2002-07-03July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 3,
2002, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr.
Dennis S. Rooker.
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
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 Vice-Chairman, Mr.
Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Mr. Dorrier invited everyone to attend the Fourth of July Parade in the town of Scottsville and also
mentioned the naturalization ceremony at Monticello on July Fourth.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Lois Rochester, representing the League of Women Voters, said the League urges the Board
not to withdraw the emergency water resolution at this time. They fear that an official lifting of the
emergency would send a message to the public that all is well. In fact, the on-going drought is serious
and destined to get worse. Heavy summer rains that replenish the reservoirs only give the illusion that
water is plentiful. In actuality, most such rainfall quickly drains away. The staff's recommendation to
develop an easy-to-understand measure that provides the public the status and appropriate actions for
various drought conditions is commendable and should be implemented. However, it will take time to
develop, to get approval from all the players, and to educate the public. In the interim, it seems prudent
to maintain the emergency status quo so that conservation measures can be declared and enforced in a
timely fashion, if and when needed.
The Board agreed to pull Consent Agenda Item 7.7 and to talk about it later in the meeting
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution of Appreciation to H. Carter Myers, III.
Mr. Dorrier read the Resolution of Appreciation into the record:
On behalf of the citizens, local government staff and the Board of Supervisors of
A
Albemarle County, I would like to recognize H. Carter Myers, III, for his outstanding
efforts in serving on the Commonwealth Transportation Board from February, 1994 until
June, 2002, a truly significant and impressive accomplishment.
We are most grateful for the time, energy and dedication he has committed to serving
A
the transportation needs of this region. We particularly appreciate his responsiveness
to local transportation needs as expressed by the Board of Supervisors and by
individual citizens of the community, and for his support of funding for primary road
improvements in the county. We also recognize the important support he has given to
major transportation projects such as the widening of Route 29 North and the Meadow
Creek Parkway which have and will enhance area mobility and traffic safety.
@
On a personal note, Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Myers for what he has done for the southern part of
the County, particularly the two ISTEA grants for the town of Scottsville.
Mr. Myers said he is very honored to receive this recognition from Albemarle County. He and the
Board have worked well together over the years, except for one issue. As to the Meadow Creek
Parkway, he believes the City is comfortable now with the plans for their section, and he has asked VDOT
to keep a sense of urgency in this project. He said the possibility of Meadow Creek continuing on the
section north of Rio Road is still there for the future. He said it has been a joy to work with the people
from Scottsville, and also from Monticello. Out of that, two ISTEA projects meet national significance and
he thinks that both will ultimately receive national recognition.
Mr. Myers said he thinks it will be important to somehow find an eastern connector that is
acceptable to the community that will help to connect the east and north. With business and residential
development on both sides of the River, he sees that as the most critical long-term traffic need of the
community. He said the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO is working on it. The County might work with the
new Commonwealth Transportation Board member to try and get funding for a study. Also, he would like
to say that the area could not have a better appointee for the CTB than Butch Davies. He has worked
closely with Mr. Davies who has followed transportation issues over the years, and Mr. Myers thinks he
will be very responsive. The one thing there might be disagreement about is the Western Route 29
Bypass. His main concern is that the process not be restarted. It is possible the whole thing might have
to start over if the Fourth Circuit Court and Judge Moon rule in such a way, but he thinks it would be a
long-term disruption for this community.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Myers sees an end to the State budget crisis. Mr. Myers said he thinks
the State budget crisis is a little overblown. The privatization at VDOT has been successful. No one
thought there would be a bridge over I-95 to connect I-295 to the east and Chippenham Parkway south.
He said that road was done with private funding. Hopefully, bond issues will pass in Northern Virginia
and Tidewater to relieve a big burden on the Commonwealth. Quite frankly, he thinks that at some point
in time there will be a need to look at a user fee for the gas tax. He is not opposed to tolls. He grew up in
Petersburg, and paid tolls for 40 years to drive to Richmond and Chesterfield County. Those tolls paid for
half of their roads.
Mr. Myers said the new Transportation Commissioner is very capable. There is now a
professional running VDOT and that will be good. They need to rebuild their human infrastructure.
Overall, he thinks there will be real improvements at VDOT, and the funding situation will be cured. He
said all have to work together to find solutions for traffic. As much as he thinks transit is good, it is difficult
to get people to ride buses. He would also like to see a better job done for the trails system. He said the
Rivanna Trails group has a lot of energy, but more could be done. He said it has been a please to serve
the County, and he is a resource for the future.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Resolution in Recognition of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commissions (TJPDC) 30th Anniversary.
=
Mr. Dorrier read the following resolution into the record:
On behalf of the citizens, Local Government staff and the Board of Supervisors of
A
Albemarle County, I would like to congratulate the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission on the occasion of its thirtieth year of service to our community. The
TJPDC has been a valuable regional partner in wide-ranging planning efforts to better
our community's quality of life. It has been a leader in coordinating area-wide
transportation planning efforts focusing on creating effective road networks as well as
alternative transportation options. It has continued to monitor regional demographic
trends and to raise critical issues relating to population growth and development
patterns to a high level of community attention and dialogue. It has also devoted time
and energy to housing, juvenile justice, workforce and employment, cultural tourism and
other pressing regional issues. It has brought these topics to the public's attention via
community forums and interactive meetings designed to enhance awareness and
promote informed citizen participation in public policy decision-making.
@
Mr. Dorrier presented the resolution to Mr. Harrison Rue, the new Executive Director of the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
Mr. Rue said he has only been a resident of the area for about six months. This award really
goes to everyone who has volunteered time to the Commission for the last 30 years. Their goal is to earn
another plaque 30 years from now.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Items 7.1 through 7.6 and 7.8 through 7.11, to pull Item 7.7 for discussion and to
accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
__________
Item 7.1. Approval of Minutes: February 6, March 18(A), May 1 and May 15, 2002.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of March 18, 2002 (Afternoon) and found them to be
acceptable.
No other minutes had been read.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes of March 18, 2002 (A) were approved as
presented.
__________
Item 7.2. ZMA-1999-13. Young America (Sign #70), Proffers.
Item 7.3. SP-1999-059. Young America (Sign #67). Both petitions had been deferred from the
Boards meeting on June 5, 2002.
=
It was noted in the staffs report that at the Boards meeting on June 5, 2002, a public hearing
==
was held on the Young America/Morris Creek Yacht Club application (Petition #s ZMA-99-13 and SP-
=
99-59). While the applicant provided a set of proffers, the person signing the proffers was not legally
enabled to do so. A legally signed set of proffers has now been received. Additionally, the applicant
struck the language in Proffer No. 2 which would have allowed "truck stops" as a by-right use on the site,
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
per the Board's directive. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-1999-13 with the proffers submitted and
approval of SP-1999-59 as presented.
As recommended by staff, ZMA-1999-13 was approved subject to the following proffers,
and SP-1999-59 was approved as presented.
Original Proffer: 4/3/02
Amended Proffer: 6/6/02
(Amendment # 3)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 5/7/02
ZMA #: 99-59
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 76M(1)-1 and 76-55A
2.20 Acres to be rezoned from LI to HC (0.43 acres unzoned former VDOT right-of-way)
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need
for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
request.
1. The development of the site will be in general accord with the plan entitled
"Conceptual Site Plan", prepared by John McNair and Associates, dated January
8, 2002 and revised on April 2, 2002.
2. The Owners shall restrict the uses on the property to hotels, motels, restaurants,
service stations, convenience stores and gift, craft or antique shops.
3. Vehicular access from 5th street to development on the properties subject to ZMA-
99-13 and SP-99-59 shall be provided by a single entrance to be shared with the
existing Holiday Inn. The final site plan for development of the subject properties
shall cause the existing entrance to the Holiday Inn to be modified to be used as
an "in only" entrance as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan and the modified
entrance shall meet Virginia Department of Transportation standards for one-way
commercial entrances. Additionally, the final site plan shall provide the Holiday
Inn with an additional entrance for two-way traffic flow. This additional entrance
shall be at a minimum safe distance from the "in only" entrance as determined by
the Albemarle County Engineering Department.
4. All proposed buildings shall be sited so that the fronts of the buildings are oriented
to face 5th Street as generally shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.
5. All fuel islands shall be located behind a building as generally shown on the
Conceptual Site Plan.
6. All existing and new utility lines on the proposed site shall be underground. The
placement of these underground utilities shall be shown and constructed as part of
any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties.
7. As part of preliminary site plan submitted for any development on the rezoned
property, the owner shall conduct a Traffic Study which reflects the traffic impacts
of all the proposed uses and the existing Holiday Inn (Tax Map 76, Parcel 55C).
All improvements identified by the traffic study shall be subject to VDOT and
County Engineering approval and provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. These improvements, if required by the traffic study, may include, but
shall not be limited to, a traffic signal at the entrance from 5th Street; an extension
of the turn lane in the northbound lane of 5th Street coming from Interstate 64, and
an extension of the existing turn lane from 5th Street southbound to the entrance
of the proposed development.
8. The Owners shall grant an easement to the County for the "Greenway Easement"
as shown on the accompanying Conceptual Site Plan provided that the County
holds the owner harmless as provided in Virginia Code 29.1-509(E). This
'
easement shall be granted within 90 days of approval by the Board of Supervisors
of ZMA-99-13 and SP-99-59.
In conjunction with the Greenway, the Owner(s) shall:
A. In addition to the screening requirements of the Albemarle County
Architectural Review Board and section 32 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, the owner shall provide a vegetated buffer for the purposes of
screening the development from the proposed greenway trail shown on the
Conceptual Site Plan. This vegetated buffer shall be provided in a manner
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
consistent with section 32.7.9.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
and the landscaping shall be shown on the final site plan and installed as part
of any final site plan for development of the rezoned properties.
B. Steps and a vehicle travelway from the proposed parking area to the edge of
the proposed Greenway Easement shall be constructed in the approximate
locations shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. These improvements shall be
shown and constructed as part of any final site plan for development of the
rezoned properties and maintained by the owner.
C. A contribution of five hundred dollars ($500.00) shall be made to the County
to upgrade the existing bridge that formerly served the Old Lynchburg Road
that lies in the proposed Greenway easement. This contribution shall be
made prior to Final Site Plan approval.
(Signed)
Kevin P. Mahaney, Pres. Kevin P. Mahaney, Pres.
for Morris Creek Yacht Club for Morris Creek Yacht Club 6-13-02
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
__________
Item 7.4. Resolution to amend the Albemarle County Personnel Policy pertaining to military
leaves of absence for County employees.
It was noted in the staffs report that legislation passed by the 2002 General Assembly and
=
approved by the Governor amended state law (Virginia Code 44-93) pertaining to military leave for state
'
and local government employees. State law provides that such employees are entitled to a maximum of
15 paid days of military leave for training purposes or active duty per Federal fiscal year. Once this
15-day period is exhausted, an employee typically begins to receive military pay and is placed on unpaid
leave status by the locality. Under this legislation, local governments have the enabling authority to pay
the difference between an employee's regular pay and the military pay received. The proposed changes
to County personnel policy implement this enabling authority and would bring current policy in line with
state law. Specifically, the proposed policy provides that, for any employee who is engaged in active
federally funded military duty as a result of being drafted or involuntarily called to duty, the County will
make up the difference in pay between the employee's regular pay and the military pay received during
the period of active military service, for up to six months. At the expiration of the six-month period, the
employee may apply for a three-month extension of the pay differential.
The policy revisions also provide that employees will accrue leave and seniority in accordance
with current County leave policies. Finally, the policy provides that, during the period of active duty
military service, an employee's health insurance coverage may continue with no change in coverage from
what the employee has during regular employment. Extended health care coverage may continue for the
lesser of 18 months (under COBRA) or the day after the date on which the person fails to apply for or
return to a position of employment with the County as required by Federal law. At the employee's
request, the policy provides that the County shall pay the employer portion of the applicable health care
premium during this period, with the employee continuing to pay the cost of dependent coverage.
Many localities are adopting similar changes in light of the Federal military call-up that has
occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States and subsequent military operations
overseas. Currently, at least one County employee is serving on an active duty basis overseas and
would be affected by this policy change. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and revised policy.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the revised policy which follows:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy has been adopted by the
Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, changes to state law authorize the Board of Supervisors to provide
enhanced benefits to County Employees called into military service,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends Section P-83, Military Leave, of the County
of Albemarle Personnel Policy, as follows:
Section P-83. Military Leave
Upon presentation of a copy of final orders or other equivalent notice, an employee who
is a member of an officially-recognized reserve or national guard unit shall be entitled to
15 work days of military leave for training purposes or active duty per Federal fiscal year
and shall be paid regular pay.
An employee who is drafted, volunteers for full-time military service or is called to active
duty in the uniformed services shall be placed on military leave without pay when military
leave is exhausted. However, for any employee who is engaged in active federally-
funded military duty as a result of being drafted or involuntarily called to duty, the County,
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
after the expiration of 15 workdays of military leave, shall pay the difference between the
employee's regular pay and the military pay received during all or any part of the term of
active federally-funded duty, up to a maximum of six (6) months. At the expiration of the
six-month period, the Board of Supervisors may, upon application by the employee,
extend payment of the military pay differential for an additional three (3) month period.
During military leave with pay, the employee will continue to accrue seniority, annual
leave and sick leave. Employees who are on military leave without pay will continue to
accrue seniority but not annual leave or sick leave.
During the period of active duty military service, an employee's health insurance
coverage may continue with no change in coverage from what the employee has during
regular employment. An employee may elect to continue such coverage under COBRA
for the maximum time allowed.
An employee who is drafted, or involuntarily recalled to active military service, may
request the County to pay the employer portion of the applicable health care premium for
the lesser of eighteen (18) months or the day after the date on which the person fails to
apply for or return to a position of employment with the County as required by Federal
law. The employee shall continue to pay the remainder of the cost of employee coverage
and the cost of any dependent coverage.
Any employee whose absence from employment with the County is necessitated by
reason of service in the uniformed services shall be entitled to all reemployment rights
and benefits as set forth in the Federal Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act and other applicable Federal or state laws.
Legal References: Virginia Code 44-93. Leaves of absence for employees of the
'
Commonwealth and political subdivisions.
38 U.S.C. 4301-4333. Employment and Reemployment
''
Rights of Members of the Uniformed Services.
___________
Item 7.5. Resolution to accept roads in Foxcroft, Phase 3, into the Secondary System of State
Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
==
resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Foxcroft Subdivision, Phase 3, described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 3, 2002, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in
Foxcroft, Phase 3, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 3,
2002, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229, Code of
'
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1) Foxvale Lane (State Route 1141) from the intersection of Route 1148
and Route 1147 to the intersection of Route 1149, Leaping Fox Court,
and Route 1118, Leaping Fox Lane, as shown on plat recorded 4/9/1999
in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 1805, pages 82-87, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.06 mile.
2) Leaping Fox Court (State Route 1149) from the intersection of Route
1141, Foxvale Lane, to the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded
4/9/1999 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
County in Deed Book 1805, pages 82-87, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.04 mile.
3) Leaping Fox Lane (State Route 1118) from the intersection of Route
1141, Foxvale Lane, to the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded
3/15/2001 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1805, pages 82-87, 132-136 and 138-141, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.20 mile.
__________
Item 7.6. Resolution to accept roads in Parkside Village, Phase 1, into the Secondary System of
State Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
==
resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Parkside Village Subdivision, Phase 1, described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 3, 2002, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in
Parkside Village, Phase 1, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
July 3, 2002, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229, Code of
'
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1) Cranberry Lane (State Route 1234) from the intersection of Route
1233, Indigo Road, to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded
12/4/2000 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1974, pages 487-492, with a 40-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.06 mile.
2) Hill Top Street (State Route 691) from the existing end of maintenance
of Route 691, Hill Top Street, to the intersection of Route 1233, Indigo
Road, as shown on plat recorded 12/4/2000 in the office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1974, pages
487-492, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.02 mile.
3) Indigo Road (State Route 1233) from the intersection of Route 691, Hill
Top Street, to the intersection of Route 1234, Cranberry Lane, as shown
on plat recorded 12/4/2000 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1974, pages 487-492, with a 40-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.17 mile.
__________
Item 7.7. Water Emergency Termination. (Note: Discussion pertaining to this item follows the
staffs report. This item was not subject to the vote on the Consent Agenda.)
=
It was noted in the staffs report that in November 2001, the Board, at the request of the
=
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), declared a water emergency. ACSA made this request
based on drought conditions and the decreasing levels at the water supply reservoirs. On May 16, 2002,
the ACSA requested that the Supervisors declare an end to the water emergency. The request to end
the water emergency was based on the fact that the reservoirs are approaching 100 percent of capacity
due to recent rains, which alleviates the need for emergency controls. In making this request, the ACSA
recognized that despite the fact that the reservoirs are almost full, there is an on-going drought that is
severely impacting groundwater levels and water conservation must remain a high priority. The ACSA
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
also recognizes that the low groundwater levels translate into lower base flows in the streams feeding the
reservoirs and that the reservoirs will drop more quickly during extended dry periods this summer.
Despite the on-going threat to reservoir capacity, the ACSA believes continuing the water emergency at
this time will be less effective than declaring a new water emergency, if required later this year.
Staff concurs that keeping the water emergency in place when reservoirs are full diminishes the
effectiveness of that measure. Staff is also sensitive to the concern that lifting the water emergency can
be viewed as misinforming the public as to the seriousness of the on-going drought. This is especially
true for those County residents using wells as there appears to be no improvement in groundwater
conditions despite the spring rains.
The only current means for the Board to advise County residents on the extent of the drought is
the declaration of a water emergency. While declaring a water emergency addresses an imminent crisis,
it does not provide a good means of addressing the serious and lingering effects of the on-going drought.
There is still a need for strong advisories even if the declaration is not in place. The Board could still
provide advisories for circumstances where emergency conditions might not exist, but significant
concerns remain. Such a measure would be a simple, easy to understand relative scale that provides
County residents an appreciation of the current conditions.
Staff recommends that the Supervisors rescind the water emergency declaration while directing
Engineering & Public Works to develop, in coordination with the ACSA, City of Charlottesville and
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, an easy to understand measure that provides the public the status and
appropriate actions for various drought conditions. This should include a plan for implementing this
measure in a way that keeps County residents informed as to existing conditions and recognizes that well
users not served by ACSA may require a separate warning.
(Discussion follows: Mr. Rooker said he agrees with the statement made by the League of
Women Voters. There is not a perfect system in place now for warnings. The warnings all seem to be
geared toward the levels of the reservoirs. The current drought situation has been on-going in the State
of Virginia and throughout the southeastern United States for well over a year. There has been less than
half the amount of rainfall that could normally be expected during that period of time. He does not think
the water emergency proclamation should be lifted. At this point, it only manifests itself in the way of
public information advertisements asking that people conserve water in the community. This morning, the
newspaper indicated that the program has been successful. Water usage in May was down 14 percent
from water usage in May, 2001. He would suggest moving ahead with one-half of the staff's
recommendation, i.e., find a better system of warnings that would segregate reservoir levels from
groundwater levels. Mr. Tucker said that recommendation will move forward whether the Board lifts the
resolution or not.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Bill Brent is in the audience. He asked him to comment. Mr. Brent said this
Board appointed six well-qualified citizens to manage and set policy for the Albemarle County Service
Authority. These six directors did not make this recommendation lightly. They recognized it would be
controversial. It is important to recognize what the actual emergency declaration is. It is in place in order
that criminal penalties can levied against anyone who violates emergency water restrictions. At this time,
there are no such restrictions in place. It has no purpose other than that. The ACSA Board is fearful that
when there is a real emergency, the term emergency will not have the same meaning as if it had been
A@
recently applied. To him, emergency means red lights and sirens. The ACSA Board is concerned
A@
about the lingering drought. The Board monitors it almost daily, but the Board remains leery of using the
term emergency when at this moment there is not an emergency. They are apprehensive, and have an
A@
aversion to using the term emergency almost as a scare tactic. The ACSA is trying to influence the
publics behavior through a water conservation program. There are indications that is has been
=
successful to this point.
Mr. Dorrier said he noticed the James River is down to one of its lowest levels ever. Yet, Mr.
Brent has said that the water in the urban system is at 97 percent of capacity. He asked how those two
things can be reconciled. Mr. Brent said in the public water system, reservoirs are built to store water
when it is plentiful, and draw it down when it is not so plentiful. Changes in reservoir capacity this
summer are likely to be very dramatic. Since Monday of this week, the capacity of the reservoirs has
dropped almost one percent, but last week, came up two percent with one thunderstorm. It has been in
the 94 to 97 percent range for the last 60 days.
Mr. Dorrier asked how low the reservoirs have to be before there is an emergency. Mr. Brent
said they removed the percentage several years ago. If the reservoirs were at 70 percent of capacity in
September it would not be as bad as it would be in May.
Mr. Rooker asked if the ACSA bases its determination as to whether an emergency exists, on
reservoir levels primarily. Mr. Brent said yes. Mr. Rooker said the ACSA does not look at groundwater,
A@
stream or river levels in making that determination. Mr. Brent said they recognize the fact that that is what
supplies the reservoirs. If the reservoirs are not replenished, then they get worried, as they did last
November.
Mr. Tucker said there is also concern about groundwater. When the citizens read the concerns
about water shortage, sometimes they do not pick up the difference between public water and
groundwater. That is the concern this Board has had. It knows there is a drought condition even though
the reservoirs are full. What Mr. Brent is saying is that this emergency issue is more of a legal issue tied
to the reservoirs, and tied to the ACSA being able to enforce any water usage regulations. He said the
Board needs to determine whether that is sending the wrong message to the citizens.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Dorrier said he is having trouble understanding the problem. Are people prosecuted for
illegally using water in Albemarle County? Mr. Brent said no one has ever been prosecuted, and there
have never been emergency water restrictions in place, and they are not in place now.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is concern that with this emergency water proclamation in effect there
will more or less usage of water. If no one has ever been prosecuted, how can it be said there will be
more violations with this ordinance? Mr. Brent said the ACSA Board does not think this will influence
water use by that much.
Mr. Dorrier asked the County Attorney to explain. Mr. Davis said as Mr. Brent explained earlier,
state law creates a situation where only county boards of supervisors can declare a water emergency
which would then allow the ACSA to put into effect mandatory restrictions that can be enforced. Last year
when the water emergency was adopted, that empowered the ACSA to impose mandatory restrictions at
any time they felt it was necessary. Fortunately, they never had to do that, so, the situation now is
whether it is appropriate to maintain this Boards declared emergency for the ACSAs benefit when the
==
ACSA no longer feels their water system is in an emergency situation. It is a dilemma because there
certainly is still a water emergency in the broad sense because of groundwater issues. But, there is not a
water emergency in the public water reservoir system. The Board does not want to send the wrong
message that there is not a water problem in the County because of the drought. On the other hand,
leaving an emergency declaration in place whose only purpose is to empower the ACSA to act is
awkward. If the Board feels there is a water emergency, the Board can leave the declaration in place.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the water declaration served two purposes; one was as a public notice.
The second step, whether the ACSA decides to impose mandatory restrictions, is up to the ACSA. They
have not done that. However, if there is not significant rainfall over short periods of time, the reservoir
levels will change dramatically. He thinks the Board should wait and see what staff comes up with in the
way of a new system of public announcements.
Mr. Perkins said whatever the Board does, it will be sending a message, and it should be the right
message. If it were the first of September or October, he thinks the Board could lift the emergency,
because traditionally the next three months are periods where the area suffers the worst from lack of
rainfall. He thinks the emergency should stay on. He said the old-timers in the area realize that wells
A@
will go dry, and there are a lot of people in the County now who are used to well systems. He does not
know what responsibility the County has for those people.
Mr. Rooker said there is an item on the agenda for later today where someone has drilled two
wells on a 21-acre parcel and not found water, and they are applying to be taken into the ACSAs service
=
area for public water.
Mr. Bowerman asked at what reservoir would the RWSA begin to cut back its discharge of water
to downstream. He thinks it is 8.0 million gallons per day. Mr. Brent said it is 8.0 million gallons per day,
but there is no requirement that says when that can or cannot be done. Mr. Bowerman asked what the
RWSA would do if the reservoir were only at 80 percent capacity. Mr. Brent said that last year it was cut
back to 6.0 million gallons per day release at 70 percent capacity.
Mr. Bowerman said he was looking at the fact that there could be capacity in the reservoirs, but
cutting back on the discharge that affects the downstream also. He thinks that is one of the things that
should be looked at. He agrees with Mr. Rooker and Mr. Perkins that the emergency should be left in
place, so he suggested that this item just be pulled from the consent agenda.
Mr. Dorrier said Item 7.7 is pulled from the Consent Agenda; it is not approved as of this
time.)
__________
Item 7.8. Revisions to Community Use of County Facilities Policy.
It was noted in the staffs report that Section E of the
Community Use of County Facilities Policy
=
requires that an employee of the County be on duty on the property at times when facilities are in use. To
date, County custodians have served this role. Although the custodians have performed admirably, staff
feels a higher level of security should be provided. Therefore, staff suggests using Albemarle County
Police Department officers to provide security during weekend use at the County Office Building (COB).
That Department would charge Public Works $28.00 an hour for the security service. Additionally, staff
proposes to charge a $100 refundable custodial fee. These fees would be passed onto organizations
defined as "II" through "V" in section B of the policy. Public Works would absorb security and custodial
fees for School and County government affiliated or related groups who conduct weekend use at the
COB. The elimination of overtime expenses for weekend custodial service should provide Public Works
adequate funds to cover the above-mentioned fees for School and County government events. Staff
recommends that the Board approve the proposed changes in Sections D and G of the
Community Use
.
of County Facilities Policy
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board readopted the Community Use of County
Facilities Policy with the revised rate schedule attached thereto, and as set out in full below:
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
COMMUNITY USE OF COUNTY FACILITIES
A) Generally
The Board of Supervisors believes in the full and best possible utilization of the
physical facilities belonging to the citizens of the County. To achieve this end,
the use of County facilities for governmental, school and related activities, as
well as by outside organizations and groups, shall be encouraged when these
activities will not interfere with the routine business of the County.
Proper protection, safety and care of County property shall be primary
considerations in the use of County facilities.
B) Eligible Organizations
The Board has classified various organizations and groups for the purposes of
priority and the charging of fees.
1. Classification
I. School and County government affiliated or related groups.
II. Youth agencies, educational, recreational and cultural groups
or organizations.
III. Political, civic, charitable, social or veteran's groups and
organizations.
IV. Profit making organizations, business or private groups.
V. Religious organizations.
2. Membership
The membership of any group or organization requesting the use of
County facilities must be largely from the County of Albemarle. This
restriction shall not exclude the use of certain facilities, as determined
by the County Executive, by state and national organizations that have
a local sponsoring division of such organization.
C) Applications and Approval
Applications must be sponsored by reputable and established clubs, societies
or organizations that reasonably can be held responsible for the payment of
charges, compensation for damages to property and for use of the property in
reasonable conformity with the regulations on the application.
The Board authorizes the County Executive or his designee to approve all
applications for the use of County facilities that meet the requirements of the
Board, that comply with implementing regulations the County Executive deems
necessary to protect County property and that do not conflict with established
business or commercial interests in the community. The County Executive
shall design such application forms as are required. The completed and signed
form shall be a binding agreement upon the applicant and the County.
No rental application will be considered more than six months prior to the
desired rental date.
The County Executive or his designee reserves the right to cancel a rental
contract up to ten days prior to a scheduled rental.
The Lane Auditorium is available during business hours (8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday) only if the applicant provides shuttle bus services or
off-site parking for participants of the meeting. On-site parking is not available
for large meetings during business hours.
Meeting rooms are normally available except on holidays when the County
Office Building is closed.
D) Fees (See Attachment)
The County Executive shall establish a minimum schedule of fees and may
make additional adjustments in the fees. The minimum schedule and additional
adjustments shall be based upon the classification of the group or organization,
the facilities to be used, the size of the group, the objectives of the organization,
the approximate cost to the County and the purpose for which the facility will be
used.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
In general, the following guidelines will apply:
Classification Fees: Monday-Friday Fees: Weekends
I No Charge No Charge
II and III One Hour Custodial Charge Security Personnel Fee, plus
refundable custodial fee
IV Basic Rental Fee Per Hour Security Personnel Fee, plus
refundable custodial fee
V One Hour Custodial Charge Security Personnel Fee, plus
refundable custodial fee
*A full rental fee shall be charged to all classifications except I when County facilities are to be used for fund-raising and/or
when an admission charge is levied.
All fees must be paid in advance, and the sponsoring organization whose name appears on the application shall be held
responsible for any and all damages to property and equipment.
E) Protection of County Property
An employee of the County shall be on duty on the property at times when the facilities are in
use. No equipment or furnishings may be used or moved without the consent of the employee in
charge if such usage is not in conformity with the contracted agreement.
The sponsoring organization shall be responsible for crowd control measures, including the
employment of police protection when required. Such control shall be arranged in advance when
deemed necessary by the County Executive or his designee.
F) Organizations and individuals using the facility shall be responsible for familiarizing themselves
with the nearest exits in case of emergency evacuation. Each conference room has a Fire
Escape Plan posted at its entrance which shows the primary and secondary escape routes.
G) Deposits
A cash bond or deposit may be required at the discretion of the County Executive or his designee
prior to use of the property.
County Office Building Rental Charges - July 3, 2002
Weekday Weekday Weekends
Classification Business Hours Evening
I. County/Schools* No Charge No Charge No Charge
II. Youth agencies, Educational, No Charge $16.00 custodial charge $28.00 hour Security Personnel
Recreational & Cultural Groups Fee. $100 Custodial Deposit, to
& Organizations be returned upon satisfactory
inspection.
III. Political, Civic, Charitable, Social No Charge $16.00 custodial charge
or Veterans Groups &
=
$28.00 hour Security Personnel
Organizations.
Fee. $100 Custodial Deposit, to
be returned upon satisfactory
$15.00 per hour plus $15.00 per hour plus
inspection.
$16.00 custodial charge $16.00 custodial charge
IV. Profit Making and/or Private
Groups,
$28.00 hour Security Personnel
Organizations or Businesses
Fee. $100 Custodial Deposit, to
be returned upon satisfactory
$16.00 custodial charge $16.00 custodial charge
inspection
V. Religious Organizations
$28.00 hour Security Personnel
Fee. $100 Custodial Deposit, to
be returned upon satisfactory
inspection.
*Defined as those Departments supervised by the County Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by VPI Extension.
Additional Charges
1) Each additional room used shall be an additional charge per the above schedule.
2) Requests to set up additional chairs/tables shall be a flat $10.00 charge.
3) Rental of the auditorium shall be a flat fee of $100.00 plus the applicable custodial charge for all groups except
Classification I when rented on weekends. Rental at other times shall be at the same rate as other rooms listed
above except for Classification IV, which shall always be charged the $100.00 flat fee plus applicable custodial
charge. The Lane Auditorium is available during business hours (8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday)
only if the applicant provides shuttle bus services or off-site parking for Participants of the meeting. On-site parking
is not available for large meetings during business Hours.
4) Any meeting scheduled past 5:30 p.m. will be subject to the applicable custodial charge.
__________
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Item 7.9. Appraisal of ACE Properties.
It was noted in the staffs report that at its January 9, 2002, meeting, the Board formally approved
=
the ACE Committees recommendation to appraise the top seven properties from the 2001-02 applicant
=
pool. The Mehring application was included in this pool. However, before a property can be appraised,
the application and Deed of Easement (among other things) must be sufficiently complete to meet the
standards and requirements of the County. Since the Mehring family has not resolved how to subdivide
their property (for a family subdivision) and have appealed the Zoning Departments determination of
=
theoretical development rights for a second time, the ACE committee recommends that the Mehring
application be removed from consideration this year, thus eliminating the need for an appraisal. The
removal of the Mehring application opens the door for two new applicants. The two applicants, Hart and
Scharer, were in the 2001-02 applicant pool and scored enough points to be eligible for ACE funding, but
their final ranking was not high enough to justify having their properties appraised.
By dropping the Mehring application from the current applicant pool, the projected cost of
acquiring easements on the remaining six properties is approximately $719,587 - nearly $300,000 under
the annual budget of $1,000,000. With this new balance of unused funds, the County should be able to
pursue the purchase of easements on both Hart and Scharer. Even with the addition of these properties,
a balance should be left to cover all appraisal and closing costs. Staff recommends removing the
Mehring application from an appraisal and consideration this year and that the Board approve the
appraisal of Hart and Scharer from the FY 2001-02 applicant pool.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the staffs recommendation to
==
remove the Mehring Family LP application from appraisal and consideration in FY 02 for the ACE
>>
Program, and to approve the appraisal of the James Hart and Edward Scharer properties which
where re-enrolled from the FY 01 applicant pool.
==
__________
Item 7.10. FY 2003 Appropriation: Constitutional Officers' Staff Compensation Bonus (Form
#2003-001).
It was noted in the staffs report that at its meeting on June 5, 2002, the Board considered the
=
issue of providing additional compensation to the staffs of the three Constitutional Officers of the County
since the State Compensation Board did not provide a general pay increase for these employees for FY
03. At the same time, the State offered its employees the choice of taking either a 2.5 percent bonus or
>
compensatory time-off in lieu of a general pay increase during FY 03. After discussion of this issue, the
>
Board agreed to provide each of the staff employees of the constitutional officers, but not the three
constitutional officers themselves, with a one-time compensation bonus of 2.5 percent of their current
salary during FY 03. This appropriation authorizes the additional funds needed to provide the bonus, and
>
does not increase the total current years budget, therefore, does not require an advertised budget
=
amendment. The $36,152 needed is derived by transferring that amount from the FY 03 Board
>
Contingency Reserve Fund (original appropriation of $152,182) leaving a revised amount of $116,030.
Staff recommends that the Board approve Appropriation #2003-001 for this purpose.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation No. 2003-001, in order to provide a 2.5 percent one-time compensation bonus to the
staff employees of the Countys constitutional officers.
==
APPROPRIATION 2003-001
EXPLANATION: Bonus for Staff of County Constitutional Officers
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT
1 1000 21070 110000 SHERIFF SALARIES J 1 $16,577.00
1 1000 21070 210000 FICA J 1 1,268.00
1 1000 21070 221000 VRS J 1 1,243.00
1 1000 21070 270000 WORKER'S COMP J 1 272.00
1 1000 21060 110000 CIRCUIT CT SALARIES J 1 6,482.00
1 1000 21060 210000 FICA J 1 495.00
1 1000 21060 221000 VRS J 1 486.00
1 1000 21060 270000 WORKER'S COMP J 1 9.00
1 1000 22010 110000 COMM ATT SALARIES J 1 8,086.00
1 1000 22010 210000 FICA J 1 619.00
1 1000 22010 221000 VRS J 1 606.00
1 1000 22010 270000 WORKER'S COMP J 1 9.00
1 1000 95000 999990 BOARD RESERVE J 1 (36,152.00)
TOTAL 0.00
__________
Item 7.11. Set public hearing for August 7, 2002, on an ordinance authorizing Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement between the County and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
It was noted in the staffs report that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority has requested
=
that the County enter into an agreement authorizing the County Police Department to provide support and
assistance to Airport Special Police Officers (SPOs), who are appointed by the Circuit Court to perform
law enforcement services on Airport property in order to facilitate the performance of law enforcement
duties by the SPOs. Under the Agreement, the County Police Department would provide support for the
law enforcement activities conducted by SPOs at the Airport by providing services, supervision and
training. The County Police would continue to be the primary agency when involved with a law
enforcement incident/event on Airport property. The Agreement also provides that revenue resulting from
the fines collected from parking tickets issued on Airport property be retained by the County to cover the
costs of administering the provisions of the Agreement.
Virginia Code 15.2-1300, which authorizes the County to enter into this Agreement as a joint
'
exercise of powers by political subdivisions, requires that the parties approve the Agreement before the
Agreement may enter into force, and requires that the County approve the Agreement by ordinance.
Staff recommends that a public hearing be set for August 7, 2002, to consider approval of the proposed
Ordinance and Agreement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board ordered staff to advertise for a public
hearing on August 7, 2002, on An Ordinance to Adopt and Approve a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
Authority pertaining to the provision of support and assistance by the Albemarle County Police
Department to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
__________
Item 7.12. Year 2003 Legislative Proposals to submit to VACo.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) has requested
=
that the County submit the legislative proposals it wants to have addressed in VACo's 2003 Legislative
Program. The following proposals are submitted for the Board's consideration and will be transmitted to
VACo for discussion during their summer Steering Committee sessions.
Taxing Structure - Request that the state initiate changes to the state's income tax provisions to
enable the state to meet its financial obligations to localities; fully fund agencies such as
constitutional officers, jails, juvenile detention centers; and, provide funding for any unfunded
mandates.
Education Technology Funding - Request that the state provide a dedicated funding stream for
educational technology replacement and renewal costs.
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) - Request that the state fully fund CSA mandates.
Growth Management - Request legislation to provide high-growth jurisdictions with growth
management tools and provide statewide funding for the Purchase of Development Rights
program for localities that establish and locally fund such a program.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement - Request enabling legislation to provide for a scenic
protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to protect the
visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide
localities with a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when
the County or State makes land use decisions in designated areas.
Passenger Rail Service - The County supports and endorses the provision of passenger rail
service from Bristol, Virginia, to the Richmond, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. areas with links to
communities along the way.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Standards - Request legislation that would direct
VDOT to work with urbanizing counties to create separate and distinct classifications and
standards for urban streets in the secondary road system, as well as standards associated with
amenities such as the location of utilities, sidewalks, bike lanes and street trees.
Local Departments of Social Services - Request that the state not force consolidation of local
government departments of Social Services if it is not in the best interest of the localities to do so.
Reauthorization of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program - Request that the
state take advantage of the Federal reauthorization of TANF by streamlining eligibility
requirements and providing maximum flexibility to localities so that counties can implement the
TANF program that best meets local needs.
Substitution of Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) Funds for General Funds -
Request that the state not continue to fund the Healthy Family Program, Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP), and the CSA Trust Fund Program with Federal TANF funds which
cannot be used by a locality as match for Federally-funded prevention programs. The state's
continual use of TANF funding for these purposes reduces or eliminates a locality's ability to
obtain certain Federally-funded prevention services and could further erode the state's TANF
emergency reserve fund. Request that the state continue to support these programs with general
funds.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
VACo plans to complete the first drafts of its 2003 Legislative Program by mid-August. Should
the County identify additional legislative issues that it would like to have considered, additional proposals
can be submitted later in the summer or in the fall. VACo's Legislative Program and Policy Statements
will not be finalized until November, 2002. This information is provided for the Board's review and
comment prior to communicating these legislative proposals to VACo.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the filing of these legislative
requests with VACo.
__________
Item 7.13. Letter dated June 12, 2002, addressed to the Honorable Sally H. Thomas, Chairman,
from William C. Shelton, Director, Department of Housing and Community Development, providing
notification that the County did not receive a grant offer under the Virginia Community Development Block
Grant Program for the 2002 competition, was received for information.
__________
Item 7.14. Copy of letter dated June 10, 2002, to Roger W. Ray, from John Shepherd, Manager
of Zoning Administration, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND
PARCELS - Tax Map 71, Parcel 27 (property of Steven L. and Codie C. Peters) Section 10.3.1, was
received for information.
__________
Item 7.15. Copy of draft May 28, 2002, Planning Commission minutes, was received for
information.
__________
Item 7.16. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, July 2002, was received for
information.
__________
Item 7.17. Crozet Master Plan Consulting Contracts.
It was noted in the staffs report that the Department of Planning and Community Development is
=
in the process of finalizing contracts with two consultants for the Crozet Master Plan, one for public
involvement (Becky Clay Christensen) and the other for technical planning and design services
(Renaissance Planning Group, "RPG"). The two contracts total $213,665.00. In the Departments FY
=
2001-02 budget, $129,922.96 was budgeted for Development Area Study Activities, primarily for this first
Neighborhood Master Plan, and approximately $121,000.00 remains unencumbered at the present time.
The contract for Becky Clay Christensen totals $22,400.00. The high expectations, ambivalence
about growth, and demands of the Crozet community, require that careful attention be directed to the
public involvement process. Use of the public process consultant better enables significant citizen
involvement that more quickly achieves consensus in the community and among stakeholders, thereby
allowing the project to be completed within the time frame laid out in the technical planning and design
consultant's contract. Consulting costs for the technical services portion of the project, totaling
$191,265.00, are higher than originally anticipated. Funds necessary to cover these higher costs will be
provided by a transfer of unexpended funds in other line items of the Departments FY 2001-02 budget.
=
No action is necessary by the Board as this report is provided for information only.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, said he would like to publicly thank Mr. Carter Myers for the
welcome he gave him, and for the help he has given him since he came to this area 18 months ago.
Mr. Bryan said he got an E-mail from Ms. Thomas yesterday inquiring about asphalt and fill and
waste. He has some information which he will give Mr. Tucker because he understands the Board will be
discussing that subject later today. His office was able to answer some of Ms. Thomas questions. He
=
would like to emphasize the sensitivity and the speed his headquarters gave to this subject. He said they
actually do pay attention to what the Board wants.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he has a formal written resolution concerning his request that an obelisk be
placed on Carters Bridge. He asked if it meets with Mr. Bryans approval. Mr. Bryan said yes.
==A@
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Rooker to adopt the following
resolution concerning the installation of obelisks during the replacement of Carters Bridge.
=
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
RESOLUTION
TO INSTALL OBELISKS IN REPLACEMENT
OF CARTER'S BRIDGE
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has planned a bridge
replacement for Carter's Bridge, located on Route 20 South; and
WHEREAS, the Carter's Bridge replacement is part of Albemarle County's Six Year
Plan and construction is slated to begin in 2003; and
WHEREAS, Carter's Bridge has important historical significance for the citizens of
Albemarle County and the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, as part of this historical significance, Carter's Bridge was utilized by many
of the first families of this area, to include the Jeffersons, the Carters, the
Walkers, the Scotts, and many other families and landowners and farmers
of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, Carter's Bridge has served as an important historical link along Route 20,
joining the original Albemarle County seat of Scottsville with the City of
Charlottesville, providing an important commercial link to all residents of
Albemarle County and to the citizens of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation installs obelisks and historical
bridge markers on bridges of historical significance; and
WHEREAS, Carter's Bridge is historically significant and is a vital part of the
transportation system of Albemarle County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that because of Carter's Bridge historical
significance and its importance in the overall transportation network of
Albemarle County, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby
endorses and encourages the installation of obelisks and an historical
plaque at Carter's Bridge in Albemarle County.
__________
Mr. Perkins said he would like to discuss Allen Road. Mr. Bryan said there was a miscommuni-
cation about who had permission to apply dust suppression, a soy bean oil derivative. The Department is
working with the person who actually had it applied to see how to make it right and help him also solve
the dust problem. He asked someones permission to do it, and someone gave him an informal okay.
=
The proper procedures were not followed by the department in terms of oversight.
Mr. Perkins said this gentlemen called and explained the situation from his perspective and he is
still concerned about the dust problem, so he asked about putting down asphalt, or tarred gravel in front
of his house. Mr. Bryan said he can do that, but he must have permission from VDOT first. In fact, they
are meeting with him on Monday to show him how to go about doing it.
__________
Mr. Rooker thanked Mr. Bryan for his response to a question from a citizen about Bennington
Road and the schedule for maintenance improvements to that road.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he has some questions about outstanding traffic engineering issues listed in the
VDOT Monthly Report, the first has to do with the Route 29/Route 649 intersection. Mr. Bryan said it was
a turn lane problem which concerned putting the arrow for continuous traffic on the left, rather than on the
right, and deciding which turn had priority. A traffic count is being done to help determine the correct
solution.
____________
Mr. Rooker asked about the passing zone on Route 250 West which had been discussed several
times recently. Mr. Bryan said that problem has been resolved.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked about Route 743 and the left turns at the light. Mr. Bryan said he will have to
check that one since he is not sure what it is about.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked about the item listed as Route 29 at Route 1670 (Ashwood Blvd.). Mr. Bryan
said he believes that is listed for a light warrant. Mr. Rooker asked if there is not a light at this intersection
at this time. Mr. Bryan said there is. This probably concerns the timing on the turns at that intersection.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful if a little more information were included on this report about the
routes listed.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he has received a couple of calls from people living on Route 708. He said
Route 708 goes by Walton School and Carters Bridge. There are about two and one-half miles of that
=
road which are unpaved. He hears regularly from the people on the unpaved section, that it should be
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
paved. He has heard that one or two property owners are not willing to donate the necessary
right-of-way. Mr. Bryan said it is listed in the Six-Year Plan, but he will have it looked at to see if it is a
candidate for the Rustic Roads policy.
A@
Mr. Perkins asked if Rustic Roads took the place of the Pave-in-Place policy. Mr. Bryan said
A@A@
yes. It has a lot of potential to help where people are not willing to give the right-of-way. Mr. Dorrier
A@
said it is hard to believe VDOT would pave miles of the road, but leave just two and one-half miles
unpaved. He asked the reason for that. Mr. Bryan said it was purely a right-of-way issue. For the regular
gravel road policy, VDOT regulations require 50 feet of donated right-of-way. Under Pave-in-Place, the
road can be done within its existing right-of-way. If this road meets the criteria, and it is in the Six-Year
Plan, then it can be done under the Rustic Roads plan. Safety is paramount. But, paving on a narrow
A@
street creates a safety problem because people go faster on a paved road. That is a main concern of
VDOT.
__________
Mr. Rooker said the Board recently approved location of a church off of Colthurst Drive. Issues
arose about safety at the entrance into Colthurst. The basic conclusion was that the entrance would
qualify today, without the church being built, for left-hand and right-hand turn lanes. One of the factors is
that the speed limit is currently 55 mph. He would like to have VDOT look at reducing the speed limit on
that portion of road. Mr. Bryan said when VDOT evaluates the site plan, they will look at that issue.
Mr. Rooker said if it is possible he would like to have a study made concerning turn lanes and
their costs so the Board might consider putting such a project into the Six-Year Plan. He said the church
does not create the need for the turn lanes but it appears to be a significant safety situation for the people
living in Colthurst.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Myers mentioned looking at a Route 29 Eastern Bypass. Mr. Bryan said he
recalls that when it was looked at back in 1975, all possibilities were considered. An Eastern Bypass was
studied, but it was ruled out over the years.
Mr. Rooker said he believes what Mr. Myers was talking about is what has been referred to as an
eastern connector that does not rise to the level of a bypass. It would probably be a two-lane road to
A@
provide another way to get across the River north of the existing Route 250 crossing. The Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) is looking at that possibility at this time. There was a work session
concerning this item at the MPOs last meeting. There is some momentum at the MPO level to further
=
study that idea and come up with potential routes to help relieve some of the pressure on Free Bridge.
The MPO is also looking at a series of roads on the eastern side of Free Bridge to provide parallel
movements up and down Pantops without getting on Route 250.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has been working with Mac Grimes on that concept, and further
development of such connections.
Mr. Dorrier said there was a presentation last month on the issue of Proffit Road, and the
pressure being put on that road. He thinks it is time to look at that area again.
__________
Mr. Perkins asked the public hearing date for the Jarmans Gap Road project. Mr. Bryan said he
will know the date next month.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Request to set a public hearing to amend the service (jurisdictional) areas of
the Albemarle County Service Authority for Tax Map 136, Parcel 50 (Charisse Andrews), located at 9130
Totier Creek Road, Scottsville District.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is requesting service area designation for water service to a 6.74-
acre parcel (corrected acreage) located on the west side of Totier Creek Road approximately 900 feet
south of Route 726, a part of the Valmont Estates Subdivision. The property is located within a
designated Rural Area outside of the town of Scottsville. The applicant recently built a home and is
requesting water service because the Fred Jones Well Company has determined that there is not an
adequate location for a well on the site. Two sites have been drilled to a depth of 305 feet, with both sites
coming up dry. He understands that they are going to attempt drilling in a third site, and may be doing
that today. He said staff has indicated that the applicant will need to provide additional information from
the Health Department, well driller and/or hydro-geologist regarding the potential for obtaining water on
the site. By providing public water to this parcel, additional parcels would become adjacent to the service
area. He said the staffs report does cover the policies for extending water service in the County. He said
=
rural areas are not intended to receive public water except in cases where there is a safety concern. In
order to allow for a timely review of this request, and given the applicant's current situation, staff
recommends that the Board set a public hearing to consider providing public water service to the site at
which time staff can provide further analysis based on additional applicant information.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board agrees to set a public hearing on this request, it should be set for
August 7.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Ms. Charisse Andrews said they had no intention to wait until the last minute to drill a well. The
Health Department application time line and the wait-in-line policy of the well driller brought them into the
current situation. They were assured by the landowner and the realtor that finding suitable well water
would be routine, and in the unlikely event that water was not found, the water lines ran directly in front of
their house. AEP verified that there are two lines, both untreated and treated, and that meter is on Totier
Creek Road and the water supply line ran to the restrooms at the Park. Those restrooms have since
been abandoned. They were told it would be an uncomplicated matter. They have now discovered it is
not an automatic and expeditious process.
Ms. Andrews said they never would have built a home if they had known what they know now
unless a well had been drilled first. Before closing, they tried to have a well drilled, but they could not get
a well driller to do it in a timely fashion. The home is built, and they must be out of their rental by
yesterday. They are living on one of Kluges farms that was transferred to UVA. They were allowed to
A@=
stay on the farm which has now been sold to the present owners who allowed them to stay until
yesterday. Them includes herself, her husband, and nine Newfoundland dogs which they show and
A@
breed. They have no family anywhere in the immediate area, and no other place to go. They have gotten
approval, and are making an attempt to drill a third well today. They consulted geologists and had soil
studies done. From talking with them, they feel that due to the topography of the land, placement of a
septic system and setbacks, this third attempt for drilling a well is probably their last opportunity. They
have 6.74 acres, and the rest is either unacceptable, or inaccessible. They are in a rather desperate
situation, a new home, no water, and no place to go, with animals to care for. She would rather be on a
well since it is less expensive, less complicated and less intrusive. Financially, it is critical that they get
settled. She asked for the Boards consideration of the request.
=
Mr. Rooker asked if they had tried a dowser. Ms. Andrews said they did not for the first two wells,
but for this third try they contacted two dowsers. She talked with a geologist from the University who also
happens to be a dowser. This was the only spot found. It is marked with a huge sign to drill on that
particular spot. This is their last attempt. They are absolutely stunned to be in this situation. They came
here after 20 years in North Carolina. They had no idea that to get a permit to drill a well, and then wait in
line to have it dug, would take so long.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board is required to hold a public hearing on the request. He asked when
that can occur. Mr. Tucker said the only way the Board could do it earlier than August 7 would be to have
a special meeting. Mr. Davis said it takes 21 days in order to get the required advertising in the
newspaper.
Ms. Andrews said their builder has offered to bring them a water tank. It is not just the water to
keep everything clean, but the lack of air conditioning which is necessary for the dogs. They do not have
a certificate of occupancy yet. They have to move the dogs now because they have no other place to go.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Bill Brent if the ACSA has any provisions for emergency type of situations
dealing with water hookups. Mr. Brent said they could haul in water in containers, but until this Board
acts there is nothing the ACSA can do to provide temporary service.
Mr. Bowerman asked how soon everything could be connected if water were found today. Ms.
Andrews said she assumes it could happen within a few days.
Mr. Tucker said he would have to look to see if the building permit process would allow a
temporary occupancy permit with a water tank. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that option should be
pursued. Mr. Davis said the building code requires an approved water source. Mr. Tucker said the house
is built, so it is a matter of when, not if. This would be a temporary solution, so staff would need to talk
with the building official.
Mr. Dorrier said the County is doing all it can to help at this point. Ms. Andrews asked if the public
hearing is positive and they ask to be connected, what is the time frame? Mr. Brent said it could be done
in a matter of days. The only complication might be getting approval from the Highway Department to dig
up the street to install the meter.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the ACSA could apply for the permit in advance. Mr. Brent said they
could after a fee is paid. Ms. Andrews said they can let them know if the well driller is successful today.
Mr. Rooker said this is an example of why the County needs something in place so that lots
cannot be sold and building permits issued prior to digging a well. Ms. Andrews obviously would not have
bought the lot if she had known that a well was not possible on the property. She was lead to believe
there was no problem, that if there were no water on the property they could hook onto the public water
system. He thinks there will be more and more of these situations coming to the Board as the water
situation worsens in the community. For properties which are not in the current jurisdictional areas, there
needs to be something requiring that a well be dug before a building permit is issued.
Mr. Tucker said that has been looked at. This is not a simple issue. In many cases, there are not
even roads built into the area where the lot is located, so there is no access. That is a change the
development community would have to be aware of. They would need to build roads in order to get
access before selling a lot.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it should be before a building permit is issued. That is a different point.
If people are ready to build a house, they are going to pay for a well before or after construction. If this
lady had bought the lot and then found that there was no water, she probably would not have built the
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
house. There have been a number of such situations brought to the Board or Planning Commission in
the last few years.
Mr. Tucker said Engineering staff is reviewing this with the Planning Commission and others, and
will have something along those lines for the Board to review in the near future.
Mr. Rooker said the Planning Commission asked for something along these lines while he was
still a member. It is not a new request. The other consequence is that the Board ends up extending
water into areas where it was never intended that such services would be provided. The staff, in its
report, basically recommended denial of this request because it will extend water into an area where
there will be additional properties claiming they lay adjacent to the waterlines.
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said staff met several times with the Planning Commission to
discuss the Groundwater Report. It will come to the Board in August. Mr. Rooker said he thinks this
problem is more acute than some of the things in the Groundwater Report. He asked if it could be pulled
out and dealt with in a quicker manner with a small change in an ordinance. Mr. Tucker said if staff has a
report to present in August, it might be pulled out and moved along quicker.
Mr. Perkins said the problem with water is storage. There is plenty of water, but it is how to keep
it. He was raised where cisterns were used. If he were building a house in the rural area, he would have
a cistern for backup use. It may not be an approved source of water by the Health Department, but if
there were a 30,000 gallon reservoir, there would not be water problems regardless of the well situation.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a motion.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to set this request for a public hearing on August 7. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Review of Board Strategic Planning Retreat Results (deferred from June 5,
2002).
Ms. Lee Catlin said the Board engaged in a Strategic Planning Retreat on April 26 and April 27,
2002, consisting of two facilitated sessions with Dr. Richard Zody as facilitator and consultant. During the
Retreat, the Board members addressed issues and developed initial Mission, Vision and Strategic Goal
Statements (for the next four years or so) for Albemarle County. These items were a part of the staffs
=
report for this discussion. The products of the Retreat as presented by Dr. Zody were the Mission
Statement, the individual Vision Statements from each of the members present, and also 14 Strategic
Goal Statements with a group prioritization of those Goals.
Ms. Catlin said the County Executives staff was asked, at the end of the session, to apply the
=
results in several ways. First, to take the individual statements and combine them into one group
statement. Also, that the specific goals statements for the human services and affordable housing areas
be taken from existing documents. Last, in order to organize the materials, the 14 goals were grouped
into some broad theme areas to help structure the plan and focus efforts more effectively.
Ms. Catlin said that after the Board approves the recommended County Mission, Vision and Goal
Statements, staff will develop specific Strategic Objectives for each Goal identified by the Board. Staff is
working with the Leadership Council, the Management Group and other staff members who have good
insight and input into the process. Staff will also provide identification of the intended Results and the
time horizon for the Strategic Objectives. During the process, staff may identify and bring forward
additional Goals that may not have come out during the Boards session. Staff will identify recommended
=
priorities for implementation which will be used to help establish some direction for the FY 2004 Budget
>
development process.
Ms. Catlin noted that the Education and Lifelong Learning section has not been fully developed
A@
yet. Staff will work on that section after the Board has had an opportunity to meet with the School Board
and the School Division to see how the section should be articulated. Staff is focusing more on the three
Local Government oriented goal areas. She asked if the Board members had questions at this time.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the Implementation strategies. Ms. Catlin said after the Vision, the
Mission and the Broad Goals are approved today, staff will develop objectives under those goals. Those
will be presented to the Board in order to get the Boards agreement as to which are priorities. After that,
=
staff will work on specific steps and an action plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a way to shorten the process. He said with staff developing stuff
and coming back to the Board for approval, it seems like a drawn-out process. Ms. Catlin said staff will
bring back initial information in September; information that should be helpful in developing the next
budget. Later, staff will bring a list of more specific steps and action plan strategies.
Mr. Dorrier said the whole idea of a strategic plan from the Boards perspective was to have the
=
Board give the staff directions. That is why the Board is keeping control of the process, rather than
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
delegating it to staff. Mr. Bowerman said he understands that, but implementation strategies can be part
of the objectives. Ms. Catlin said staff does not want to get too far into concrete action steps until it
checks with the Board to be sure they are the steps the Board members feel are correct.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Dick Zody is coming back before this Board. Mr. Tucker said no. He was
A@
hired for only the one specific purpose. Staff had hoped to get the Boards action on this matter last
=
month, but time ran short and it could not be discussed. Staff went ahead with work on this during June.
Mr. Rooker said he understands there is a time line for implementing this for the next budgeting
cycle. Ms. Catlin said this is a time-intensive effort. It is not something which can be set aside or be
sidetracked. Staff is cognizant of the schedule.
Mr. Dorrier said it was probably a mistake to put it off last month. Ms. Catlin said staff went ahead
with work on this subject. Mr. Dorrier asked what staff wanted from the Board today. Ms. Catlin said the
Board has not seen the material in written form since it was generated the first time. She wants to be
sure everybody agrees on the product before staff moves forward with more work.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to see some statement about the strategic planning process. A
person picking up this material may not understand where it came from or how it was derived. Ms. Catlin
said staff can do that. She said the individual members came up with individual vision statements. Staff
melded those into one statement. (Note: Following is the material presented to the Board for review
today.)
MISSION
To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the
highest level of public service.
VISION
To maintain Albemarle County's stature as a quality community by promoting the values
of education and life-long learning, historic and scenic preservation, safety, affordability,
cultural diversity, citizen participation and economic opportunity that make the County a
desirable place in which to grow up, raise a family and grow old while preserving our
natural resources, rural character and visual beauty for future generations.
GOALS (The number in parentheses indicates the Board members' combined initial
priority ranking of each Goal; several Goals were given equal ranking by the Board.)
Education and Life-long Learning.
To provide high quality education opportunities for Albemarle citizens of all
ages. (#1)
Natural Beauty and Rural Areas
To protect and preserve our community's natural resources. (#2)
To protect and/or preserve our rural and historic areas. (#3)
To plan for, encourage and approve development areas that are attractive, safe
and convenient to live, work and play. (#10)
To provide for an efficient and environmentally-sensitive solid waste
management program. (#11)
Quality of Life
To provide opportunities for the pursuit of happiness. (#4)
To make Albemarle County a safe and healthy community in which citizens feel
secure to live, work and play. (#1)
To provide an integrated, efficient, accessible and humane system of human
services that emphasizes prevention services for at-risk children and youth, and
fosters self-sufficiency among its families. (#6)
To promote a variety of safe, sanitary and affordable housing types for County
residents of all income groups. (#7)
To plan for, develop and maintain a diverse transportation system (for vehicles,
mass transit systems, pedestrians and bicycles) that meets the increasing
demands of a growing and diversifying population while protecting the
neighborhood and community attributes that create our County's character and
sense of place. (#8)
To maintain a strong and sustainable economy. (#14)
Efficient, Effective and Courteous Services
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
To provide effective and efficient County services in a courteous manner. (#5)
To fund County services in a fair and efficient manner. (#9)
To plan for, fund and maintain the County's necessary and appropriate public
facilities and infrastructure. (#12)
To maintain and improve effective and efficient relationships with the University
of Virginia, Charlottesville, our adjoining localities, and with other local
governments, the state and Federal government. (#13)
Mr. Rooker said he had a couple of suggestions for changes. Under Quality of Life the second
A@
paragraph which is rated as 1 should be listed first in that section. In the last paragraph under Efficient,
AA
Effective and Courteous Services, where it says ... our adjoining localities... he would recommend that
@A@
it say ... other adjoining localities.... Other than that, he is in agreement with everything as written.
A@
Mr. Bowerman said it is rewarding to see this because a lot of it came out of sustainability issues.
He recognizes things which are almost lifted from it, so it is rewarding to see.
Mr. Perkins said he has some concern with the Mission Statement. Ms. Catlin said the Mission
A@
statement is actually the Vision statement. Mr. Perkins referred to the language the provision of the
A@A
highest level of public service. He asked if there is a better word to use than highest. He thinks it
@A@
needs to be more than adequate. Mr. Bowerman said it should pull together prudence as well as service
delivery. Mr. Perkins said this is a moving target. The highest level today may not be the same next
year.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the word could be excellent. Ms. Catlin said that would change the Mission
A@
Statement to say To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of an
A
excellent level of public service.
@
Mr. Rooker said this was debated at the retreat. He thought the final decision was for the
highest level of public service because that is a goal. All recognize that all goals cannot be attained.
A@
He said Mr. Perkins expressed the same concern then, and he thought it was agreed that it would be the
A
highest level of public service commensurate with available resources. He said there was a tie to the
@
level of services and resources. Mr. Perkins said to him, saying highest means there is nothing above
A@
it, whereas excellent is in that highest range, but it is a broader range.
A@
Mr. Dorrier said excellent includes highest, but allows for a little less than highest.
A@A@
Ms. Catlin said the Mission Statement is the goal toward which the Board is heading.
Mr. Bowerman said adding something which is consistent with prudent utilization of resources
indicates there is a balance. He hears that as an undertone.
Mr. Rooker said rather than change the word highest, he would rather add something like
A@
consistent with prudent use of public resources. Mr. Bowerman said that would make it consistent with
A@
attainment of that goal.
Ms. Catlin said it would now read: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens
A
through the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with prudent use of public
resources.
@
Mr. Rooker said that is excellent wording.
Mr. Dorrier said there is nothing in these statements about providing for a Comprehensive Plan.
He wonders if that is something which should be mentioned because that Plan is the document which the
Board relies on. Mr. Tucker said a comprehensive plan is a legal requirement. The Comprehensive Plan
will become a part of the Strategic Plan.
Ms. Catlin said when the Goals are brought back to the Board, there may be some additional
work required.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve what had been presented this date, with the
changes made by the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Meeting Room Renovations (deferred from June 5, 2002).
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said additional information has been provided on this subject
(see staffs report on file in the Clerks Office). He said the modifications to Room 241 which have been
==
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
discussed would be about $99,921, but adding in the audio/visual upgrades would add another $141,700,
with the total cost of a modified Option C being $289,945.
Mr. Rooker said he could not understand the sketches of the different diagrams forwarded with
the staff report. Mr. Graham said Option C would take Room 241 and modify it with a different lay-out
and the audio/visual components. Option B-1 and Option B-2 refer to a totally new space in the existing
courtyard. Just to do a new meeting room in that space is estimated to cost $1,050,000. If it were built
as a two-story addition, with a meeting room and office space on the first floor, the estimate is
$1,700,000.
Mr. Rooker said after the Board settled on the option being presented today, there were requests
to look into additional options like building new space. That might take a long period of time to achieve,
and at much greater expense. He thinks the Board is coming back to the option it picked the first time
this matter was discussed, modified Option C.
A@
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board could look at modifying the Auditorium to make it more user-friendly
for large groups. Mr. Rooker said he would prefer that the Board not hold this up further waiting for that
study. He is in favor of moving forward with this project now. Mr. Tucker said the Auditorium will be
looked at during the study of space needs which is on-going. Staff has always sensed that the Board did
not want to move into the Auditorium for all of its meetings except when there is a very large attendance.
Mr. Dorrier said if adding an addition to the building is eliminated and Room 241 is renovated,
then the needs for a small group are satisfied, but for large groups help is still needed. He thinks
something could be done to the Auditorium without spending a lot of money.
Mr. Rooker said Option C contains a proposal for monitors in the hallway outside of Room 241
A@
and that should help the public be able to follow proceedings but not actually come into the room until
their specific agenda item is to be heard. The audio/visual in the Auditorium is actually better for the
audience than in Room 241. If the presentation showed on the Boards laptop computers, that might
=
solve the problem of the screen in the Auditorium being behind the table. Most of the changes in C are
A@
to benefit the public.
Mr. Perkins asked what the $8100 listed under Option A pays for. Mr. Graham said that is only
A@
one part of the audio/visual changes. That is for a presentation station where the person would do their
presentation from new pin-up boards, and the display projector. Mr. Perkins said the audio/visual would
be virtually the same; is the seating arrangement basically the same? Mr. Graham said the total
audio/visual package was more extensive. There would also have been cameras in the audience to
photograph the Board and/or the presenter for the people watching the monitor in the hall. For the Clerk,
there is an archival recording system. Hearing assistance is another big item.
Mr. Rooker asked the difference between Option A and Option C. Mr. Graham said there is no
A@A@
difference for the audio/visual component. The actual room renovations are listed in Option C which
A@
would rearrange the dais and allow for a larger screen projector, and improve the display for the Board
members and the audience.
Mr. Rooker said he thought when the Board discussed this before, it was said that if the dais is
not rearranged, the presentation for the public is not as good.
Mr. Perkins asked the anticipated construction time for this work. Mr. Graham said that has not
yet been decided. They hope it can be done within two months.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board was ready to take action on this item. Mr. Rooker offered motion
to approve Modified Option C. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
A@
Mr. Perkins said he will not support the motion. He thinks some improvements are needed for
audio/visual electronics, but when talking about $100,000 that is ten percent of the cost of a new room.
He would rather save that money and do things with the current setup and save the money to do
something later.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mr. Perkins, but any major improvement would probably be
ten years away. He thinks the community, whether the meetings are televised or people are in
attendance, will be well-served by this change.
Mr. Dorrier asked if money will be spent on this phase, and then five years from now move out of
the building. Those types of decisions make the Board look foolish. If the Board does not know what the
plan is for the long-range needs of the County, to spend money on short-term needs without knowing
long-term needs is kind of wasteful. He thinks Mr. Perkins is trying to make the point that the Board
needs a long-range plan in order first. He asked when such a plan will be presented to the Board. Mr.
Tucker said the long-term space needs study should be before the Board by September.
Mr. Tom Foley said the Long-Range Space Plan Committee has been working for over a year.
Mr. Perkins and Mr. Dorrier are on the Building Committee, and the plan should come back to the full
board in September. They do not see the changes recommended today as being directly related to the
long-range space planning study. The audio/visual changes to this room are needed for all people who
meet in Room 241. Ultimately, they want to plan for meeting room space so the Board does not have to
move to another room when there is a very large crowd.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Bowerman said this room will be remain usable even if another meeting room were added to
the building.
Mr. Tucker said the demand for meeting space in this building continues to increase. If the Board
moves to another primary meeting space, Room 241 will not sit empty. He said a lot of meeting spaces in
the building have been lost to staff space.
Mr. Perkins said he is going to vote against the motion. There can be arguments made that
Room 241 is functional for a lot of groups just as it is today. The money could be saved and put toward
an ultimate meeting room.
With no further discussion, the roll was called, and the motion carried by the recorded vote which
follows:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Ms. Diantha McKeel, Vice Chair of the Albemarle County School Board, was present. She said
that in the SOL series (which is the World Series for public school accreditation), 23 out of the Countys
=
24 schools have been fully accredited. She said the 24th school has made great strides toward that goal.
She said it is a winning effort and value added to the entire community. She said it is a record that many
school systems would envy. The dollars put into education are well-spent, and the School Board thanks
the Supervisors for their support.
Mr. Dorrier asked where the School System came from to get to this point. Mc. McKeel said three
years ago there were five schools accredited. Last year, 16 schools were accredited, and this year the
preliminary data shows that 23 schools will be accredited. CATEC is not counted in the total number of
schools because those children are accredited in their own school.
Mr. Dorrier asked how this compares with schools state-wide. Ms. McKeel said she has not seen
any state-wide data yet. The Albemarle School System was later getting its data than some systems
because they moved their testing period to the very last possible date.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Supervisors think this is worthy of a resolution. Ms. McKeel suggested
waiting until they get their final data which will be out by the end of summer.
Ms. McKeel said the Post High School Special Education Program is moving to the Burley Middle
School Campus. The School Board voted to move that program because their lease was lost at the
building where the program had been housed. They are purchasing a building being constructed by
CATEC students and it will be specially adopted by the CATEC students for this program.
Mr. Rooker asked how many students are involved in the Post High program. Ms. McKeel said
there are 60. The majority of the day a great portion of those students are out in the community working,
so the facility does not have to hold 60 students all day long.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board held its retreat in June and reviewed the evaluations of the
School Board and the Superintendent. They began the process of revising their Biennial
Board/Superintendent priorities. This process will continue over the next couple of months.
Ms. McKeel said the Superintendents contract was voted on at the School Boards last meeting.
==
They offered Dr. Castner an extension of his contract through June 30, 2006. They did so because of Dr.
Castners strong instructional leadership and keen oversight of the planning and evaluation of the
=
Divisions curriculum and instruction, the outstanding organizational structure he has built, and his strong
=
work ethic.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board has extended the time period for citizens to apply to be
members of the Long-Range Planning Committee from the Samuel Miller and Jack Jouett Districts, and
for applicants to the School Health Advisory Board from several districts. The new deadline is now July
19.
Ms. McKeel said the Baker-Butler Elementary School is on schedule and on budget. It was noted
by the news media yesterday that staff is beginning to move into the building. A tour of the facility will be
scheduled soon after the school opens.
Ms. McKeel said the biggest item coming up in the fall is the new Federal law No Child Left
A
Behind Act. The School Board will be discussing this Act and how it affects School Division priorities. It
@
will have significant impacts on recruitment, hiring, retention and professional development of teachers.
The Act specifies that highly qualified teachers must be in all core academic areas in all schools by
A@
2005-06 and in Title I schools beginning this year.
Mr. Dorrier asked if highly qualified has a quantitative significance. Ms. McKeel said it does.
A@
What the Act pertains to is licensure and endorsements. Currently, there are some teachers in the
County who are teaching in areas that are outside of their endorsement; all school systems do this. With
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
the teacher shortage nationally, when looking for math and science teachers, and some of the areas
where the teacher pool is scarce, the system uses teachers who are not endorsed in that particular field.
She asked Ms. Pam Moran to speak about this item.
Ms. Moran said the issue emerging is that the State has not defined what they will label highly
A
qualified teachers. Right now they are looking to see that a teacher is licensed, and if the teacher is
@
teaching in an endorsed area. At this time, most of the baby boomer teachers are going to start retiring.
A@
As a result, Albemarle may find it is experiencing a shortage in particular content areas. The University
of Virginia graduates few teachers in the area of physics. Those people are in short supply. The Act
says Albemarle would have to have a highly qualified teacher, i.e., a licensed teacher who has an
endorsement in physics to teach in that area.
Ms. McKeel said another impact is the additional testing and data reporting coordination which
goes along with the Act. A total of six additional SOL tests will be added to Grades 4, 6 and 7 by 2005-06
beginning with projected field testing in 2002-03. At this time, the SOL tests take place in Grades 3, 5
and 8.
Mr. Rooker said this is a Federal Act and the SOLs are a State requirement. He asked if these
grade levels are being tweaked to meet the Federal requirement.
A@
Ms. McKeel said yes. Also, revision of the Annual Progress Report will occur due to the need to
A@
report adequate yearly progress data for subgroups including Limited English Proficiency students,
minority students, students with disabilities and economically disadvantaged students.
Mr. Dorrier asked about recent graduations. Ms. McKeel said University Hall was awfully hot, but
the graduations were a wonderful celebration.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: Proposed FY 2002 Budget Amendments. (Notice of this
>
public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 23, 2002.)
Ms. Roxanne White said the Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that the County amend its
'
current budget if additional appropriated amounts exceed one percent of the original budget or $500,000,
whichever is the lesser. This proposed FY 2002 Budget amendment totals $1,559,172.93.
>
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 1,000.00
Local Government Programs/Projects 1,473,776.51
School Fund 822.00
Piedmont Regional Education Program 83,574.42
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds $1,559,172.93
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues $ 1,822.00
Federal Revenues 919,386.46
Fund Balances 637,964.47
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds $1,559,172.93
This budget amendment consists of nine appropriations. Staff requests that, after the public
hearing, the Board approve the FY 2002 Budget amendment in the amount of $1,559,172.93 and
>
approve the nine Appropriations #2001-072, #2001-073, #2001-074, #2001-075, #2001-076, #2001-077,
#2001-078, #2001-079 and #2001-080.
Appropriation #2001-072, $7914.17. The Social Services Departments of the County and the
City in partnership with the Region Ten Community Services Board, were awarded a Federal grant to
establish mental health and substance abuse services. The grant focuses on social services clients who
are public assistance recipients or "welfare-to-work" participants with the goal of improving their
employment prospects and outcomes. The project will hire two mental health and substance abuse
clinicians with salaries and fringe benefits paid by Region Ten. Both social services departments will
make "in-kind" contributions including clerical and supervisory support, as well as necessary professional
consultation services. Supplies and equipment will be purchased with Federal grant monies. This is the
second half of a two-year grant that expires June 30, 2002. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2001-073, $1500.00. Traffic activity continues to increase in the County. The
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles recognizes this problem and has funded grants using Federal
pass-through moneys to increase traffic enforcement through selective enforcement assignments
employing officers working overtime. The grant period extends from October 1, 2001, through September
30, 2002. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2001-074, $1500.00. The County recently received a grant to replace the old
SMART sign. This is a related grant to purchase the statistical computer package to collect and analyze
A@
traffic activity. The operations for this program are funded with a $1500.00 Federal grant. There is no
local match.
Appropriation #2001-075, $822.00. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the
amount of $500.00 from Thomas and Janice Brown. This donation will be used to help with expenses for
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
the D.I. Team to compete at Global. Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of
$322.00 from Ernest and Paula Pippin.
Appropriation #2001-076, $1000.00. Since the Albemarle County Greenway Program was
shifted to the Parks and Recreation Department as of January 1, 2002, work in this program has revealed
much potential community support for the Greenway Program. This support includes considerable
interest in land donations, trail easements, volunteer labor and cash contributions. With the anticipation
that cash contributions will become a regular occurrence, the Parks and Recreation Department has
requested the Finance Department to set up a procedure to efficiently handle the acceptance and
expenditure of greenway contributions. According to this procedure all contributions will be accepted into
a Greenway Contribution revenue code, and the Parks and Recreation Department will request a Board
appropriation of these funds to a line item in the Parks and Recreation budget entitled Greenway
Contributions. When a specific use of the funds is identified, the Director of Parks and Recreation will
request the Director of Finance to move the necessary funds from the Greenway Contributions line item
to the appropriate line item in the Parks and Recreation operating budget for expenditure. Any balance
remaining in the Greenway Contributions line item at the end of the fiscal year will be requested for
reappropriation.
The initial contribution to this fund has been made by the Charlottesville store Blue Ridge
Mountain Sports, which won the National "TRAILS FOR TOMORROW" cash award from DuPont. This
award is given to the one retailer who has done the most nationally for America's trails. From this award,
the Blue Ridge Mountain Sports store has donated $1000.00 each to the Rivanna Trails Foundation and
the Albemarle County Greenway/Blueway Program. This item is a request to appropriate the $1000.00
from the Greenway Contribution revenue fund to the Greenway Contribution line item in the Parks and
Recreation Department operating budget.
Appropriation #2001-077, $8472.29. This Criminal History Records Grant was awarded and
appropriated in FY 01 for the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001. The grant was
>
awarded for equipment, data file conversion and training. This request appropriates the balance of the
grant operations funded with Federal grant money. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2001-078, $1,244,390.05. The certified audit for FY 2000-01 has been
completed. The HUD Section 8 Housing grant had a $344,390.05 balance to be carried over to fund
remaining operations. This appropriation requests approval to expend those funds. In addition, there has
been a substantial increase in utilization of the Housing programs resulting in increased Federal revenue.
Total current Federal revenues are anticipated to be $2.2 million, an increase of $900,000.00 over the
initial FY 2002 budget.
>
Appropriation #2001-079, $83,574.42. The P.R.E.P. (Piedmont Regional Education Program)
project was originally funded with an advance of $60,000.00 from P.R.E.P. that was to be refunded if
available at completion of the project. They later requested that this amount be retained by the County
for on-going improvements and equipment at P.R.E.P. The unexpended balance of funding for this
project at June 30, 2001, was $83,574.42. Expenditures in FY 02 have totaled $23,275.37 to date. The
>
remaining balance of $60,299.05 will be requested for reappropriation in FY 03.
>
Appropriation #2001-080, $210,000.00. The Department of Social Services has requested an
appropriation from the Family Support Fund Balance in the amount of $210,000.00. This request is to
cover expenses for the Community Pass-Thru and Professional Consultant line items that were not
appropriated in the original budget process for FY 02. These line items return revenue to community
>
agencies that participate in the IV-E program and pay for evaluation of the overall program. The
$210,000.00 represents April and May expenditures of $70,000.00 each, a payment to Weldon Cooper of
$52,000.00 and a payment to a community partner of $18,100.00.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier 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 approve the FY 2002 budget amendment as
>
presented, and to adopt the following Resolutions of Appropriation. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-072
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF MENTAL HEALTH AND
SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1660 53014 410000 DATA PROCESSING $100.00
1 1660 53014 520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 800.00
1 1660 53014 540000 RENT 1,800.00
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
1 1660 53014 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE 175.00
1 1660 53014 550402 TRAINING 500.00
1 1660 53014 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 85.83
1 1660 53014 800200 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 573.34
1 1660 53014 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 880.00
TOTAL $7,914.17
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1660 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT $7,914.17
TOTAL $7,914.17
__________
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-073
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for Operation Safe Holidays Overtime
Grant
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1535 31013 120000 OVERTIME $1,393.40
1 1535 31013 210000 FICA 106.60
TOTAL $1,500.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1535 33000 330011 FEDERAL DMV GRANT $1,500.00
TOTAL $1,500.00
__________
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-074
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for SMART Sign Usage Grant
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1534 31013 800100 EQUIPMENT $1,500.00
TOTAL $1,500.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1534 33000 330011 FEDERAL DMV GRANT $1,500.00
TOTAL $1,500.00
__________
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-075
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SCHOOL DONATIONS
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2215 61411 580000 Misc Expenses $500.00
1 2304 61104 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 322.00
TOTAL $822.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $822.00
TOTAL $822.00
__________
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-076
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATION TO GREENWAY PLAN
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1000 71018 999875 GREENWAY CONTRIBUTION PROJECTS $1,000.00
TOTAL $1,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 18110 181218 GREENWAY CONTRIBUTIONS $1,000.00
TOTAL $1,000.00
__________
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-077
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS GRANT
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1526 31013 550400 EDUCATION $2,600.00
1 1526 31013 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 3,872.29
1 1526 31013 800711 SOFTWARE 2,000.00
TOTAL $8,472.20
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1526 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT $8,472.29
TOTAL $8,472.29
__________
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-078
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF HUD SECTION 8 HOUSING GRANT FUND
BALANCE AFTER AUDIT AND ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDING
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1227 81920 579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS $44,390.05
1 1227 81921 579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 300,000.00
1 1227 81921 579001 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS 900,000.00
TOTAL $1,244,390.05
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1227 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE APPROPRIATION $344,390.05
2 1227 33000 330016 VOUCHER PROGRAM 900,000.00
TOTAL $1,244,390.05
__________
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-079
FUND: P.R.E.P.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT P.R.E.P.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 9810 61194 800605 CONSTRUCTION $83,574.42
TOTAL $83,574.42
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9810 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $83,574.42
TOTAL $83,574.42
__________
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02
NUMBER: 2001-080
FUND: FAMILY SUPPORT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1557 53150 310000 PROF SERVICES $85,000.00
1 1557 53150 312250 COMMUNITY PASS THROUGH 35,000.00
1 1557 53150 312700 PROF SERVICES-CONSULTANTS 90,000.00
TOTAL $210,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1557 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $210,000.00
TOTAL $210,000.00
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing to receive comments on the proposed adoption of an
ordinance to amend Sec 2-103, Rivanna Magisterial District, of Article I, Elections, of Chapter 2,
Administration, of the Albemarle County Code, to change the polling place for the Burnley Precinct of the
Rivanna Magisterial District from the Bethel Baptist Church, 5401, Watts Passage, to the Northridge
Community Church of the Nazarene, 5100 Dickerson Road. (Notice of this public hearing was given in
the Daily Progress on June 13, 2002.)
Mr. Tucker said the Bethel Baptist Church has been the polling place for the Burnley Precinct in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. The Electoral Board recently recommended that the polling place be
changed to the Northridge Community Church of the Nazarene (see minutes of June 19, 2002).
Following this public hearing, staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment which
changes the polling place from Bethel Baptist Church to the Northridge Community Church of the
Nazarene.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier 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 An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 2,
Administration, Article I, Elections, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 2-
103, Rivanna Magisterial District.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-2(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I,
ELECTIONS, 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. 2-103, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Chapter 2. Administration
Article I. Elections
Sec. 2-103 Rivanna Magisterial District.
The Rivanna Magisterial District shall be bounded, and contain voting precincts
and polling places, as follows:
A. Description of district: Beginning at the intersection of Interstate 64 and
the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line; then northeast along the Albemarle/Fluvanna
County line to its intersection with the Albemarle/Louisa County line; then northeast along
the Albemarle/Louisa County line to its intersection with the Albemarle/Orange County
line; then west along the Albemarle/Orange County line to its intersection with the
Albemarle/Greene County line; then west along the Albemarle/Greene County line to its
intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then southwest on Seminole Trail to its
intersection with Dickerson Lane (State Route 763); then west on Dickerson Lane to its
intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then south on Dickerson Road to its
intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then southeast along the North Fork
Rivanna River to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then south along
Seminole Trail to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering
southeast along the South Fork Rivanna River to its confluence with the North Fork
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Rivanna River and Rivanna River; then meandering southeast along the Rivanna River to
its intersection with Interstate 64; then following Interstate 64 east to its intersection with
the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line, the point of origin.
B. Voting precincts: The district shall be divided into five (5) voting
precincts, as described herein:
1. Burnley Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Seminole Trail
(U.S. Route 29) and the Albemarle/Greene County line; then southeast along the
Albemarle/Greene County line to its intersection with the Albemarle/Orange County line;
then southeast along the Albemarle/Orange County line to its intersection with the
Southern Railway right-of-way; then southwest along the Southern Railway right-of-way
to its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest along
the North Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606);
then northeast on Dickerson Road to its intersection with Dickerson Lane (State Route
763); then east on Dickerson Lane to Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then north on
Seminole Trail to its intersection with the Albemarle/Greene County line, the point of
origin.
2. Free Bridge Precinct: Beginning at the confluence of the
Rivanna River and Redbud Creek; then east with Redbud Creek to its origin near the
ridge of Wolfpit Mountain of the Southwest Mountain range; then southwest with the ridge
line of the Southwest Mountain range to its intersection with the origin of Barn Branch;
then southeast with Barn Branch to its intersection with Interstate 64; then west on
Interstate 64 to its intersection with the Rivanna River; then meandering northwest with
the Rivanna River to its confluence with Redbud Creek, the point of origin.
3. Hollymead Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of the
Southern Railroad right-of-way and 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 north on Seminole Trail to its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna
River; then meandering southeast along the North Fork Rivanna River to its intersection
with the Southern Railroad right-of-way; then southwest with the Southern Railroad
right-of-way to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River, the point of origin.
4. Keswick Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of the
Albemarle/Orange/Louisa County line; then southwest with the Albemarle/Louisa County
line to its intersection with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line; then southwest with the
Albemarle/ Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Interstate 64; then west on
Interstate 64 to its intersection with Barn Branch; then northwest with Barn Branch to its
origin near the ridge of the Southwest Mountain range; then northeast with the ridge line
of the Southwest Mountain Range to its intersection with the Albemarle/Orange County
line; then east with the Albemarle/Orange County line to its intersection with the
Albemarle/Orange/ Louisa County line, the point of origin.
5. Stony Point Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of the South
Fork Rivanna River and the Southern Railroad right-of-way; then meandering southeast
to its confluence with the North Fork Rivanna River and Rivanna River; then meandering
south along the Rivanna River to its confluence with Redbud Creek; then east with
Redbud Creek to its origin near the ridge of Wolfpit Mountain of the Southwest Mountain
range; then northeast with the ridgeling of the Southwest Mountain range to its
intersection with the Albemarle/Orange County line; then west with the Albemarle/Orange
County line to its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-way; then southwest
with the Southern Railroad right-of-way to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna
River, the point of origin.
C. Polling places: Each voting precinct shall have a polling place at the
location identified below:
1. Burnley Precinct: Northridge Community Church of the
Nazarene, 5100 Dickerson Road.
2. Free Bridge Precinct: Elk's Lodge Hall, 389 Elk Drive.
3. Hollymead Precinct: Hollymead Elementary School, 2775
Powell Creek Drive.
4. Keswick Precinct: Union Grove Baptist Church, 471 Black Cat
Road.
5. Stony Point Precinct: Stony Point Elementary School, 3893
Stony Point Road.
(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(3), 2-103; Ord. 01-2(1), 5-9-01; Ord. 02-2(3), 5-1-02; Ord.
''
02-(4), 7-3-02)
_______________
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing pursuant to Va. Code 15.2-1800(B) on a proposed Right-
'
of-Way Agreement with Dominion Virginia Power involving the provision of electrical service to the
Monticello Fire and Rescue Station. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on
June 17 and June 24, 2002)
Mr. Tucker said Virginia Code 15.2-1800(B) requires that the Board conduct a public hearing
'
before agreeing to convey any interest in County-owned property. Dominion Virginia Power seeks an
easement and right-of-way over County-owned property where the new Monticello Fire and Rescue
Station is currently being constructed. A Right-of-Way Agreement reflects the proposed easement and
right-of-way, and is required in order to provide electrical service to the Station. Staff recommends that
the Board approve the conveyance to Dominion Virginia Power and authorize the County Executive to
execute the Agreement on behalf of the County.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier 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. Perkins to approve the conveyance to Dominion Virginia
Power and to authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement on behalf of the County.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
(Note: At 11:09 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:19 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. CPA-2002-01. Neighborhood Model Amendments to the Land Use Plan,
Work Session (deferred from June 5, 2002).
Mr. Cilimberg said after the Board held the public hearing on this Comprehensive Plan
amendment a couple of months ago, it asked staff to meet with the DISC II Committee and the Planning
Commission to evaluate issues/questions raised at that hearing by members of the public and the Board.
DISC II and representatives of the Commission held four meetings to discuss these issues, including
those raised by Mr. Chuck Rotgin and Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff provided for the Board today, two versions of the proposed amendment.
However, the copies of Attachment A did not photocopy showing the gray highlights. He then handed to
the Board members copies of pages where changes were made (see copies on file in the Clerks Office)
=
that reflect the work of DISC II. Staff recommends that the Board use Attachment A for discussion at this
work session. Attachment B is a version that shows the proposed changes to existing Comprehensive
Plan text through the use of strike-through and underlined type. Attachment B also includes the gray
highlight changes made during the DISC II/Commission review process. Most of the changes made by
the DISC II/Commission focused on providing additional clarity to the intent of the amendment language.
He said that Mr. Eric Strucko is present today as Chairman of DISC II, and may like to speak concerning
the recommended amendments.
Mr. Strucko said the four meetings DISC II had with the Planning Commission served to clarify
some of the language. There were no wholesale changes recommended. He said DISC is a committee
of multiple interests and they tried to work under themes of consensus and compromise. They believe
that the language they provided accomplishes two goals. Public policy and community interests are
achieved while private sector self-interests are allowed to happen. They believe the small changes
recommended offer flexibility for the development community and the community at large to participate in
the growth and development process. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a consensus among all who participated that these changes are
appropriate. Mr. Strucko said yes. He said Mr. Rotgin may express some of his concerns because he
A@
knows the changes do not accommodate everything Mr. Rotgin wanted, but the members of the
Committee and the Commission did agree.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Rotgin is a minority of one, or a minority of several. Mr. Strucko said Mr.
Rotgins concerns do have merit, and the Committee tried to address the ones which were not
=
inconsistent with the policy changes that it wanted the County to adopt. The DISC Committee, the 12
Principles of the Neighborhood Model, and the Model itself, all represent a change from current,
conventional development. They did not want to compromise that.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board referred this to DISC II to review the comments made at the public
hearing by Mr. Rooker and Mr. Rotgin. Mr. Rotgin is not a member of the Committee, but did attend their
meetings.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Chuck Rotgin to speak. He said the Board is not reopening the public
hearing, but will give Mr. Rotgin five minutes to speak.
Mr. Rotgin thanked the Board for giving him an opportunity to make comments through DISC II.
He also thanked the staff for their response. He said if they did not appreciate having been put through
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
this extra exercise, they kept it to themselves. The same thing applies to the DISC II Committee. Mr.
Rotgin said he did not get the final DISC II recommendations until Monday. He was out of town on
Monday and had a full day yesterday, so late last night had to decide whether to put together a full
presentation, or just go through the document and make the changes he and the development community
still feel merit discussion. He handed to the Board a copy of Attachment A where he had double-bold
underlined the changes he is suggesting. There are now three changes noted on this document. There
are underlined changes that Mr. Cilimberg referred to previously, there are the shaded changes which
show the additional language the DISC II Committee is recommending to the Board, and then the bold
and double underlined are the issues he feels still need attention.
Mr. Rotgin said many of the suggestions they proposed to the DISC II Committee were adopted.
He thinks the document is better today than it was when it first came to the Board in May. He believes
there are still a few issues which should be considered at the Board level. Principally, that is a
recognition that the Neighborhood Model is an alternative form of development, to be encouraged. There
is unanimity in the community that the County is trying to come up with strategies to encourage growth to
occur where infrastructure is in place in the Development Areas so that the Rural Areas can be protected.
He said there may be too much emphasis in the document on the design issue, perhaps at the expense
of allowing for complete buy-in from the community that will be responsible for creating the models
discussed in the document. He said this is a starting point; the real details are in the ordinances.
Mr. Rotgin said the goals are the same. They are also want to protect the Rural Areas. In the
first quarter of this year, approximately 60 percent of all building permits issued for single-family houses
were in the Rural Areas. No progress is being made. He pointed out that there are more than 18,000
platted lots in the County, not counting what could be created by right under existing and future
ordinances. For those who attended the 5Cs Committee meeting last Wednesday, Leonard Sandridge
said that while the growth at the University in the last ten years has been in the research/medical area,
the next ten years will be different. There is a cohort of about 38,000 students working its way through
the public school system, most in Northern Virginia, Richmond and Tidewater. Most of those children will
go to school in-state, so the University, according to Mr. Sandridge, is likely to be looking at an increase
in enrollment and that might fuel the growth at the University as opposed to what has happened the past
few years. The challenge is for the Board and citizens to come up with a procedure or policy that will help
encourage growth in the Development Areas.
Mr. Dorrier said since the Board is dealing with a specific document, and specific terminology, he
asked for page numbers in the document that the Board can look at. Mr. Rotgin noted that on Page 5
they recommend adding language to the effect: ... and the need to periodically review the amount of
A
developable land available within the Development Areas to accomplish the Countys Growth
=
Management goals. Mr. Dorrier said he was also going to ask that the suggestion be discussed.
Mr. Rotgin said that on Page 9, referring to the Neighborhood Model, they suggest adding the
words ... as an alternate style of development and, .... Mr. Perkins said it has been brought out time
A@
and time again that this is a way to do things, but not the way. Mr. Rotgin said everybody has said that,
but that is not what the document says. Mr. Dorrier said the Board can debate that.
Mr. Rotgin said that on Page 11 under Relegated Parking they suggest adding the words ... the
A@A
norm encouraged, ....
@
Mr. Rotgin said that as the Board discusses this issue he would like to be able to speak and say
why they feel those language changes are important. The most important one is on Page 21. He said
the Committee had agreed that the important thing was the application of the 12 Principles. They suggest
some changes to the language so it does not create the confusion of the Committees recommended
=
language. He suggested that the Board look at these comments and see if they would merit another
short work session.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board wants to talk about these recommendations today. He asked if Mr.
Cilimberg wants the Board to adopt the document today. Mr. Cilimberg said staff needs this amendment
adopted as soon as possible in order to move forward with other things. The Board may wish to ask Mr.
Strucko about the position of DISC II on Mr. Rotgins suggestions. He said DISC II spent a lot of time
=
talking about a number of the things which are noted as changes.
Mr. Dorrier said he has three concerns. First, it is nearing lunch break, and he wonders if there is
enough time to discuss this further this morning. Second, there is a statement in the Plan that more
money will be expended for public infrastructure. That means that people in the Rural Areas would be
receiving less money. He wants to make sure the taxpayers are adequately represented, and that each
persons taxes come back in the proportion that they give them. Second, there is no statement in the
=
document dealing with expansion of the Growth Area. He wonders how the Board will deal with that
question. Is it appropriate to discuss that question at this time?
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there is overriding concern that this process is not moving forward fast
enough. One of the key components is to adopt this Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. The
DISC Committee spent three years to come up with this report. The Planning Commission spent another
year on the report recommending changes to the Comprehensive Plan. This Board has had work
sessions. The report was sent back to DISC II, who then had four separate meetings.
Mr. Rooker said some of the changes he had mentioned are not a part of this report. He accepts
that. He thinks the County needs to move forward with this process. Everybody reviewed the language
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
that was before the Board several months ago. He does not think the Board should rewrite the document
or make significant changes to it.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board is to vote on this matter today. He thinks the full Board should be
present when voting. He suggested that this be deferred until the Board meeting next week. When the
Board is presented with a document of over 150 pages, it is difficult to read it all and give it justice. He
would like to put it off for a week so the full Board can vote on it. If there is some urgency to do it today,
he would like to know why.
Mr. Rooker said he has no problem with a one week delay, but is afraid that it might go longer
than that.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Rooker thinks the whole Board should deal with this question. Mr. Rooker
said the whole Board looked at all of this language several work sessions ago, and had no
recommendations for changes. He thinks Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas have seen the document.
Mr. Dorrier said the document is getting better as the process goes along. Mr. Bowerman said it
will never end under that definition and procedure. There will always be changes to a document.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Perkins agrees. Mr. Perkins said it depends on the other items on the
agenda next week. Mr. Tucker said it would be helpful if the Board members came prepared to take
action at that meeting.
Mr. Perkins said the Board did not receive the copy with the gray highlights for todays meeting.
=
The Board did receive some things from Mr. Rotgin. In looking through those, he thinks some of those
recommendations might help the document, so he sees no reason not to put off voting until next week
when the full Board is here. He has one question. On Page 17, the document talks about edge
A
treatment. Maybe this will be defined in the ordinance, but there is a situation in Crozet where someone
@
wants to build a golf course in the Rural Area. Is that something which is acceptable? Is a golf course
acceptable in the Rural Area on the edge of the Development Area?
Mr. Cilimberg said that proposal lies primarily in the Development Area, but it leads into the Rural
Area. As it has turned out, the golf course would be mostly in the Rural Area. He said there will be
locations for certain types of facilities that will not be the norm which are on an edge. That will fall under
the Rural Areas Policy, so there is nothing in this proposed document that changes the way to deal with
golf courses. It is more about how to deal with the general edge areas of villages and development
areas.
Mr. Perkins said if there is going to be an edge, how firm is that edge? Will what is accepted
A@
over that edge going to be cows, cornfields, pasture land and trees? Mr. Cilimberg said what is at the
edge would begin the Rural Area designation. Mr. Perkins said unless it is very well defined, it will be up
to some bureaucrat 20 years from now to make that decision. He thinks the Board needs to try and
prevent having that as an interpretation by an individual, but have it written down in black and white.
Mr. Rooker said golf courses are permitted today in the Rural Area subject to approval of a
special use permit. When talking about the edge, he understands it is the edge on the Development Area
side and not on the Rural Area side. The edge is not imposed on the Rural Area, but on the Development
Area. He does not think that will change at all.
Mr. Perkins noted language saying where the village meets the Rural Area. Mr. Cilimberg said
A@
the idea is to be sensitive to existing character in the Rural Area. Actually, there is only one village in the
County. Mr. Perkins said he knows having a firm edge is an important concept of the Neighborhood
Model. He asked if the edge treatment is addressed in more than one place in this document. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Neighborhood Model does not define how edges will be dealt with in the Development
Areas. The document the Board approved last year has that included.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Neighborhood Model is supposed to take the pressure off of building in
the Rural Areas. Mr. Cilimberg said that has been the intent of the Development Areas all along. He said
the Neighborhood Model is a way to make the Development Areas work better than in the past. He said
the Neighborhood Model does not drastically change growth management policies. The County is still
where it has been for thirty years.
Mr. Rooker said there was discussion in the beginning of this process concerning an alternative
form of development versus the form of development which dealt with a particular design called
transect. That basically showed how in the radius of a development area, everything should be laid out
A@
in order of density. It was made clear throughout the process that that would not be the only form of
development allowed in the Development Areas. It would be just one form of development. That has
never been said about the Neighborhood Model generally. It has not been said that the Neighborhood
Model with its 12 principles is just another form of development that can be used in the Development
Area. The goal is to try and make the Development Areas a more attractive place to live by incorporating
concepts into the developments such as sidewalks, pedestrian areas, bicycle facilities, open space as
parks, etc. If you take the process from beginning to end with the people who participated in it, that was
the recommended form of development to try and increase density in the development areas in a way
that is attractive and will encourage people to live in those areas as opposed to buying lots in the Rural
Areas. He does not think any of the committees ever said that the Neighborhood Model itself, with its 12
general principles, is just another alternative form of development. That underlies a lot of the changes
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
recommended today. Those changes went to DISC II and the Commission, and they were not
recommended to this Board.
Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Rooker is saying the Neighborhood Model is going to be the only form of
development this County will have in the future. Mr. Rooker said no that is not what he said. He is
A@
saying that in the Development Areas the Neighborhood Model is supposed to be the format of
development that is followed. The Committee worked really hard to make the application of the
Neighborhood Model very flexible. It is mentioned in several places that one does not have to meet all 12
principles of the Neighborhood Model. The idea is that the principles will be incorporated and utilized in
the Development Areas. The idea is that after this is adopted, two-acre, single-family lots utilizing 150
acres are an unacceptable form of development without incorporating a number of the principles of DISC.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the ordinance will take care of sidewalks and things like that. He said
Mr. Martin, who was a member of the DISC Committee, said this is a way; not the way. There probably
would be some other form of development in the growth area because all 12 principles cannot be met on
every project. It cannot be said that there will never be another cul-de-sac in Albemarle County.
Mr. Rooker said this document does not say that. It acknowledges that all 12 principles of DISC
cannot always be met. It says the principles are applicable in the Development Area, i.e., they should be
considered any time a proposal in the Development Area is being requested. There is no mandated form
of development contained in the document. Basically, the document talks about the 12 Principles and
contains some sub-parts talking about how those principles get implemented. No where does it say that
every development in the Development Area takes this particular form. That is why the Committee threw
out the transect. Originally DISC I recommended that the transect be the only form of development.
A@
That was taken out because of the concerns just expressed.
Mr. Tucker said the meeting is running late. Since the Board will be deferring this item to July 10,
he suggested that this debate continue at that meeting.
Mr. Dorrier said it is important that the public realize that five years worth of work has gone into
this document, and the Board knows it will be a big change for the County. This is not a delay, merely a
rescheduling so the Board members can absorb all of the comments which have been made; also it will
allow the full Board to be present to vote on this item. In the past, the vote has been fairly unanimous on
this issue. He thanked Mr. Strucko for his work on this issue, and Mr. Rotgin for his comments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to defer CPA-2002-001 to July 10, 2002. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman (who noted that he was a member of DISC I) and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. ZTA-2001-06. Fill and Waste Ordinance (deferred from June 5, 2002).
Mr. Cilimberg said this zoning text amendment was briefly discussed by the Board on June 5 and
then deferred so staff could provide information on several specific issues. He said staff would like to
note three distinct improvements which will be realized upon adoption of this amendment. One is that a
clean soil cover with established grass will be required at the closure of any fill or waste operation. This is
not currently required for these operations. This reclamation requirement addresses the common public
concern of the visual aspect of this use (open dumping). Two, there will be a time limit on the fill/waste
operation; this also is not currently required for these operations. This addresses the common public
concern of the nuisance aspect of this activity. Three, there will be more regulatory control of "smaller"
operations. This is based on a permitting requirement for fill/waste operations of 10,000 square feet
instead of 10,000 cubic yards, which is the current limit for review.
Mr. Cilimberg said the legitimate purposes for allowing concrete and asphalt pavement to be used
as fill are: they maintain consistency with State and Federal environmental law; maintain consistency with
surrounding localities; reduce the truck miles on Albemarle roads spent hauling debris from the County to
legally dispose of the material in surrounding localities; reduce the sedimentation on County streams by
reducing the number of fill and waste sites which are not legal or inspected. When properly placed, these
materials can reduce or stop on-going erosion problems in the Rural Areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said regarding issues raised by the Board in June, the Asphalt Industry's website
was referenced, but nothing was found to suggest there is any problem with the burial of asphalt
pavement. The restriction on the use of asphalt pavement by the Corps of Engineers appears to be
related to wetland permitting and with the use of recycled asphalt for stream bank stabilization. Neither of
these activities are, or would be, permitted under the regulations proposed. As to the suggestion that a
time limit be imposed on the zoning text amendment to allow asphalt recycling plants to be established, it
may be legally possible to do this, but staff recommends against it without some certainty that asphalt
recycling plants would be established and cost-effective by a known date. Furthermore, at this time, such
a facility would either necessitate a mandate for recycling or would involve a subsidy to make the
operation profitable because the cost of material preparation (recycling) remains more expensive than the
use of raw materials.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Cilimberg said a question was raised about compaction. He said most sites are not used for
buildings and other structures. When construction occurs on fill, the applicants are required to provide a
geo-technical report certified by a professional engineer. Regarding keeping track of sites, including
notification of subsequent owners, the Engineering Department has a database they use to track fill and
waste activity when applications for building permits or some other use are filed. As to the question of
preview of sites and standards, the proposed amendment would not permit fill or waste activity in the
flood plain, in wetlands, on stream banks or in other buffer or resource protection areas currently
protected under the Water Protection Ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff again recommends that the Board adopt the zoning text amendment as
drafted. If there are remaining concerns about the inclusion of asphalt as fill/waste material, staff
recommends adopting the ordinance as proposed by the Planning Commission which would not include
asphalt as a material allowed for fill. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, was present and also offered to answer questions. Mr.
Tucker asked if there was anything in the information handed to him this morning by the Resident
Highway Engineer that might be of interest.
Mr. Graham said what Mr. Bryan in his memorandum, referred to what VDOT does as far as
recycling paving is concerned. They have grinding operations on roadways. He said that most of those
operations are fairly large scale so it justifies bringing in that type of equipment. That is considerably
different than having a 50 by 100-foot parking lot. He is not sure that would work for most of the
circumstances mentioned. He said staff is looking into what a recycling operation would involve,
something the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority would be able to operate. There is nothing to indicate that
such an operation would pay its own way. It would require a significant subsidy.
Mr. Cilimberg read some information from Mr. Bryan's correspondence: The Florida DOP
A
performed research on old asphalt waste and found that it must reach a temperature of 350 degrees
before it becomes a reactive material. DEQ and VDOT have agreed that asphalt from old roadways may
be buried since it will not reach the 350 degree threshold.
@
Mr. Dorrier asked if this includes concrete. Mr. Graham said it is concrete without the reinforcing
steel. Old curb and gutter, and old sidewalks that are broken up can be used in the fill. Mr. Dorrier said
he received a call from Mr. David Zimmerman who does contracting work in the County. He was upset
about not allowing concrete to be buried. He asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak
today. Three people so indicated. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board members would like to hear from these
people briefly. It was so agreed.
Mr. Jack Sanford, President of Faulconer Construction, said they are heavy highway site
development contractors, based in Charlottesville. They work in several states. In all areas, they are
allowed by all highway authorities to bury this material in roadway fills, or if brought to a proper random
size, in a structural fill, once it is tested and approved. He would like to lobby today to include asphalt in
this amendment. He said it is a cost factor for the taxpayer. The cost of the project and the cost of
repairing and maintaining the road system is higher because the contractor has to travel more miles than
necessary to dispose of the material.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the material can be disposed of safely and economically.
Mr. Sanford said yes. The Asphalt Association has documented that this material has to reach
A@
350 degrees before it becomes a toxic issue. Also, it was said in previous conversations, that for large
projects they use milling machines. A lot of the time they lay the material right back on the base or it goes
back to the asphalt plant and is recycled to use in new pavement. On small sites, and for the
homebuilder, or for small projects at the University of Virginia or Albemarle County, it is not practical or
cost-effective to do that. It has to be taken up in place in order to run through the machine. He said his
two daughters were almost killed recently by a dump truck hauling out of Albemarle County into Orange
County, as they were on the way to school. He believes it is a serious safety issue for the traveling public
that these trucks are put on the road with large loads hauling across the county to dispose of something
which can be used on site.
Mr. Dorrier asked if any one else had something new to say. There being no one, Mr. Dorrier said
the Board would finish its discussion.
Mr. Rooker said there have been comments made that there may be a difference between old
asphalt and new asphalt. He asked Mr. Graham if there is a difference. Mr. Graham said he would
consider the new asphalt more of an issue than the old. The primary issue is that the volatiles, such as
gasoline, come off quickly. Brand new asphalt has not cured and those things have not evaporated. He
does not see a significant issue with the old asphalt. He said there may be more of an issue with
concrete in an old building that was used for automobile service. In that circumstance, they might be
asked to do some testing.
Mr. Rooker asked if under this ordinance, staff would have the ability to make that requirement.
Mr. Graham said that could be required when granting a demolition permit to assure of safe disposal of
materials.
Mr. Tucker said for clarification, the amendment before the Board at this time has the asphalt
pavement included, although the Planning Commission recommended that it be deleted. Mr. Graham
said that is true.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Rooker said in reading the minutes of the Commission, their decision seemed to be based on
the uncertainty raised by some of the speakers at their public hearing. Those same speakers came to the
Boards public hearing, and the Board decided not to act until it had more information. Now that staff has
=
looked further into this, the question now is whether or not it is adequate to include asphalt. Personally,
he is comfortable with including asphalt. The other thing about the ordinance is that it includes a number
of procedural items that will be very helpful to the County in terms of fill generally.
Mr. Bowerman asked the problem with rebar. Mr. Graham said it is not permitted under State
law. What has been done with the ordinance is to tie what is allowed to be disposed of on site to what the
State Department of Environmental Quality allows to be buried on site as an unregulated material. Steel
is a regulated material, whereas asphalt pavement is not a regulated material.
Mr. Rooker asked if most localities permit asphalt to be buried. Mr. Tucker said yes.
A@
Mr. Dorrier said the Board will include asphalt and concrete. Is there another issue the Board
needs to consider?
Mr. Bowerman said the point needs to be made that this ordinance defines and controls the
disposal of these fill materials in a way that is not covered by ordinance at this time. This will provide an
overview to be sure it is done safely, will protect the waterways, and the land.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I,
General Provisions, and Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by
amending Sec. 3.1, Definitions, and Sec. 5.1.28, Borrow, fill or waste areas. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
ORDINANCE NO. 02-18(5)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, AND ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, and Article II, Basic
Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 5.1.28 Borrow, fill or waste areas
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Fill area or waste area: A location at which soil or inert materials is placed on a
site other than the site where the material was excavated or removed. The placement
of soil or inert materials as necessary to establish a permitted use on the parcel or
development from which it was excavated shall not be considered a fill area or a waste
area.
Inert materials: Solid materials that are physically, chemically and biologically
stable from further degradation and considered to be nonreactive, including rubble,
concrete, bricks, broken bricks and blocks, and asphalt pavement.
Program authority: The department of engineering and public works, including
any officer or employee of the department authorized by the county engineer to act
pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Code of Albemarle.
( 3.1, 12-10-80, 7-1-81, 12-16-81, 2-10-82, 6-2-82, 1-1-83, 7-6-83, 11-7-84, 7-17-85,
'
3-5-86, 1-1-87, 6-10-87, 12-2-87, 7-20-88, 12-7-88, 11-1-89, 6-10-92, 7-8-92, 9-15-93,
8-10-94, 10-11-95, 11-15-95, 10-9-96, 12-10-97; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 01-18(9),
10-17-01; Ord. 02-18(2), 2-6-02; Ord. 02-18(5), 7-3-02)
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.28 Borrow, fill or waste areas
a. Each borrow, fill or waste area shall be subject to the following:
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
1. Each active borrow, fill or waste area shall be shaped and
sloped so that no undrained pockets or stagnant pools of water are created to the
maximum extent reasonably practicable as determined by the program authority. All
undrained pockets and stagnant pools of water resulting from drainage shall be treated
as required by the Virginia Department of Health to eliminate breeding places for
mosquitoes and other insects.
2. No fill or waste area shall be located either within the flood
hazard overlay district, except as authorized by section 30.3 of this chapter, or in any
stream buffer area as defined by Chapter 17 of the Code of Albemarle.
3. Each fill or waste area shall be only for the disposal of soil or
inert materials. The disposal of any other materials in a fill or waste area is prohibited.
4. Each borrow, fill or waste area shall be reclaimed within seven
(7) days of completion of the borrow, fill or waste activity, or such later time authorized
by the program authority for reclamation activities of a seasonal nature. Reclamation
shall include, but not be limited to, restoring the area so that it approximates natural
contours; shaping and sloping the area to satisfy the requirements of subsection (a)(1);
covering the area with clean fill to a minimum depth of two (2) feet in order to allow for
permanent stabilization and reclamation; and establishing a permanent vegetative
ground cover; provided that the program authority may reduce the minimum depth of
clean fill to one (1) foot if the area is unlikely to be redeveloped.
5. The zoning administrator, or the program authority for those
borrow, fill or waste areas subject to subsection (b), may require the owner to submit a
reasonable performance bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit, any
combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable to the county attorney,
to ensure that measures could be taken by the county or the program authority at the
owner's expense should he fail, after notice is given to perform required reclamation
work specified in the notice. The amount of the bond or other surety shall be based on
unit pricing for new public or private sector construction in Albemarle County, Virginia,
and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs and inflation which shall
not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost to initiate and complete the
reclamation of the borrow, fill or waste area, and to comply with all other terms and
conditions of the plan or narrative required by subsection (b). If reclamation work is
required to be taken by the county or the program authority upon the failure of the
owner to do so, the county or the program authority may collect the reasonable cost of
the work directly from the owner, to the extent that the cost exceeds the unexpended or
unobligated amount of the surety. Within sixty (60) days after the reclamation work is
completed and inspected and approved by the county engineer, the bond or other
surety, or any unexpended or unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the
owner.
b. If the aggregate area of a borrow, fill or waste activity will be greater
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, then, as part of any permit issued pursuant to
section 17-207 of the Code of Albemarle, the program authority shall first approve a
plan or a narrative for such activity that satisfies the requirements of subsection (a) and
the following:
1. All inert materials shall be transported in compliance with
section 13-301 of the Code of Albemarle. Before a transporting vehicle leaves the
parcel or parcels on which the borrow, fill or waste area is located, it shall be cleaned so
that no inert materials outside of the vehicle's load-bed can be deposited on a public
street.
2. The borrow, fill or waste area and the access roads thereto
shall be treated or maintained to prevent dust or debris from blowing or spreading onto
adjacent properties or public streets. Depending on the anticipated intensity and
duration of the activity and the character of the development of adjoining properties, the
program authority may require setback, fencing and landscaping requirements as
deemed appropriate, but which shall not exceed the requirements of sections 30.4.6,
30.4.7 and 30.4.9 of this chapter.
3. Borrow, fill or waste activity involving industrial-type power
equipment shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., except in cases of a
public emergency declared pursuant to section 2-1003 of the Code of Albemarle.
4. Borrow, fill or waste activity shall be conducted in a safe
manner that maintains lateral support, in order to minimize any hazard to persons,
physical damage to adjacent land and improvements, and damage to any public street
because of slides, sinking, or collapse.
5. The placement of fill or waste shall be completed within one (1)
year of its commencement, except for reclamation activities and any other activities
associated with the final stabilization of the area. The program authority may extend
the date of completion upon the written request of the applicant, demonstrating that
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
factors beyond the control of the applicant prevented the completion within the one-year
period. The program authority may then extend the permit for a period of time that, in
its sole discretion, is determined adequate to complete the work.
6. In lieu of a plan or narrative, the program authority may accept a
contractual agreement between the Virginia Department of Transportation and its
contractor for a public road project; provided that the program authority determines that
the agreement satisfies at least to an equivalent extent the requirements and intent of
this section.
( 5.1.28, 12-10-80, 7-6-83; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 02-18(5), 7-3-02)
'
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:16 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Closed Session.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:30 p.m. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge
=
only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to appoint Mr. Hovey Dabney to the Jefferson Area Board
on Aging for a term which will expire on March 31, 2003; Mr. Dabney will fill out the term of Mr. Sanford P.
Wilcox who has resigned. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Not Docketed: Mr. Rooker asked about the grant for improvements to Whitewood Village. He
said there is no playground equipment in Whitewood Village, but there is an area behind the facility that is
an open yard area which would accommodate such equipment. He does not know if the planned
improvements include such equipment, and if they do not, he would like to request that they be included.
Mr. Tucker said he will check with the Housing Director, but he thinks that equipment is included.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. SP-2002-006. Four Seasons Learning Center (Signs #26 & 27). Public
Hearing on a request to amend an existing SUP to allow total of 40 children at existing day care facility in
accord w/Sec 20.3.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 61X1, P5 contains 0.35 acs. Loc at 254 Lakeview Dr at
intersec of Lakeview Dr & Four Seasons Dr. Znd PUD. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given
in the Daily Progress on June 17 and June 24, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said it does not appear that the applicant is present, but he can summarize the
staffs report. He said there is a recommendation for approval from both the staff and the Planning
=
Commission. The request is for an increase in the allowance for the number of children at this day care
center from 32 to 40 which would be accommodated by a building addition that is currently under
construction. There are a number of conditions recommended to the Board, one of which was slightly
changed by the Planning Commissions recommendation for approval. It distinguishes between the office
=
and nursery school and the fact that both pieces cannot exist simultaneously. He offered to answer
questions.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to act on this permit without giving the public an opportunity
to address it.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Perkins asked if the applicant has to be present. Mr. Tucker said that many years ago the
Board did not hear a petition without the applicant being present, but in more recent times, the Board has
acted on petitions when the applicant was not present, especially if it is a routine matter, and if no
adjoining property owners appear.
Mr. Bowerman said he finds it hard to believe that there is no one present for either this item or
the next item. Mr. Tucker said the Four Seasons item was very controversial early on, but he thinks they
worked through all of those issues.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was no public comment at the Commissions hearing. This item was
=
originally scheduled for June 19, but was deferred to this date.
Ms. Carey said she had spoken with the applicant last week, so the applicant knows the time and
date of this meeting, and they were also mailed a copy of the agenda. However, they had indicated that
they were going out of the country, and she is not sure they are back. They did indicate that they would
be present for this meeting.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any member of the public called inquiring about this or the next item. Ms.
Carey said no. Mr. Bowerman said he is comfortable acting on this request.
A@
At this time, Mr. Dorrier 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.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Planning Commissions recommendation to this Board covers
=
any concern he might have, and apparently the concerns of the Four Seasons Patio Association as
evidenced by their letter to the Board today. Therefore, he would offer motion to approve SP-2002-006
subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. This permit is approved for an office or a nursery school and day care center;
provided, however, both uses shall not exist simultaneously;
2. If the building is to be used for a nursery school and day care center, the
following conditions shall apply:
a. Development of the site shall be in general conformity with the Minor
Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000, by the Department of
Planning and Community Development. If modifications are made to
the site, a twenty (20)-foot buffer shall be provided and retained
between the property and Lot B shown on the Minor Site Plan
Amendment approved July 18, 2000, by the Department of Planning
and Community Development;
b. The maximum number of children shall not exceed forty (40) at any
given time or the number approved by the Department of Social
Services, whichever is less;
c. An outdoor play area with equipment shall be provided and maintained
by the applicant. The play area shall be fenced with a chain link fence;
d. The fence across the front of the property shall be a barrier fence, four
and one-half (4 1/2) feet high, set back twenty-five (25) feet from the
property line. The fencing on the other three (3) sides of the property is
to be chain link;
e. No certificate of occupancy for BP-2000-01520 (one [1]-story addition
with finished basement) and no zoning clearance for any increase in
the number of children more than the thirty-two (32) allowed under SP-
74-412 shall be provided prior to completion of: i) construction of the
building addition, and ii) parking lot approved in the Minor Site Plan
Amendment approved July 18, 2000, by the Department of Planning
and Community Development; and
f. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without
abandonment of the special use permit;
3. If the building is to be used for an office, the following conditions shall apply:
a. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10) employees;
b. A twenty (20)-foot buffer shall be provided and retained between the
property and Lot B shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved
July 18, 2000, by the Department of Planning and Community
Development; and
c. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without
abandonment of the special use permit; and
4. No sign shall be located less than five (5) feet from the right-of-way of Four
Seasons Drive. It shall be placed in the general location depicted on the Minor
Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000, by the Department of Planning
and Community Development. It shall be single-faced and not exceed eight (8)
square feet. Materials, color, and lettering shall be consistent with the
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
photograph initialed RSK and dated May 17, 1989, in the file of SP-89-23. Any
replacement sign shall be of materials, color, and lettering compatible to the
Four Seasons Patio Homes sign, as approved by the Zoning Administrator.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. SP-2002-018. Rosewood Village Amendment (Signs #30 & 31). Public
Hearing on a request to increase the number of beds from 60 to 90 at the Rosewood Village Assisted
Living Fac. TM 61W, Sec 2, P1, contains 2.1 acs. Znd C-1. Loc at NE corner of Greenbrier Dr &
Westfield Rd. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 17 and
June 24, 2002.)
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 this permit would allow for an additional
30 beds in the facility which was originally approved for a maximum of 60 beds. He said the design of the
facility can accommodate the additional beds. The applicant requests a change in Condition No. 1 on
SP-98-043 to allow for 90 beds in the facility. The Planning Commission has recommended approval
subject to conditions.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Virginia Tabouh said she and her husband are the owners.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the configuration of the building will change in order to get 90 beds into
the space. Ms. Tabouh said it was designed that way. There are 60 apartments, but all have exceeded
the specifications required for 90 residents. Mr. Bowerman asked if some have dual occupancy. Ms.
Tabouh said yes.
A@
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said this facility is an attractive addition to the Branchlands Community. He then
offered motion to approve SP-2002-018 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Maximum usage is limited to ninety (90) residential beds in the facility;
2. No part of the property may be utilized for any activities other than those directly
related to the adult care residence. This condition is intended to regulate
parking; and
3. This special use permit authorizes only an adult care residence which provides
an assisted living level of service, as defined in 22VAC40-71-10 as provided
under the Virginia Administrative Code.
_______________
(Note: The next two items were heard together)
Agenda Item No. 23. ZTA-2002-02. Fees. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to amend 35.0,
'
Fees, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, to increase the fees for all listed zoning
applications & approvals by twenty-five percent (rounded up to the nearest $10.00). The proposed fee
increase is necessary to assure that the fees cover the cost of services rendered by the County in
reviewing zoning applications & site plans, issuing permits, advertising notices, conducting inspections &
other expenses incident to the administration of the Zoning Ord or to the filing of any appeal or
amendment thereto. The complete ordinance & information concerning the documentation & justification
for the proposed fee increase, are available for examination by the public in the Department of Planning &
Community Development. The proposed fee increase is authorized by Virginia Code 15.2-2286(A)(6).
'
(Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 10 and June 17, 2002.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 24. STA-2002-01. Fees. Public Hearing on An ordinance to amend 14-203,
'
Fees, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code, to increase the fees for all listed
subdivision applications & approvals by twenty-five percent (rounded up to the nearest $10.00). The
increase in fees is necessary to assure that the fees are commensurate with the cost of services
rendered by the County in reviewing subdivision plats & associated approvals & inspecting
improvements. The complete ordinance & information concerning the documentation & justification for
the proposed fee increase, are available for examination by the public in the Department of Planning &
Community Development. The proposed fee increase is authorized by Virginia Code 15.2-2241(9).
'
(Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 10 and June 17, 2002.)
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board, in approving the FY 02-03 County budget, included provision for
>
the increase of zoning and subdivision fees of up to 25 percent to cover the increased County cost of
services provided in processing applications made under these two ordinances. He said staff provided
some background information for the Board in todays agenda packet. The increase is justifiable because
=
there have been no increases in zoning and subdivision application fees since 1991, leaving the County's
cost recovery far below the 100 percent benchmark. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
CPI-U (Consumer Price Index - Urban Workers) index, which is the generally used measure of consumer
prices, stood at 137.9 in December of 1991. By December of 2001 the index stood at 176.7. This means
that prices increased, generally, by a factor of 176.7/137.9 = 1.2813, or about 28 percent since fees were
set in 1991. Based on this information, staff recommends that the appropriate zoning and subdivision
ordinance sections be amended to increase fees effective August 1, 2002. Both ordinance amendments
are recommended for the Boards approval by the Planning Commission.
=
Mr. Dorrier asked if these fees are in line with fees charged in other counties. Mr. Cilimberg said
staff did not survey other localities. What the Board will find is that in fast developing areas, these fees
are low, but compared to some counties surrounding Albemarle, they are probably high.
Mr. Tucker said that in the future, staff will not wait so long to recommend a change. It has been
over ten years since the fees were last increased. In the future, there will probably be smaller increases
more often in order to stay in line with the CPI.
Mr. Rooker said even with the ten-year period, the increase is not that high.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board either has to abandon the policy of trying to get recovery of the
costs associated with permits and applications, or the policy be changed.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much these fees provide to the County budget. Mr. Tucker said ten years
or more ago, the Board thought about trying to recover all of its expenses. That made the fees so great,
particularly on certain individuals, that the Board backed off from that policy. Now, there is an attempt to
recover about 50 percent. Staff has not done an analysis to see what the recovery actually is. Staff did
an analysis for the next item, the Water Protection Ordinance. On that one, the County does not come
close to recovering even 50 percent of its cost.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier 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 an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia by amending Sec. 35.0,
Fees, effective August 1, 2002.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-18(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending: 35.0 Fees
CHAPTER 18. ZONING
ARTICLE IV. PROCEDURE
35.0 FEES.
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning
administrator, the commission, or the board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a
fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such application. Neither
the County nor the School Board of Albemarle County shall be required to pay any fee
required by this section if it is the applicant.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original
1980 development rights have been exhausted under "family division" as defined under
section 18-56 of the subdivision ordinance - $220.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94)
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
2. Rural area divisions - $1,240.00.
3. Commercial use - $980.00.
4. Industrial use - $1,020.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $1,020.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $980.00.
7. Public utilities - $1,020.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $870.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to
allow minor expansion of a non-conforming use $110.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94)
10. Extending special use permits - $70.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $13.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $440.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $490.00. (Added
6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $980.00. (Added
6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $980.00. (Amended 7-8- 92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $840.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres - $1,020.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,570.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $1,020.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres - $1,570.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment - $220.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $120.00. (Amended
7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of
zoning administrator's decision) - $120.00, to be refunded if the decision of the zoning
administrator is overturned.
e. Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential - $1,190.00, plus $13.00/unit.
2. Non-residential - $1,580.00, plus $13.00/1000 square feet.
f. Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $410.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site
development plan - $1,130.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site
development plan - $790.00.
4. For site development plan waiver - $270.00.
5. For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size, location -
$95.00.
b) Major - commission review - $270.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board -
$200.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of supervisors - $240.00.
8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of
supervisors - $190.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $200.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be
refunded. $65.00 fee shall be required to reinstate project.
g. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape waiver by
agent - $180.00.
h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site development plan:
1. Road - $20.00.
2. Development - $25.00.
i. Extending approval of site development plan - $45.00.
j. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use permit or
zoning map amendment:
1. To a specific date - $35.00.
2. Indefinitely - $75.00.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the first
bond estimate - $60.00.
l. Zoning clearance - $35.00.
m. Accessory lodging permits - $35.00.
n. Official Letters:
1. Of determination - $75.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $75.00.
3. Stating number of development rights - $40.00.
o. Sign Permits:
1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by the architectural
review board - $35.00.
2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board - $75.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter 22, Title 15.2
of the Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall exceed the applicable fee
set forth in this section. Failure to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the denial of any
application. For any application withdrawn after public notice has been given, no part of the fee will be
refunded. (Amended 5-5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92)
( 35.0, 12-10-80; 5-5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7-8-92; *to be effective
'
1-1-94; Ord. 02-18(4), 7-3-02)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after August 1, 2002.
__________
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to Adopt an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14,
Subdivision of Land, Article II, Administration and Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, by amending Sec. 14-203, Fees, to be effective August 1, 2002.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-14(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE II, ADMINISTRATION
AND PROCEDURE, 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
14, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Administration and Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle
is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-203 Fees
CHAPTER 14. SUBDIVISION OF LAND
ARTICLE II. ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE
Sec. 14-203 Fees
Except as otherwise provided herein, each subdivider shall pay a fee upon submittal of a plat or
other request provided herein, in an amount according to the schedule set forth below. The fee shall be
in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." Neither the County nor the School
Board of Albemarle County shall be required to pay any fee required by this section if it is the applicant.
A. Preliminary plat for subdivision:
1. If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $720.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,330.00.
2. If subject to review by the agent:
(a) Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(1) or if all lots front
on an existing public street: $95.00.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
(b) 1 to 9 lots: $360.00.
(c) 10 to 19 lots: $550.00.
(d) 20 or more lots: $670.00.
3. Reinstatement of review: $65.00.
4. Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a preliminary plat for the same
property has been filed previously, shall be subject to the same requirements.
B. Final plat for subdivision:
1. If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $720.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,330.00.
2. If subject to review by the agent:
(a) Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(1) or if all lots front
on an existing public street: $95.00.
(b) 1 to 9 lots: $360.00.
(c) 10 to 19 lots: $550.00.
(d) 20 or more lots: $670.00.
3. Condominium plat: $100.00.
4. Reinstatement of review: $65.00.
5. In addition to the foregoing, if the subdivider is required to construct a public
street or a private road, he shall pay to the county a fee equal to the cost of the inspection of the
construction of any such street or road. These fees shall be paid prior to completion of all necessary
inspections and shall be deemed a part of the cost of construction of the street or road for purposes of
section 14-413(B).
C. Plat for rural division: $95.00.
D. Plat for family division: $95.00.
E. Other matters subject to review:
1. Waiver, variation or substitution of subdivision requirements: $180.00.
2. Relief from plat conditions imposed by commission prior to the date of adoption
of this chapter: $180.00.
3. Appeal of plat to board of supervisors: $240.00.
4. Extension of plat approval: $45.00.
5. Request to defer action on plat to an indefinite date: $75.00.
6. Bonding inspection for plat: $60.00.
7. Vacation of plat or part thereof: $170.00.
(9-5-96, 12-11-91, 6-7-89, 4-17-85, 12-1-82, 12-14-77, 3-2-77, 11-10-76, 8-28-74 ( 3); 1988 Code,
''
18-43; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 99-14(1), 6-16-99; Ord. 02-14(2), 7-3-02)
State law reference--Va. Code 15.2-2241(9).
'
This ordinance shall be effective on and after August 1, 2002.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Public Hearing on An ordinance to amend 17-209, Fees, and 17-310,
''
Fees, of Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the Albemarle County Code, to increase the fees for all listed
applications and approvals by twenty-five percent (rounded up to the nearest $10.00). he proposed fee
increase is necessary to assure that the fees cover the cost of services rendered by the County in
reviewing all applications under Chapter 17, reviewing and approving plans, conducting inspections,
providing other delineated services, and other expenses incident to the administration and enforcement of
the Water Protection Ordinance. The proposed fee increase is authorized by Virginia Code 10.1-562
''
and 10.1-603.10. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on June 17 and June 24,
2002.)
Mr. Tucker said in support of the Board's interest in seeing that development review fees are
providing support for the cost review, Engineering and Public Works has evaluated the budgets versus
fees collected under the Water Protection Ordinance. For the first eleven months of the current fiscal
year, a total of $40,850.35 in fees was collected through the Erosion Control program, while the annual
budget for this program is approximately $267,000.00. Similarly, for the first eleven months of the fiscal
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
year, a total of $3875.00 in fees was collected to support the Water Resources program, while the annual
budget for this program is $109,000.00. Fees collected in the last month of the fiscal year are anticipated
to be similar to the average monthly fees collected over the previous eleven months. It is apparent that
even with the proposed 25 percent increase in fees, the cost of providing development review services
will still greatly exceed the fees generated by that development. Staff recommends approval of the fee
increase effective August 1, 2002.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier 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 an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 17,
Water Protection, Article I, Erosion and Sediment Control, and Article II, Stormwater Management and
Water Quality, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 17-209, Fees, and
Sec. 17-310, Fees, effective August 1, 2002.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-17(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, ARTICLE I,
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, AND ARTICLE II, STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY, 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 17, Water Protection, Article I, Erosion and Sediment Control, and
Article II, Stormwater Management and Water Quality, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 17-209 Fees
Sec. 17-310 Fees
Chapter 17
Water Protection
Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control
Sec. 17-209 Fees
Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or
entering into an agreement in lieu of a plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan,
and shall pay a fee for each reinspection, in amounts according to the schedule set
forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of
Albemarle."
A. Land disturbing activity pertaining to single family dwelling unit:
1. Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling unit located
in a residential development: $20.
2. Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling unit not
located in a residential development: $30.
3. Plan for a single family dwelling unit: $130.
4. Each reinspection: $30.
B. Land disturbing activity pertaining to non-exempt agricultural land:
1. Plan: $130.
2. Each reinspection: $30.
C. All other land disturbing activity:
1. Plan: $320 + $125 per acre of disturbed area or portion
thereof, not to exceed $3000.
2. Annual renewal of approved plan: $320.
3. Major amendment of plan: $150.
4. Each reinspection: $70.
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
( 7-4, 6-18-75, 6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-91,
''
3-18-92; 19.3-17, 2-11-98; Code 1988, 7-4, 19.3-17; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord.
'''
98-17(1), 11-11-98; Ord. 02-17(1), 7-3-02)
State law reference--Va. Code 10.1-562.E17-209
'
Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality
Sec. 17-310 Fees.
Each owner seeking approval of a stormwater management/BMP plan shall pay a fee upon
submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each inspection, in amounts according to the schedule set
forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle."
1. Plan: $130.
2. Major amendment of plan: $100.
3. Request for exception (section 17-308): $240.
4. Request for development in a stream buffer or for reduction or modification of stream
buffer (section 17-321) and mitigation plan (if not part of another document) (section 17-322): $70.
5. Each inspection: $60.
( 19.3-34, 2-11-98; 19.1-8, 9-29-77, art. II, 3, 7-11-90; Code 1988, 19.1-8, 19.3-34; Ord. 98-A(1),
'''''
8-5-98; Ord. 02-17(1), 7-3-02)
State law reference--Va. Code 10.1-603.10.
'
This ordinance shall be effective on and after August 1, 2002.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Mr. Tucker said Ms. Thomas had sent him an E-mail about a citizen who called her last night
concerned that the County is allowing fireworks to be sold in the County. The Countys ordinance does
=
not allow sale of any explosive type of fireworks. This gentlemens concern was due to the dryness and
=
drought conditions. Mr. Tucker said the Board could allow no sale of fireworks, but the Board does not
have the authority to ban the sale of fireworks. It could be done if the Governor declared a state of
emergency because of fire conditions. He talked with the director of Fire/Rescue, who said that even
though there is a drought, everything is green and the humidity is high, and the Governor has not
declared an emergency.
Mr. Rooker asked the requirements for a temporary stand to sell fireworks. Mr. Tucker said there
has to be a temporary permit issued by the Fire Official. That office reviews the location of the stand, and
how the fireworks are stored.
Mr. Rooker asked how long a stand can be operated. Mr. Davis said there is just a certain
amount of time they can operate under the permit. It is a very short period of time.
__________
Mr. Perkins noted a report in the newspaper yesterday about Virginias lack of sites (state parks,
=
etc.) for activities. Several months ago, the state parks were running an ad that said there was a state
park within an hours drive of everyone. He said that is not true in this area. He said the article talks
=
about water-based recreation as if it were the only type of recreation in the state. It mentions a $3.0
million matching grant from the Federal government. There has been a study completed which
recommends the creation of up to eight more state parks. He said Albemarle County owns a piece of
property on Preddy Creek which could be developed in that way. He asked staff to look into this article
and to correspond with the state parks people. He said the County talked with the State Game
Commission several years ago about doing something with that land, and they said it would be fine if the
County paid the expense. He said the County does not have the money to do this. It would be either a
state or regional park because the property is on the Orange/Greene county lines. He asked the staff to
pursue this idea.
Mr. Dorrier said Albemarle County is presently looking at a greenway connecting the area
between Scottsville and Howardsville. This concept of a lineal park is becoming very popular. The trail
going to Monticello is an example. Maybe the County could look into a lineal park along the James River.
The old canal goes all the way through that area also. It is a perfect place for a park.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said there was a group which wanted to use the Boys and Girls Club at
==
Mountainwood Center, and he asked what had happened to that request. Mr. Cilimberg said there was a
pre-application meeting on Monday. Mr. Dorrier said he had a call earlier this week saying they were
having problems with the County. He said this is the Boys and Girls Club at the Covenant School, and
==
they need to get into the building this summer. Mr. Cilimberg said Planning also has an application from
Mountainwood for a change of use from residential.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said in reviewing next weeks agenda, there is an application for a
=
retirement/nursing home on that agenda. There have been some comments from the public and the
July 3, 2002 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
directors of a couple of agencies concerning that use. It could be a long discussion. Mr. Cilimberg said
the Planning Commission has recommended denial of the permit. It was because of the design of the
building.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn to July 8, 2002, 4:30 p.m.
At 1:59 p.m., Mr. Rooker offered motion to adjourn this meeting until July 8, 2002, at 4:30 p.m.,
in Room 235 for a joint meeting with the School Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 09/11/2002
Initials: LAB