. Grady, VDOT will be fixing them. Also, they have planted seedlings - 2000 Red Buds and 1000
Dogwoods - on Route 250 West.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he had received a letter from the Carter family asking if they can install an obelisk
on Carters' bridge. They pointed out that such decorations are on other bridges throughout the State, and it
makes the bridge more attractive. Mr. Bryan said he will ask VDOT's bridge people in Culpeper.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that about five years ago a resolution was passed by all the communities along
Route 15 requesting certain improvements. He asked if any progress has been made in accomplishing any
of those improvements. This route would provide an alternate for truck traffic seeking a north/south route.
Mr. Bryan said he did not know the answer to that question. He knows that a bypass route around
Gordonsville is high on the priority list. It is getting a lot of attention.
Mr. Martin asked if the interest is coming from residents or VDOT. Mr. Bryan said interest is being
shown by everybody.
__________
Ms. Thomas said about a month ago it was suggested that Mr. Bryan and the Route 250 West
Advisory Committee take a look at the Committee's charge and discuss any changes that could improve
communication. The Committee will be meeting next week. Mr. Bryan said he has talked to Juan Wade a
couple of times about this suggestions.
Ms. Thomas said the question about closing of one of the passing lanes on a portion of Route 250
West is an example of something they want to do. She has talked with several members and there is more
diversity of opinion among the members than has been expressed so far. She knows that Mr. Carter Myers
called someone from the Culpeper Office and had him stand at this location at 2:00 p.m. on a Friday.
However, she does not know what happened then.
Mr. Bryan said when this suggestion first came up, he asked VDOTs Traffic Engineering section in
=
Culpeper to evaluate it. Their initial analysis was not to close a passing lane. So, Mr. Myers asked the
Traffic Engineer to come and look at the situation. The Traffic Engineer did look at the situation and he has
a different opinion. Mr. Bryan said he thinks the Traffic Engineer will want to close it.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Myers called her and she told him the Committee members had a mixed
opinion. She told him the Chairman of the Advisory Committee is not in favor of closing it, and in her own
opinion it should not be closed.
Mr. Bryan said he thinks it may be closed. He was not present on Friday when the Traffic Engineer
looked at the situation. He said that anytime a passing lane is closed, there are unintended consequences.
He thinks the prudent thing would be to leave it open.
Mr. Tucker asked the basis for closing the lanes. Mr. Bryan said it had to do with sight lines and the
number of entrances onto that section of road.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she just learned the other day that there is no money for planning improvements
to the intersection where Meadow Creek Parkway intersects McIntire Road and the existing Route 250
Bypass. Mr. Bryan said preliminary engineering will be funded, but that is all that is covered. There is not a
lot of activity going on right now on that project.
__________
Mr. Rooker said a couple of weeks ago when discussing Airport Road, the Board discussed the
process by which an intersection is evaluated for a traffic signal. He asked if there is some way the
community can participate in the ultimate decision to have a traffic signal added or not added. It seems that
on Route 29 North, there have been numerous signals added. He said one was just added at Polo
Grounds Road.
Mr. Martin said that signal was part of the Route 29 North plans and was approved by this Board
several years ago. Every signal on Route 29 was discussed years ahead of its placement.
Mr. Rooker asked about the light at Better Living. Mr. Martin said that came about because the
people in Carrsbrook Subdivision did not want a signal at that intersection because they found that it would
lead to a lot of traffic cutting through their subdivision to get to Rio Road. The light at Better Living was a
compromise and the people in Carrsbrook knew they would have to go north to the next light, then make a
U-turn to go south.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on that signal light decision, there was actually a public meeting held at
Agnor-Hurt School. Mr. Rooker said he was on the MPO Technical Committee, and they never saw the
request, so he was interested in the process and whether the community had input into the decision. He
said that in the VDOT warrants there is nothing mentioned about getting input from the community.
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Bryan said the warrants deal with the technical aspects of placement of traffic signals, but there
are unintended consequences to placement. He said the lights subsequent to that have all been the result
of proffers or part of a site plan. He does not know of any traffic signal which did not go through that
process.
Mr. Rooker said the decision about whether to eliminate passing lanes on Route 250 sounds like a
decision VDOT will make. Mr. Martin said the Board has never been part of a discussion about passing
lanes. The lanes just disappear when there is a striping decision. Mr. Bryan said that is more of a
safety/technical thing. However, if the Board thinks more community involvement is needed, they will delay
that process.
Ms. Thomas said on Route 250 West, there is an Advisory Committee working, so there should be
a discussion with them about things that might happen on that road. Mr. Bryan said there is a fine line in
making these decisions because VDOT just had two traffic engineers who disagreed about what should be
done on the same section of road. He said the last passing lane closed on Route 250 West was initiated by
a citizen petition. He said safety is always the No. 1 concern of VDOT. He will present a report to the
Board at the next day meeting in June.
__________
Mr. Bryan said VDOT has deferred doing anything to Morgantown Road. He said VDOT is back to
A
the drawing board on that project. He does not think there will ever be a 100 percent consensus of the
@
residents about what should be done.
Ms. Thomas said the residents of Morgantown Road are part of a newly-formed Ivy Neighborhood
Association. They have walked around and given people a choice. It was not a petition which just set out
options to choose from.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Juvenile Court Renovations.
Ms. Roxanne White said that in March, 2001, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Courts Study
Committee presented its report. Four different scenarios for the five courts involved were presented.
Those proposed scenarios had a price tag between $49.0 million and $56.0 million. After the report was
received, the City and County formed a Negotiating Committee to look at the options, and to derive a
phasing plan with the first phase to be consistent with what the committee recommended, and to determine
a price that all could afford. The needs of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court were to be studied first.
Ms. White said the negotiating committee started its work in July, 2001, and now has its final report.
The report has been given to the judges who approved the plan. The draft plan went back to the original
committee also for comments. The committee recommends that the existing J&DRC facility be renovated
and expanded and that a two-level parking facility be constructed. This would provide space not only for
the Courts, but also for the Court Services unit and the Sheriffs Department. She said the total cost of the
=
project is estimated at $9.6 million. The Countys share would be about $5.4 million. In this proposal, the
=
City and County have agreed upon an allocation of costs formula which basically shares the cost 50/50 with
the City except for the additional money the County would pay for the Sheriffs space. Then, Albemarle
=
would pay a little more for the parking because the County would get more parking spaces.
Mr. Jay Moore, Mosely architect with the project, was present. He showed a photograph of the
existing J&DRC building. He said the proposed new façade will take the Building back to its original look
before there was a fire in the Old Moose Lodge. He said there will be an addition to the building to add
amenities such as adequate public toilets, handicapped accessible public toilets, an elevator for the public,
as well as an additional Code-required fire stair. The addition to the rear of the building will give needed
space for the Courts Clerk, and for the County Sheriff.
=
Mr. Moore said the additional space includes a new, full-sized courtroom, in addition to the existing
courtroom. It will also correct some very serious functional problems in the building, particularly with regard
to security and the way that staff, and the public, and prisoner circulation is currently mixed, which creates a
dangerous situation. This expansion will correct that situation and make the building more secure. The first
level of the addition to the rear is actually a level below the existing basement. It will connect to the parking
deck so that one can come through the parking deck into a vehicle sally port and the Sheriff can bring
prisoners into the building, inside, and unload them in a secure interior location, and then use the sub-
basement as a staging area of holding cells.
Mr. Moore said the Clerks Office is presently located in the basement, but one has to go outside of
=
the building to get from the Courtroom level to the Clerks Office. That will be corrected by reorienting the
=
new Clerks Office off of the new lobby, with new stairs and an elevator. That will be a more secure
=
situation. Prisoners can be taken up and down to the courtrooms by the new elevator in the addition to the
rear so they do not have to use the front stair which is also used by staff.
Mr. Moore said the current first level will retain much of its familiar lay-out but there will be new
stairs, and there will be one level of the Sheriffs administrative office on this floor of the addition, and there
=
will be a separate public entrance. Mr. Martin said the waiting area was increased by removal of the
bathrooms. Mr. Moore said by removing the current toilets and replacing them with modern toilets in the
addition, the vestibule area will be more adequate from a space standpoint.
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Moore said the upper level will contain a new courtroom approximately the same size as the
existing first floor courtroom, as well as an adequate waiting area. Some of the probation functions which
need to be located adjacent to the court will be in this building, but the balance of those functions will be
located in the Preston Morris Building next door. The rest of the addition is to accommodate the balance of
the Sheriffs Department, as well as some additional court support space.
=
Mr. Moore said the total parking spaces will increase from 159 to 166 or a net increase of seven
spaces. However, because privately-owned parking has decreased by 23 spaces, public safety spaces will
increase by five spaces, public parking by 13 spaces and staff parking by 12 spaces.
Mr. Moore said it is estimated that construction will cost about $6.2 million. There are also soft
costs such as furniture, architectural services and other needed items. Property acquisition has been
estimated at about $1.0 million for the two corner properties. Occupying the building during construction
will add some premium to the construction costs because the construction period will be extended. A
budget contingency is also recommended for a total project cost of about $9.6 million. He offered to
answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the very small increase in parking. Mr. Moore said the building is being
expanding to the rear and taking up present spaces. They were able to achieve a few more spaces and
eliminate the double parking situation on the site.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the Old County Jail property, and the plans for that site. Mr. Martin said
basically the Committee has been negotiating with the City from the beginning of this study on that question.
To the City, the Old Jail is historic. If you ask anyone from the County side that was part of the negotiations
from the beginning, they all would like to see it gone. Since the Committee representation was reduced in
size to just Mr. Bowerman and himself, that has been a political thing. If you mention taking that building
down, then everything that has been done so far just falls apart.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it could be made a museum. Ms. White said there have been a lot of ideas
discussed about what to do with that facility. Part of it was to turn it into a museum, there was even talk
about having a restaurant there. As part of this particular project, there are no plans to do anything there.
Hopefully, the private sector can come in and do something. Mr. Martin said something will be done to
shore up the side next to the parking deck. Mr. Moore said the rear wall will have to be rebuilt.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the County owns the building. Mr. Tucker said yes. He said there is no use in
A@
this phase for that building, but staff will continue to talk about a use for it. The problem is that it has very
thick walls, making it very difficult to renovate and put in HVAC. It would be very costly to make it usable for
different things. He said it will have limited usage.
Ms. Thomas asked if this plan will allow access to the building. Mr. Tucker said yes.
A@
Ms. Thomas asked if what is being saved includes the Jailors House. Mr. Martin said yes. It can
=A@
continue to be used as office space. He said the Board members need to keep an open mind in the event
that someone presents a reasonable proposal.
Mr. Dorrier said he assumes there is no court use for the Old Jail Building. Mr. Moore said there is
no effective use. He thinks it would just replicate present problems.
Mr. Martin said the payment plan for this project is basically 50/50. Other things are thrown in such
as having the Albemarle Sheriff use a lot of the increased space. Also, as to all of the parking spaces, the
City had x amount of spaces, the private sector had x amount of spaces that had to be purchased, and
A@A@
the County had x amount of spaces. The Committee derived a formula which just gave credit for the
A@
number of spaces being put into the pot.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is a ten or 20 year plan. Mr. Moore said the case load is not increasing as
fast as they had thought, so he thinks it is at least a 20-year plan.
Mr. Rooker asked what is meant by a ten-year plan. Mr. Moore said the question refers to how long
this space will be adequate. Mr. Rooker asked how long it will take to complete the project. Mr. Moore said
it will take approximately two and one-half years. Mr. Martin said the advertising date is April, 2003. Mr.
White said it is hoped that construction will be finished in the summer of 2004.
Mr. Martin said after the Committee came up with this plan, they had to put it together with the
Court Square Beautification Project plan. There are two parts which have been merged. The other thing
about the ten-year capacity is that as the other phases are completed there is room to expand. This can be
a 20-year plan for the Juvenile Courts. It is simply a matter of the Commonwealths Attorneys or the Sheriff
=
shifting space. In the $1.0 million cost for land acquisition it includes the building next door (the Roy
Wheeler building). That gives two advantages; one allows room for expansion, and hopefully the people in
the City will be more comfortable with the City/County owning that lot.
Mr. Rooker said in this phase there is no plan to demolish the Roy Wheeler Building or do anything
with it at this point. Mr. Martin said that is correct. Mr. White said there is money in this phase for purchase
only. Mr. Rooker asked if there is any immediate use for that building. Mr. Martin said when the renovations
begin, people will have to start moving out of their present space. It will give some flexibility in terms of
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
moving people around.
Ms. Thomas said no financing costs are included in the projected costs. She said when it was a
bigger project which included all the courts, the Board called in bond counsel. She assumes this will be
done without bonds, but wonders if there are financing costs that should be included. Ms. White said all of
the costs are in the CIP which was revised to reflect these new costs. Debt service costs have been
incorporated into the CIP.
Ms. Thomas said asbestos and lead paint were mentioned as being in the Old County Jail. She
asked if there are the same issues in the existing Juvenile Court building. Mr. Moore said the lead paint
generates a need for certain procedures for removal. Sometimes asbestos has to be removed. He would
be surprised if there were enough of those materials in this building to be a problem.
Mr. White said this plan works well because it allows this work to be done in phases so everyone
does not need to be moved out of the building. Money is being saved in relocation costs
Ms. Thomas said a motion is needed to approve the project.
Mr. Moore said he had a computerized fly-around model of the proposed project to show to the
A@
Board, and apologized for waiting so long in the presentation to do so.
At the end of the presentation, motion was offered Mr. Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Martin, to
approve the request to move forward with the design phase for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
expansion and renovation project. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: ARB Sign 2002-13, Toys "R" Us Sign. Application to replace wall
sign for Toys "R" Us loc on front façade of bldg. Loc on E sd of Rt 29 at Branchlands Blvd., adjacent to
Wood Grill Buffet. TM 61Z, Sec 3, P 12. Znd PUD & EC. Rio Dist.
Letter dated April 30, 2002, had been received from SignProject Management asking that this
appeal be removed from the Boards agenda without prejudice.
=
Motion to accept the applicant's request to withdraw appeal of ARB-(Sign)-2002-13 without
prejudice was offered by Mr. Martin, and seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2001-065. Mosby Mountain Stream Crossing (Sign #82). Public hearing
on a request to allow earthen fill and culvert crossing in the flood plain. Znd R-1 & FH. TM90, P1B. Loc on
Rt 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) across from Southwood Estates Mobile Home Park. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice
of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 15 and April 22, 2002.)
Ms. Thomas said she has been asked by staff to express their apology for the delay caused by staff
not advertising this request in a timely manner, and for holding the public hearing at a daytime meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file in the Clerks Office and made a part of
==
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said Evergreen Land Company has requested a
special use permit to allow a stream crossing in order to create a single-family residential subdivision off of
Route 631. This would create 107 lots in both the Development Area and the Rural Area not all of which
would be served by the stream crossing, but many lots would. He said the applicant proposes to construct
a 42-foot wide, nine and one-half foot high prefabricated bridge system with wingwalls to raise the proposed
road above the one hundred year flood plain limits. This type of structure functions in a manner similar to a
standard culvert with earth fill placed above the structure before the asphalt road is laid.
Mr. Cilimberg said concerns were expressed to this request by adjacent owners. Engineering staff
looked into those concerns, and responded saying flood levels will remain the same and impoundment of
flood waters is not part of this proposal. Construction of the bridge will be managed under the Countys
=
required Erosion & Sediment Control Plan which will be reviewed during the final subdivision platting
process. If approved, the special use permit will carry a number of conditions that specifically address
water quality issues. Recommended Conditions 2, 3 and 4 specifically address those issues.
Mr. Cilimberg said the actual stream crossing is located within the Development Areas portion of
the site. The stream to be crossed is a tributary to Biscuit Run. It is classified as a Major and Locally
Important Stream Valley on the Open Space Plan which acts as a buffer between the Development Areas
in Neighborhood 5 and the Rural Areas in Rural Area 3. The character of the area that will be subject to
development is from a zoning standpoint, R-1. That will not be changed by this proposal. He said staff
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
looked at alternative entrance locations and concluded that the alternatives would be more environmentally
detrimental to this and surrounding properties.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1) The
use will not cause an increase in the one hundred year flood level on adjacent properties or on the subject
property; 2) The use will not cause the stream channel to be relocated; and, 3) The proposed stream
crossing/entrance location is the best location to serve the proposed development. Factors unfavorable
are: 1) The proposed use will cause a development that is inconsistent with the recommendations of the
Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan (higher density development in a designated Rural Area),
and 2) The proposed use is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Open Space and Natural
Resources elements of the Comprehensive Plan. However, conditions will insure that the stream buffer will
be restored and that water quality measures will be implemented.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff had recommended approval of the request subject to six conditions. On
March 26, 2002, the Planning Commission, unanimously recommended approval subject to the same six
conditions.
Ms. Thomas referred to Condition No. 6 and asked why no soil shall be removed. Mr. Cilimberg
said there is no one present from the Engineering Department and he cannot address that question.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Hal Jones with The Cox Company was present to represent the applicant. He said they have
worked with staff to address any concerns mentioned to date, and he offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked for an answer to her question. Mr. Jones asked that the question be more
specific. Ms. Thomas said she did not know why it was a concern that no soil be removed from the stream.
Mr. Jones said in general, they do not want to disturb the stream.
Mr. Richard Hewitt said he lives on Old Lynchburg Road. He asked if this meeting is just about the
stream crossing, and the development has already been approved. Mr. Cilimberg said a subdivision plat is
in process to allow for the development; it will be approved administratively. He said for a large part of this
property, the applicant will seek a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow for expansion of the
Development Area boundary which could incorporate all of the area which would otherwise be subdivided
by right. That idea is in the very early stages of discussion. There would be public hearings at some
ultimate point if that idea proceeds forward.
Ms. Thomas asked what the public can expect for this property. Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to
ask the applicant to give the status of the subdivision plat they have submitted.
Mr. Jones said the preliminary subdivision plat for this property is under review. The applicant has
addressed all issues with respect to the special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg said he can explain the process now. He said the preliminary plan can be approved
when this special use permit is approved. The final subdivision plat follows, and the conditions of the
preliminary plat will also be imposed on the final plat. Once the final plat is approved administratively, it is
subject to recording.
Ms. Thomas asked where there is time in the process for any further public input. It seems the
answer to that question is that there is no time allowed for that. Mr. Cilimberg said that is the process for
every plat whether or not there is a special use permit associated with the plat. Every plat requires that staff
notify all adjacent owners to that property. When they are notified, they are told the date and time of the
Site Review Meeting and offer them the opportunity to get information. They are also told that if they feel it
is necessary, they can request that the Commission review the preliminary plat. Final plats are almost
always handled administratively.
Mr. Dorrier asked what percentage of the 107 lots will be in the Rural Area. Mr. Cilimberg said in
the Comprehensive Plan, land on the east side of the stream is in the Development Area and land on the
west side of the stream is in the Rural Area, but the whole area is zoned R-1.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant has indicated an intention to request a Development Area boundary
change, so he asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the process. Mr. Cilimberg did so, and ended by saying that
at this time, nothing has been scheduled for discussion at a Commission meeting.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2000-65 subject to the conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions, as approved, are set out in full below.)
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
1. Albemarle County Engineering Department and VDOT approval of final grading
plans and bridge and road plans and computations;
2. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of an Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan to include stabilization of fill;
3. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of mitigation plans for
disturbance of the stream buffer;
4. The CON/SPAN bridge system must be installed per manufacturer's
specifications;
5. The final subdivision plat should reflect any changes to the flood plain and
floodway limits, and the applicant must provide computations supporting any such
changes, as well as copies of the correspondence demonstrating FEMA approval
of the revised floodplain or no changes in flood plain levels can occur; and
6. In an effort to minimize environmental degradation, no soil shall be removed from
the stream to compensate for any fill.
(Note: At 10:32 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:44 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Mr. Steve Koleszar, Chairman of School Board, was present. He said the School Board has been
involved in redistricting of the middle schools. One issue has been the long-term redistricting plan reflected
in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). There will be a report from the Middle School Task Force on May 9.
They have serious questions about the CIP which will need to be addressed before addressing the
redistricting. School Board members feel there needs to be an examination of Comprehensive Plan
recommendations in terms of school issues and school sizes. The School Board needs to decide how
large of an expansion should occur at Monticello High School. Under the old model, the school would be
expanded to handle 1500 students. If it went to 1500, it would allow some students to be redistricted from
Albemarle High, and that would get Albemarle below 1700. A number of citizens have recommended that
Monticello not be expanded at all. This is causing the School Board to think about what the master plan
should be for school size, for school growth, and where new facilities should be located.
Mr. Martin said he only knows what he has read about this question, he does know that redistricting
is a very emotional issue. Every time a line is changed, another group of people will be upset, so the
School Board needs to do the right thing, and not the political thing.
Mr. Koleszar said he has been through four redistrictings, and he learned that lesson on the first
one. He said the issue of school size and school location is something that needs to be addressed. Some
School Board members want to hold up this entire process for that discussion. Personally, he does not
think that needs to be done. But, he thinks the Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended to account for
the next 10 to 15 years. He thinks that would take a couple of years, and the decision about Monticello High
cannot wait that long.
Ms. Thomas asked what the School Board wants this Board to do. She thinks the UNJAM meeting
will help. After that meeting, the Board could meet with the School Board to have this discussion. Mr.
Koleszar agreed that the Boards could meet and set up a process by which they will do the thorough review
of the CIP.
Mr. Martin said he is afraid that the School Board, which is now elected, will want to take the
pressure they are feeling and get this Board involved. He does not want to see that happen. The School
Board is elected to make the decisions about the School System. When the School Board makes a
recommendation about School CIP projects, this Board just needs to decide if the County can afford the
project. He does not want the Supervisors to get involved in saying educationally speaking what size a
A@
school should be. He does not think that is right.
Mr. Koleszar said he can make a decision on an educational basis, but the School Board does not
want to be out of tune with the direction the County is taking long-term.
A@
Mr. Martin said he is only speaking for himself, but he thinks the School Board should make its best
recommendation to the Supervisors and then they decide if the County can afford what is being requested.
He does not want to be a part of the discussion as to whether or not it is the right thing to do educationally.
Ms. Thomas said where these things cross is when the Supervisors talk about the impact of a
school on the surrounding neighborhood. She does think Mr. Martin is right that the Supervisors should not
be a part of the debate about what size of school is educationally the right size.
Dr. Kevin Castner said the School Board is not as informed as they could be about development in
Crozet. The idea is that they be more informed about the discussion by DISC. It is just sharing of
information so the School Board can increase its understanding of how the master plan works. The
Redistricting Committee was looking at a plan that was created in 1990, and which has not been kept up-to-
date with current planning. While they were talking about capacity issues, they asked those questions
because many people did not see the whole picture. He thinks this is positive, and a sharing of information,
rather than advocating putting it in your court.
A@
Mr. Tucker said the School Board is beginning its work on the CIP. They have heard the
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Supervisors talk about smaller neighborhood schools, and they are not sure what they should do in terms of
long-range planning and the size of schools.
Mr. Martin said the Supervisors and the School Board need to meet and discuss this question, so
everybody is using the same language. He just does not want the redistricting to suddenly fall into the
Supervisors lap.
=
Mr. Rooker said the Supervisors need to understand the financial ramifications of school size
decisions. Mr. Koleszar said it will take a whole year to decide how elementary school size fits DISC. Mr.
Martin said there has been a tendency in the past to purchase enough property to add middle schools to
elementary schools. That also needs to be discussed.
Mr. Koleszar said he would like to mention a couple of other items. May 5 through May 11 is
Teacher Appreciation Week in which the School Board tries to thank all of the people who work hard to
educate the children. On April 26, the Golden Apple Award Ceremony was held at the Rotunda. This is a
way to honor outstanding teachers from the public schools in Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville, including CATEC and eligible private schools who are members of VAIS. The School
Board, at its meeting on April 25, adopted the FY 2002-03 School Operating Budget. They had to cut nine
classroom teaching positions in order to balance their budget. Five of those teaching positions were
restructured from classrooms to gifted resources and literacy support. They found that having directed and
coordinated instruction makes a difference in student achievement.
Mr. Rooker said he would appreciate getting an information sheet that lists all the schools, shows
how many students are at that school, or have been at that school over a four-year period and how many
full-time equivalent positions are at that school. Dr. Castner said that information was in the budget book.
That information will be updated in the fall.
When it was said that nine teaching positions were cut, Mr. Rooker asked if that means nine from
the total number at the beginning of last school year, or nine from the number of teachers projected for the
next school year. Mr. Tucker said they reduced nine teaching positions from the School Boards funding
=
request.
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has a contract with AIMR again this year for the summer rental
of Monticello High School. This rental provides $300,000 toward the School Boards Operating Budget.
=
Mr. Dorrier said he went to the VCPT Council awards last night. They recognized a special
education teacher from Henley who uses technology in the classroom. The three nominees for finalists for
the awards all came from Albemarle County. He was impressed with that, and in talking with people after
the presentations were made, he was told that Albemarle County is far ahead of other localities in the use
of technology in the classroom.
Mr. Koleszar said that three or four years ago, they took some of the school technology out of the
commonality policy, and hired a technology director. That has enabled these things to take place. He also
wanted to mention that the State Board of Education is revising the Standards of Quality. They are having
public hearings across the State. The SOQs have not been revised since 1988. Monday was the day for
=
testimony in Staunton. He and Diantha McKeel attended. They were both impressed by the testimony from
the City of Staunton. They talked about how they are funding activities which are not included in the SOQs.
=
He wondered if the Board of Supervisors might want to write a letter to the State Board of Education along
a similar vein.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has the speech which was written for her to give when JLARC was
having their hearings. It could be dusted off and sent to the State Board. She said it might be worth
A@
doing. Mr. Koleszar offered to help with drafting a letter.
There was no further discussion of this agenda item at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11a. Public Hearing: To amend the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 2,
Administration, 2-202, Compensation of board of supervisors, to increase the compensation of board of
'
supervisor members by 3.8 percent from $11,230.00 per annum to $11,657.00 per annum. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 15 and April 22 2002.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the request.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain
Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
by amending Sec. 2-202, Compensation of board of supervisors.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-2(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION,
ARTICLE II, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 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 2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section
2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors, as follows:
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors shall be eleven thousand six hundred
fifty-seven dollars and no cents ($11,657.00) for each board member. In addition to the
regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for
each and every meeting chaired and the chairman shall receive an annual stipend of one
thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00).
(6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of
8-7-91; Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988,
'
2-2.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. No. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. No. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord.
01-2(2), 6-6-01; Ord. 02-2(2), 5-1-02)
State law reference--Compensation of board of supervisors, Va. Code 15.2-1414.3.
'
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2002.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11b. Public Hearing: To amend the Albemarle County Code, 2-102, Rio
'
Magisterial District, of Article I, Elections, of Chapter 2, Administration, of the Albemarle County Code. The
proposed ordinance would change the polling place for the Northside Precinct of the Rio Magisterial District
from the Northside Fellowship Community Church, 1820 Airport Road, to the Buck Mountain Episcopal
Church, 4133 Earlysville Road. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April
15 and April 22, 2002.)
Mr. Tucker said Virginia Code 24.2-307 requires that the Board of Supervisors establish polling
'
places by ordinance. Albemarle County Code 2-102(C)(4) establishes the Northside Community
'
Fellowship Church as the polling place for the Northside Precinct in the Rio Magisterial District. The
Albemarle County Electoral Board has recommended that Buck Mountain Episcopal Church replace
Northside Community Fellowship Church as the polling place for the Northside Precinct. Even though this
polling place has been used for less than a year, this change is necessary because Northside Community
Fellowship Church moved out of the building it occupied at 1820 Airport Road and the building is no longer
available. Buck Mountain Episcopal Church is located at 4133 Earlysville Road, which is outside of the
Northside Precinct. However, it may be used as a polling place for the Northside Precinct because it is
within 1500 yards of the precinct boundary (Virginia Code 24.2-310) and is easily accessible to the voters
'
in the precinct. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance after the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said the Board can hold the public hearing today. But, she wonders if there is any
hurry to make a decision. Mr. Davis said there is time urgency because the change has to be approved by
the Justice Department before the next primary in the fall.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin to adopt an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 2,
Administration, Article I, Elections, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec.
2-102, Rio Magisterial District.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
ORDINANCE NO. 02-2(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I, ELECTIONS,
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
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 2, Administration, Article I, Elections, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 2-102 Rio Magisterial District
Chapter 2. Administration
Article I. Elections
Sec. 2-102 Rio Magisterial District.
The Rio Magisterial District shall be bounded, and contain voting precincts and
polling places, as follows:
A. : Beginning at the intersection of the South Fork
Description of district
Rivanna River and its intersection with the northeastern limits of the City of Charlottesville;
then meandering north and west along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with
Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then northeast along Seminole Trail to its intersection with
the North Fork Rivanna River; then meandering along the North Fork Rivanna River
northwest to its intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then south along
Dickerson Road to its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743); then northwest
along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663); then
northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663) to its intersection with Buck
Mountain Road (State Route 664); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route
664) to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665); then southwest along
Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665) to its intersection with Bleak House Road (State
Route 662); then south along Bleak House Road to its intersection with Reas Ford Road
(State Route 660); then south along Reas Ford Road to its intersection with the South Fork
Rivanna River; then meandering southeast along the South Fork Rivanna River to its
intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743); then south along Earlysville Road to
its intersection with Hydraulic Road (State Route 743); then southwest along Hydraulic
Road to its intersection with Whitewood Road; then east on Whitewood Road to its
intersection with Greenbrier Drive; then east on Greenbrier Drive to its intersection with
Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then south on Seminole Trail to its intersection with the
northern limits of the City of Charlottesville; then following the limits of the City of
Charlottesville east to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River, the point of origin.
B. : The district shall be divided into five (5) voting precincts,
Voting precincts
as described herein:
1. : Beginning at Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29)
Agnor-Hurt Precinct
and its intersection with Greenbrier Drive; then northeast along Seminole Trail to its
intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering west and south along the
South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743); then
south along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Hydraulic Road (State Route 743); then
southwest along Hydraulic Road to its intersection with Whitewood Road; then east on
Whitewood Road to its intersection with Greenbrier Drive; then east along Greenbrier Drive
to its intersection with Seminole Trail, the point of origin.
2. : Beginning at the northern city limits of
Branchlands Precinct
Charlottesville and its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631) and the Southern
Railroad right-of-way; then northwest on Rio Road East to its intersection with Seminole
Trail (U.S. Route 29); then south on Seminole Trail to the northern city limits of
Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with the Southern Railroad
right-of-way and Rio Road East, the point of origin.
3. : Beginning at Rio Road East (State Route 631)
Dunlora Precinct
at its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of way; then northeast along the
Southern Railroad right-of-way to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then
meandering southeast along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with the
Charlottesville City limits; then following northwest along the Charlottesville City limits to the
intersection with Rio Road East and the Southern Railroad right-of-way, the point of origin.
4. : Beginning at the intersection of Seminole
Northside Precinct
Trail (U.S. Route 29) and the South Fork Rivanna River; then northeast on Seminole Trail
to its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest to its
intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then south along Dickerson Road to
its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743); then northwest along Earlysville
Road to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663); then northwest along
Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663) to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State
Route 664); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664) to its intersection
with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665); then southwest along Buck Mountain Road
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
(State Route 665) to its intersection with Bleak House Road (State Route 662); then south
along Bleak House Road to its intersection with Reas Ford Road (State Route 660); then
South along Reas Ford Road to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then
meandering eastward to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29), the point of
origin.
5. : Beginning at the northern city limits of
Woodbrook Precinct
Charlottesville and its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631) and the Southern
Railroad right-of-way; then northeast with the Southern Railroad right-of-way to its
intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest with the South
Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then south on
Seminole Trail to its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631); then southeast on
Rio Road East to its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-way and the northern
city limits of Charlottesville, the point of origin.
C. : Each voting precinct shall have a polling place at the
Polling places
location identified below:
1. : Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, 3201
Agnor-Hurt Precinct
Berkmar Drive.
2. : Senior Center, 674 Hillsdale Drive.
Branchlands Precinct
3. : Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education
Dunlora Precinct
Center, 1000 East Rio Road.
4. : Buck Mountain Episcopal Church, 4133
Northside Precinct
Earlysville Road.
5. : Woodbrook Elementary School, 100
Woodbrook Precinct
Woodbrook Drive.
(8-19-71, 1; 9-5-72; 7-15-81; Code 1988, 6-1; 5-15-91; Ord. 95-6(1), 1-11-95; Ord.
''
98-A(1), 8-5-98, 2-100(1), 2-101; Ord. 01-2(1), 5-9-01; Ord. 02-2(3), 5-1-02)
''
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11c. Public Hearing pursuant to Section 11-105 of the Albemarle County Code,
to receive public comments on a proposal to increase the park entry fees for Chris Greene, Mint Springs,
and Walnut Creek Parks. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 15
and April 22, 2002.)
Mr. Tucker said the County charges entry fees at Chris Greene, Mint Springs and Walnut Creek
Parks during the summer season while the beaches are open. The current fee structure has been in place
since the summer of 1989. Summer swim program operating expenses increase each year while revenues
have remained flat, with the exception of seasonal fluctuations due to weather. The FY 2001-02 summer
swim program operating budget is $230,000. The revenue average over the past eight years is $104,000.
Mr. Tucker said the Parks and Recreation Department has surveyed swimming pool entry fees for
Charlottesville, Harrisonburg, Alexandria, Waynesboro and Crozet Park. In addition, the Department
surveyed fees associated with lake swimming at Holiday Lake, Bear Creek and Twin Lakes State Parks.
Based on the information received, the Parks and Recreation Director is recommending an increase in
County resident daily rates from $2.00 to $3.00 for adults and from $1.00 to $2.00 for children. Resident
season pass rates are proposed to increase from $35 to $50 for an adult, $20 to $30 for a child, and from
$70 to $100 for a family of five. The charge for additional family members on a season pass would
increase from $15 to $20 per person. As has traditionally been the practice, non-resident rates are
recommended to be 50 percent higher than resident rates. It is anticipated that this rate increase will
increase swim program revenues approximately $30,000 to $40,000.
Mr. Tucker said the County Code requires ten days public notice and a public hearing followed by a
board resolution to change fees for park entry. The Boards Clerk advertised the hearing as required for
=
todays meeting. Staff recommends that the Board hold the public hearing and then by resolution establish
=
the proposed fees for park admission.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt a Resolution Establishing Park Entry Fees
for Chris Greene, Mint Springs and Walnut Creek Parks, as set out below. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH PARK ENTRY FEES FOR
CHRIS GREENE, MINT SPRINGS, AND WALNUT CREEK PARKS
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
WHEREAS, Section 11-105 of the Albemarle County Code provides that from time
to time the Board of Supervisors may establish or change fees for the use of County parks,
recreational areas, and swimming facilities; and
WHEREAS, public notice has been given and a public hearing held on a proposal
to increase the park entry fees for Chris Greene, Mint Springs and Walnut Creek Parks;
and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed fees are reasonable and
necessary to provide park services;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby establishes the park entry fees for Chris Greene, Mint Springs, and
Walnut Creek Parks effective May 1, 2002, as follows:
Daily Entry Fee for an Albemarle County Resident
Adult $3.00
Child $2.00
Daily Entry Fee for a Non-Resident of Albemarle County
Adult $4.50
Child $3.00
Season Pass Fee for an Albemarle County Resident
Adult $50.00
Child $30.00
Family $100.00 plus $20.00 for each additional family member exceeding five
family members
Season Pass Fee for a Non-Resident of Albemarle County
Adult $75.00
Child $45.00
Family $150.00 plus $30.00 for each additional family member exceeding five
family members
A child fee shall be charged for any child four years of age through twelve years of
age, except as otherwise provided;
An adult fee shall be charged for any person thirteen years of age or older, except
as otherwise provided;
No fee shall be charged to a child three years of age or younger;
No fee shall be charged to County resident senior citizens sixty-two years of age or
older;
No fee shall be charged to any person with a low income pass based on "ability to
pay" as determined by social services;
Family shall mean related persons residing in the same household.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. CPA-02-01. Neighborhood Model Amendments to the Land Use Plan.
Public hearing on a request for the proposed amendment would amend the Land Use Plan element of the
Comprehensive Plan by revising the words describing the growth management policy, modifying the focus
of the goals for development in the Development Areas from promoting the segregation of uses and
neighborhoods to goals that are consistent with traditional neighborhood development, as reflected in the
Neighborhood Model adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on 5/16/2001, and by
amending the guidelines and standards for design and uses in each of the land use designations within the
Development Areas. The proposed amendment would also make corresponding changes to other
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan as a result of the revisions described above. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 15 and April 22, 2002.)
Mr. David Benish said this public hearing is to receive public comments on the proposed changes
to the Comprehensive Plan to implement the principles of the Neighborhood Model. The Board had a work
session on this matter last month. Since that time, the version before the Board today has some
grammatical changes, but no substantive changes. After the public hearing is held today, staff will bring
back to the Board a complete list of comments from the work session, and any comments heard today. He
did not intend to make a detailed presentation. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker asked if the DISC II Committee has reviewed these changes and made
recommendations. Mr. Benish said the Committee did receive a copy of it so they are aware of it, but they
were not asked for formal comments. Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be good for that Committee to
review this document and have a forum in which they might provide comments.
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Ms. Thomas asked what the next step for the Board will be after tonight. If this is to be reviewed by
DISC II, that might be the basis for them to have more input.
Mr. Martin said he cannot remember the charge given to DISC II. He knows the makeup of the
Committee was based on its new charge. Before he can say they should review this document, he needs
to know the charge.
Ms. Elaine Echols said the Committee has three charges. The first was to usher the Neighborhood
Model into the Comprehensive Plan. Second was to make sure that the master plan process got under
way, and third was to make sure that the needed ordinance amendments were also done. Staff has been
reporting to them on the status of the last two items. The makeup of the Committee was generally the
same as that of DISC I; representatives from the development community, the environmental groups, the
neighborhood groups and the professional designers.
Mr. Martin said based on the first charge, why would they not have already played an integral part.
Mr. Benish when the Committee received copies of the priorities established for implementing DISC, they
were provided a copy of the changes. However, staff has not formally set up a process that called for
specific comments. The Committee has been kept abreast of what has been going on in implementing the
Model.
Mr. Dorrier said he has heard concerns from the development community saying staff is
implementing the Neighborhood Model process ahead of putting it in the Comprehensive Plan, and ahead
of the Zoning Ordinance amendments which forces them to jump through some hoops before it is on the
A@
books.
Mr. Benish said for legislative matters - rezonings and special use permits - staff relies on the
Comprehensive Plan to provide direction on how to review those requests. Not only ordinance changes are
important, but when staff looks at the discretionary things, how consistent they are with policy. For some of
the ordinance changes being studied, staff is trying to be sensitive to the principles of DISC. The Board has
adopted that Neighborhood Model. Those standards are being made contemporary to the Model where
they were not as consistent before.
Mr. Dorrier said it seems that the recommendations are more or less guidelines for the actual
development of the Neighborhood Model. The Comprehensive Plan is supposed to be a general
document, but this seems much more specific.
Mr. Benish said the Comprehensive Plan is a general guideline, but there are issues of specificity
that are expected to give staff some good guidance. The Board has to bear in mind that they are guidelines
and it has the ability to deviate on a case-by-case basis. In the Comprehensive Plan, there is always the
struggle about providing that flexibility, yet setting a clear message so the public will understand what the
Board wants.
Ms. Thomas said the standards by which something will be judged cannot be kept secret. She said
the Board has been encouraging staff to be more specific than in the past in the Comprehensive Plan so
that no one is taken by surprise as to what the Board means by being good.
A@
Mr. Benish said these are general standards that apply to everything, and not just to a specific piece
of property. These standards have to be flexible and functional with a broader picture of establishing a land
use plan. There is a need to understand the potential holding capacity of a development area. There has
to be some expectation for what is contained in the land, or how the County would want the percentages of
development to take place.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks DISC II should meet and make comments on this document before the
Board has another work session. Mr. Tucker said staff is concerned about what it has heard from both
A
sides of the aisle in these proposals. Staff wants to be sure there is enough incentive in the ordinance to
@
encourage people to do the kinds of things anticipated under the Neighborhood Model concept. Staff
wonders if the County will just continue to get requests for the same kind of traditional development allowed
under existing zoning categories. He said with the zoning already on properties, the Board might have to
rezone some property in order to establish the Neighborhood Model type of development.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff sees the Board getting involved in the decisions about density. Will the
Board be put in the position of requesting proffers of school sites, or sites for public use in exchange for a
higher density in exchange for open space? Mr. Benish said that type of discussion is part of the
development review process.
Mr. Dorrier asked who decides on the ultimate density. Mr. Benish said that decision would be
based on evaluation of a specific proposal and its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and the
impact of that development on existing infrastructure. The density of development is a function of the
holding capacity of the land and infrastructure. That is part of the rezoning process, and the Board is
ultimately charged with that final decision.
Ms. Thomas said she must bring to everyones attention that in ten minutes the Board is to recess
=
to attend County Government Day activities taking place outside around the County Office Building. She
said there are people in the audience who came for the public hearing. She asked if there was anyone
waiting for the public hearing who cannot come back at noon, or thereafter. Four people indicated that they
would like to speak. Ms. Thomas said each of the four people would be allowed three minutes to speak,
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
and she opened the public hearing at this time.
Mr. Bob Watson said he is representing CALAC, and is also a member of the original DISC
committee, and is currently a member of DISC II. He said the Board recently received an E-mail letter from
Mr. Charles Rotgin, President of Great Eastern Management Corporation. Mr. Watson said he believes that
letter captures the essence of the problem of implementing the Neighborhood Model. He urged the Board
members to reread that letter. He said he wanted to amplify one point in that letter which has to do with the
necessary regulatory changes. Basically, the Neighborhood Model cannot be implemented without
regulatory change. He said DISC was formed in March, 1997. The final DISC report was sent to the Board
in March, 2000. That report was sent to the Planning Commission to hold public hearings and work
sessions. It was returned to the Board in February, 2001. The Board approved it in March, 2001. During
this entire period, both the consultant and the members of DISC recommended that regulatory change be
addressed during this period. The Planning Departments current work schedule calls for review of the
=
Zoning Ordinance in June, 2002. That will take at least a year or two when factoring in work sessions and
public hearings by the Commission and this Board. It will have an expiration of almost seven years since
the formation of DISC without meaningful regulatory reform. Yet, developers are being asked to conform to
the Neighborhood Model. Somehow, the regulatory change needs to be fast tracked so builders and
developers can comply with the basic tenets of the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model. Finally, Mr.
Watson said there is rural area development and then there is sprawl. In the year 2001, 53 percent of the
building permits issued were for single-family homes in rural areas. That is contrary to what the Board
wants to accomplish. He urged the Board to fast track as much of the regulatory change as possible.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin said he said what he wanted to say in the E-mail he sent the Board members.
He said when the principles of the Neighborhood Model were adopted by the Board last year, it was
commented that the devil is in the details. He thinks that the original charge to the DISC Committee was
A@
to come up with ways to encourage in-fill development, higher quality and higher density development in the
growth areas. The DISC Committee accomplished that goal even though it was difficult. Now, it is to the
point of working on the details. They felt, in reading through the Comprehensive Plan language, that it is a
vision of what will direct the process of writing the regulatory ordinances. They felt it should be drafted and
crafted in a way that leads to ordinances which will in turn lead to development as anticipated by the DISC
Committee. He thinks there is unanimity among the development community, that they want to protect the
rural areas, and the best way to do that is to come up with a good vision in the Comprehensive Plan, and to
enact ordinances which will encourage development along the order of the Neighborhood Model or similar
forms of development. In conclusion, he said the issue that brought this to the forefront for him is that his
firm is working on a rather large development. They laid it out with DISC principles in mind. Then, in
looking at the topography, they realized that the only way that could occur would be to go in and actually
strip the land by taking off all the hills and filling in all the valleys, ending up with a flat piece of property.
That is not something they are comfortable with. They can plan and develop a high quality, high density
type development that might not comply with all of principles of the Neighborhood Model, but would comply
with most of them. He is encouraged by the Boards willingness to hold work sessions. He thinks a smaller
=
group will allow a free flow of conversation. He said that once the vision statement is agreed upon, the staff
will have the proper guidance to develop the ordinance.
At this point, Ms. Thomas called for a recess.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Break for County Government Day. At 11:40 a.m., the Board recessed, and
reconvened at 12:05 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. CPA-02-01. Neighborhood Model Amendments to the Land Use Plan. The
Board continued with the public hearing on this matter.
Mr. Jeff Werner was present to represent the Piedmont Environmental Council. He said in order to
fully implement the Neighborhood Model and the concurrency of infrastructure, the County must explore a
tool that is available in the State Code and suggested in the Comprehensive Plan: The Official Map. He
suggested that the Board sit down with Frank Cox and discuss this concept further. Second, the Countys
=
new Neighborhood Model is about building places for people to live, work, shop, etc. He knows of no tenet
within the Model which is intended to limit the rate of development in this area. In fact, it is intended to fulfill
the Countys objective about where growth should occur. He said the Countys current Comprehen-sive
==
Plan proposes that 87 percent of future growth be directed into designated development areas. The
Neighborhood Model is possibly a means to that stated and approved objective. His third comment relates
to the assertion by some that in this CPA, the County should consider expansion of the Growth Area as the
Neighborhood Model represents a threat to affordable housing. He has heard many argue against the so-
called Smart Growth efforts as say it will limit affordable housing. This argument is not an argument to
seek solutions to affordable housing, but to use the politically sensitive affordable housing issue as a
lightning rod to oppose smart growth and argue for expansion of the growth area, or for more development
in the rural area. In other words, the argument in opposition to smart growth initiatives is that sprawl is best
for solving affordable housing issues. Dont be fooled by those who use affordable housing to make a case
=
for expanding development into the form of growth called sprawl. At the expiration of his three-minute time
allotment, Mr. Werner handed to the Clerk a very long prepared statement which is on file.
Mr. Martin said he did not know if any of Mr. Werners comments were directed to the article in the
=
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
newspaper last Friday, but he would like to clear up something. He never argued against the Neighbor-
hood Model in that meeting on Friday. He does not know where that thought came from. He and Mr.
Rooker were basically discussing what raises the price of a home, and the discussion had nothing to do with
disagreeing with the Neighborhood Model, or smart growth.
Mr. Werner said it is a message that came to him from a lot of other sources as well. There is a lot
more being said about it in the community, and that is why he felt compelled to make it a part of the
statement.
Mr. Martin said once the development area is increased, by definition the Board would have by
definition increased the value of the property. That makes it less affordable. He would never argue that the
growth area needs to be increased in order to make affordable housing.
Mr. Werner said there have been some interesting thoughts that have come to light recently, and
he addressed those in this statement. He said that Mr. Rotgin has said there are some really creative ideas
which all need to brought to the table. His statement resonates what he has said before about the
A@
Universitys part in all of this, and he thinks it is a starting point for some discussion.
=
Mr. Rooker said the conversation Mr. Martin mentioned took place while they were discussing
affordable housing. They were just throwing around ideas about what increases the price of housing, and
how price increases can be limited so housing remains affordable in the community.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Werner gave the Board a copy of the Growth Management Plan from the
Comprehensive Plan. He asked if there are any proposed amendments to that page. Mr. Cilimberg said it
is the cover page for Growth Management which shows the Goals Statement and the Table showing
development activity. Mr. Benish said that page was from the 1989 Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Thomas said the County is doing a lot better than the chart shown on that page. It showed 65
percent of development taking place in the rural areas, whereas only 20 percent of development is taking
place in the rural areas according to the Second Quarter Development Report the Board just received. She
is assuming that all of the discussion about what the Planning Commission has proposed, does not ask the
question about expansion of the boundaries. That discussion will have to occur at another time.
Mr. Martin said there have been several ordinance issues before the Board related to the
Neighborhood Model and parking. Ms. Thomas said they are working on parking now. She went to a work
session as an observer. The Board has already adopted amendments concerning alleys and side roads.
She asked Mr. Benish to explain where these amendments are in the work plan. Mr. Benish said staff is
working on the TND Planned District Ordinance which will allow for a district that most easily could apply in
a rezoning case, as opposed to changing all districts in the ordinance. This will be a district of its own.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any time set for that amendment to be discussed by the Planning
Commission and Board. Ms. Echols said staff needs to talk further with the applicant for the TND District
before the end of May, and then hopefully have a focused discussion in June, and maybe have it go the
A@
Commission after there are written comments. The amendment is in writing at this time. It will be given to
the applicant in order to get it as close as possible to what was requested, although that may not be totally
possible.
Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Echols is suggesting that there is a fourth zoning text amendment. Ms.
Echols said there was a whole series of amendments: the first had to do with parking.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to put this into perspective. He thinks staff needs to go back to
something the Board saw last fall and that was a schedule of what would be needed to get the
Neighborhood Model elements implemented within the resources available. Of course, things have
changed since that time because the Board has authorized two more staff positions in the Planning
Department. Based on that schedule, things are moving along in an appropriate and timely manner. The
first thing to do was the Comprehensive Plan amendment which is before the Board today. Staff anticipated
that would be through the Planning Commission in March, and it was. With the Board continuing to work on
it in work sessions means that it will not be adopted until that work is concluded. He said this amendment
sets out the more specific guidance staff has in making some very specific ordinance changes which are
proposed to start this summer.
Mr. Martin said he thought that when developers said they could make the Neighborhood Model
work except for certain specific things in the ordinance, that those changes would come to the Board. Mr.
Cilimberg said the amendment concerning alleys came to the Board because there was no mechanism in
the ordinance which allowed alleys. Parking will be the next amendment because it has needed a lot of
attention for some time. This Traditional Neighborhood District or Model is an applicant-initiated district
because there was no development district which the development community felt represented the
Neighborhood Model principles. The applicant would wish this had been done six months ago. Within the
resources of the Planning Department, staff tried to make sure everything had been covered from a policy
standpoint, as well as a legal standpoint. He said when those applications are received, they are moved to
the top of the priority list, just as big development proposals move to the top of the priority list. He said there
are an array of ordinance changes which still need to take place. If all of them had been pushed forward at
one time, there is no way staff could have done them. He said the concerns of the development community
that the ordinance amendments needed to help with implementation of the Neighborhood Model are valid.
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Rooker said a lot of those things are addressed in TND district. Mr. Cilimberg said that is true.
It will be an application district, where the development community is interested in having the conventional
districts also allow them to do these kinds of developments, rather than having to go through a rezoning
process.
Mr. Rooker asked if the TND District were finished and it were a district where most of the
Neighborhood Model development could take place without much difficulty, could staff not take the
concepts out that district and apply them to the general ordinances which are applicable? Mr. Cilimberg
said the TND District would not be applied to every urban property as a district. If that were flushed out by
the Planning Commission and the Board, staff would have a good basis for knowing how to deal with a
conventional district in a more specific way.
Mr. Rooker asked if that could be completed by the Board by this summer. Mr. Cilimberg said the
TND should be to the Planning Commission by June. Staff does not know how long their work will take.
He said if the Commission brings up things which need to be addressed, that takes the time of Planning,
Zoning and Engineering staff. He just attended a conference on this subject, and it was highly stressed that
the commitment of resources has to be made to turn around the expectations of plans through
implementation measures. It needs to be done in a defined time frame, whether it be ordinance changes or
capital investment, and it cannot happen within six months or a year. A program commitment is important
to communities working with growth boundaries and urbanization initiatives such as those in Albemarle. Mr.
Cilimberg said there is a schedule in place, and there is another very big initiative which is Neighborhood
Model related, and it fits into some of the environmental matters discussed earlier; that is a need for
modifications to the critical slopes provisions. He said these programs work counter to what is trying to be
accomplished. One other thing that no one hears much about is the Community Facilities Plan and the
ultimate tie of that Plan to the CIP. That is where that commitment of government toward this model is
going to be addressed.
Ms. Thomas said that issue has surfaced in the Crozet community, but from a different group than
developers. She does not want to turn this into a dichotomy of two different groups. There is a complexity
of people and groups who are interested in what is done with the Comprehensive Plan. But, if the Crozet
community is going through the master planning process, these people want to be sure the Board follows
through with needed capital improvements for infrastructure. She is not sure everybody realizes how
important that is.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is a big part of what many consider to be a new urban development concept
with a development called Albemarle Place. They are at the mercy of an infrastructure system which is a
A@
public responsibility that has not been developed to the extent that it can accommodate the kind of
development the County wants in that area. Where does the obligation fall on the developer and where
does it fall on the community?
Mr. Martin said if the Board wants this thing to work, it has to make a bigger commitment. He said
there is nothing worse then making a half commitment to something and have it fail.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Comprehensive Plan is amended, but the Zoning Ordinance is not, when do
the developers have to comply with the full Plan? Mr. Cilimberg said a rezoning is a legislative decision,
and the Board can exercise its discretion. The Comprehensive Plan then becomes a primary player in
terms of the expectations of the rezoning. To the extent that the Comprehensive Plan has defined the
expectations, staff feels they can push for those to be met with the rezoning proposal. Ultimately, that is
accomplished through an application plan and proffers. That process, which is enabled under Virginia law,
has not changed. When it comes to site plans and subdivisions, staffs hands are tied. Staff then takes a
=
very conservative approach in that the ordinances dictate what people are supposed to do. Therefore, if the
ordinances have not been changed, then staff cannot tell them to do things the Neighborhood Model may
call for that are not consistent with what is allowed by the Subdivision and Site Plan provisions. Staff has
been asking people to consider doing those things, but they dont always want to do so.
=
Mr. Martin said if he were going to subdivide property and staff convinced him to do it giving more
attention to the Neighborhood Model, what incentive would there be for him to do so since the ordinances
have not changed? Mr. Cilimberg said there are certain aspects which do not require that the ordinances
be changed to make it easier for the applicant. For example, sidewalks cannot be required until there are
four dwelling units an acre. He said staff is trying to get the State to accept sidewalks in the public right-of-
way in residential developments for their maintenance. Developer concerns in the past have been that
sidewalks will end up being the homeowners responsibility, and the County has gone through a process of
trying to be sure a homeowners association will take the responsibility for sidewalks.
=
Ms. Thomas said staff will work with VDOT whenever a developer wants a slightly different kind of
street that fits the Countys desire to have something smaller in width and VDOT said they would work with
=
the County on a case-by-case basis. It is the Countys staff that ends up doing most of that work. Then,
=
before the last session of the General Assembly, a fair amount of time was spent trying to get the entire
community of developers to join in an effort to get VDOT to change their road standards in subdivisions.
Although there was no bill passed this session, the legislator who proposed it told VDOT he will be looking
over their shoulders and they better do as they said and study those standards this year.
Mr. Martin said changing the critical slopes regulations may not be an incentive because people will
be able to do more things by right. If the County wants that person to do more things in accord with the
DISC principles, once the regulations are changed to their benefit, there is no incentive there. Mr. Cilimberg
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
said once an ordinance changes in place, if it is to the favor of what the County is trying to accomplish in the
Comprehensive Plan, then he would consider the incentive to have been created.
Mr. Rooker said the incentive is to go in a certain direction because they will not have to seek
waivers. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. He said the expectations need to be established in the
Comprehensive Plan, but ordinance amendments need to be adopted so that the process is easier for
people.
Ms. Thomas said the County needs to make it evident to the public what it is doing along those
lines. Next year, when the CIP is updated, there needs to be a conversation about what pieces of this will
be in support of the Neighborhood Model, and the master planning in Crozet and other areas. Mr. Tucker
said this is part of the Countys Strategic Plan. When staff said it ties into the budget, they did not just mean
=
the operating budget, but the capital budget also.
Mr. Perkins said what he hears is that the County will have to make more commitments to make
the DISC model work. On the other hand, he thinks the developers will have to make more commitments
also. He referred to a recent development approved by the Board on Jarmans Gap Road. In that case,
=
the developer was willing to give the County cash money. He does not know that the development will pay
for itself, but he thinks the County has to ask for more from the developers. They are getting a greater
density and more of the things they want, or they wouldnt be doing it. In Crozet, a lot of the infrastructure is
=
already there. The sewer line was built years ago, and that is why it is a growth area. There are other
things which will have to be built too, and maybe the County will have to pay for some of that. It certainly is
a take and give situation.
Mr. Rooker said that is the unfair part of the process going on now. The County cannot charge
impact fees and can only try to get proffers when the land is rezoned. The County then ends up trying to
get people who are rezoning their property to pay for the infrastructure, when people who may be
developing right next door dont have to pay anything at all.
=
Mr. Perkins said there is a public misunderstanding about this. In the case of Grayrock, many
people were opposed to it because they thought it was too dense, but the Board could only turn it down
because it was not dense enough, not complying with Comprehensive Plan recommendations.
Ms. Thomas said the County has not gone into cash proffers. If that does occur, there have to be
many studies done to show what the basis is for asking for those proffers. She said that in some
communities it is understood that there will be a cash proffer connected to a development, and they
suggest a number to the developer. Albemarle has not done that. She, personally, is not enamored of that
idea because it sounds too much like bribery. If this Board decided it wanted to go for cash proffers, there
are certain legal and fiscal underpinnings that would need to be worked out. It would be just one more job
for staff.
Mr. Davis said localities who are sophisticated in dealing with the proffer system have done studies
and actually have components in their Comprehensive Plan which identify the cost for infrastructure
associated with residential development. They have an associated cost for library services, schools, roads,
all the things which local government might provide for that development. For every unit, they have a
designated number that they believe will address those infrastructure costs and there is an expectation that
when a rezoning comes before the board of supervisors there will be a proffer that meets that expectation.
Mr. Benish said staff is looking at updating the Community Facilities Plan. One thing that is being
done now is an assessment of what improvements need to be made to make that document consistent with
the Neighborhood Model. Staff is asking how extensive the Plan should be amended to set it up for the
capabilities of assessing cash proffers. That will take a significant amount of background work, and you
need to know how you finance and invest public improvements. The bottom line is to determine some
incremental costs, and how to distribute that cost.
Ms. Thomas said that work will then give the Board some background information so it can have
that discussion at a more sophisticated level. Mr. Benish said staff is now trying to determine what short
term changes need to be made to get ready for the update of the CIP next year. Staff needs to lay out the
basic changes anticipated, but this update of the Community Facilities Plan can be a very significant
undertaking if it is built in a way that it could be used for that purpose.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks it has been clear for many, many years that the County wants to
encourage development in the development areas. She thinks staff knows which way the Board wants the
incentives to go.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wanted to defer this matter and set a work session for June 5.
Between now and then, if any Board members are interested, they might meet with some others about the
specifics of this proposal.
Ms. Thomas said there is the Planning Commission and a good distribution of community members
on the DISC II Committee. She would rather have them discuss this proposal and get their comments for
the Boards work session on June 5.
=
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Third Quarter Financial Report, Presentation of.
Ms. Roxanne White said this report is similar to the December report. Revenues are still projected
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
to be about $1.6 million over what was budgeted last July. Real estate taxes are expected to be $0.884
million over what was budgeted. That number has not been changed from the last report because tax bills
are not yet out. Personal Property taxes are expected to be approximately $2.0 million over budget due to
better sales than anticipated and higher collections in the first half of the year. Sales tax revenues and
Business License collections are still expected to be lower than budgeted. In looking at expenditures, they
are at 76 percent of the current budget. The preliminary Fund Balance available at April 1, 2002, is $0.514
million. The projected end-of-the-year balance is $2.105 million. Subtracting FY 03 budget commitments
>
of $2.037 million leaves a net unobligated fund balance of $0.068 million.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Mr. Martin said he forgot the Board had changed the format, and he guesses the Board approved
the minutes under Item 5.1. Ms. Thomas said she had not read the minutes assigned to her. Mr. Martin
said he had not read the minutes assigned to him.
Ms. Thomas asked for a motion to pull the minutes, Item 5.1, off of the Consent Agenda. Mr.
Martin offered motion to pull Item 5.1 off of the Consent Agenda since it was erroneously approved. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
__________
Ms. Thomas said staff thought this would be a way to shorten up the meeting, but this illustrates
that the Board is not ready for this change.
Mr. Rooker said he had read the minutes of March 13 and April 17, 2002, and would move for
their approval. The motion as seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
__________
Ms. Thomas pointed to a map posted on the wall. She said the Mapping Office will put up a new
A@
map every month if they are told what the Board members would like to see. They have wonderful
capabilities.
__________
Mr. Davis said that during budget work sessions, the Board authorized the staff to go forward with
an ordinance that would impose a $5.00 court cost for people convicted in Albemarle County courts. Staff
is preparing that ordinance for a public hearing on June 5. Staff has now identified some additional
legislation that allows a $25.00 additional court cost on people being convicted and processed into the
regional jail. He said if the Board wants to authorize going to public hearing on such a fee, it would make
sense to do both fees in the same ordinance. He does not believe it is a great revenue generator but it is a
fee that is available. It was the consensus to go ahead with a public hearing on that fee also.
__________
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful if the maps send by the Planning Department for a particular
project showed the proposed property in context with public facilities, natural areas, etc. The maps need to
show some landmarks, i.e., schools, shopping centers. He suggested that the maps be projected onto a
screen at the public hearing so the public can also see where the property is located. Ms. Thomas said the
quality of the reproduction is often an issue when it comes to those maps. Mr. Tucker said he would ask
staff to prepare some information on this request for the June 5 Board meeting. Mr. Perkins said he thinks
there should be a permanent map in this room showing roads, route numbers and magisterial district
boundaries.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session: Legal and Personnel Matters.
At 1:10 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Rooker 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; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation
arising from a property damage claim. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Session. At 2:01 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session in the County Executives Conference Room on the Fourth Floor of the County Office Building.
=
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the
best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
=
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to make the following appointments.
To reappoint Mr. Stephen T. McLean, Ms. Ann H. Mallek and Ms. Marcia Joseph to the Acquisition
of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee, with terms to expire August 1, 2005.
To reappoint Ms. Ellora Young and Mr. Jerry E. Jones to the Jordan Development Corporation, with
terms to expire August 13, 2003.
To reappoint Mr. Jeffrey B. Werner and Mr. Dennis S. Rooker to the Fiscal Impact Advisory
Committee, with terms to expire July 8, 2004.
To appoint Mr. Charles Ward as the School Board representative on the Audit Committee.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adopt the
following resolution to deny a claim asserted by Ms. Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty
Company. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM
ASSERTED BY CAROLYN NAPIER AND
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY
WHEREAS, Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, by
counsel, have asserted a claim for damages in the amount of $121,059.06 against the
County of Albemarle arising from alleged negligence in connection with certain storm
drainage improvements that occurred in 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the claim is not supported by the
facts or by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, denies the claim of Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire &
Casualty Company for alleged damages in the amount of $121,059.06.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board
of County Supervisors
Date: 07/10/2002
May 1, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Initials: EWC