2002-12-04(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
December 4, 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. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter
F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There was no one present who wished to speak at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Perkins, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.6 on the Consent Agenda with the change noted in 5.2, and to
accept the remaining items for information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: March 25(A), August 7, August 14, September 4 and November 13,
2002.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of August 7, 2002 (Pages 1 through 17), and found them to
be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, only the minutes which had been read were approved.
__________
Item 5.2. Conditions of Approval: SP-2002-43 Crown Orchard (Signs #26 & #27) (deferred from
November 13, 2002).
It was noted in the staffs report that on October 8, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended
=
approval of SP-2002-043 with 11 conditions. On November 13, 2002, the Supervisors held a public hearing
on this permit request, but deferred action in order to see if it were feasible to collocate the Emergency
Communication Centers (ECC) communication equipment on the tower proposed by this application.
=
Although the feasibility of the collocation has not yet been determined, a twelfth condition has been
developed that would allow for collocation should it be determined appropriate. Staff recommends
approval of SP-2002-043 subject to the original 11 conditions, plus a twelfth condition as contained in the
staffs report.
=
(Discussion: Mr. Davis said there was a clerical error in the proposed Condition #12, and he
recommends that it read as follows: 12. The above conditions notwithstanding, additional facilities,
A
including equipment, antennas, and microwave dishes necessary for the Emergency Communication
Centers emergency communications system, may be placed on this tower, if the applicant and lessee of
=
the tower enter into an agreement with the County to do so.)
@
By the recorded vote set out above, SP-2002-43, Crown Orchard, was approved subject to
the following 12 conditions, with No. 12 being modified as noted by Mr. Davis:
1. The facility including the tower and the ground equipment building renovations
shall be sized, located and built as shown on the application plan, dated June 7,
2001, and last revised on March 14, 2002;
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the final
revised set of site drawings for construction of the facility. Planning staff shall
review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special
use permit have been addressed;
3. The Engineering Department shall grant approval of an erosion and sediment
control plan for this site prior to the issuance of a building permit;
4. The height of the tower structure shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet
and the top of the digital antenna shall not exceed three hundred (300) feet
above ground level. No equipment, with the exception of any FAA required flight
safety lighting, shall extend more than fifty (50) feet above the top of the tower;
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
5. No additional antennas that support services other than television broadcasting
shall be attached to extend above a total height of two hundred fifty (250) feet on
the digital tower or the existing guyed tower that holds the analog antenna;
6. The width of each side of the tower shall not exceed thirty (30) feet at its base,
and five (5) feet at the top;
7. Only those satellite and microwave dishes that are necessary to support the
transmission of the digital television signal shall be permitted on the tower;
8. No guy wires shall be permitted;
9. Should the existing guyed tower that holds the analog antenna be used for
mounting additional antennas after the analog signal is discontinued, the owner
shall comply with the regulations for attachment of facilities to an existing
structure set forth in Section 5.1.40c of the Zoning Ordinance;
10. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90)
days of the date its use for digital television transmissions is discontinued. If the
Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee
that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the
Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the
County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for,
and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee
shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney;
11. The use, structure or activity for which this permit is issued shall commence no
later than December 31, 2006. The term "commence" shall mean
commencement of the structure that is necessary for mounting the digital
antenna;
12. The above conditions notwithstanding, additional facilities, including equipment,
antennas, and microwave dishes necessary for the Emergency Communication
Center's emergency communications system, may be placed on this tower if the
applicant and lessee of the tower enter into an agreement with the County to do
so.
__________
Item 5.3. Old Crow Court Road Name Change Request.
It was noted in the staffs report that Part I, Section 6(e) of the Albemarle County Road Naming and
=
Property Numbering Manual, indicates that requests for name changes must be forwarded to the
Supervisors for approval upon validation of certain facts. The sole landowner has requested that the name
of Old Crow Court be changed to Meadowlark Court. Staff recommends that the request be approved and
that staff be granted the authority to coordinate/ implement the change.
By the recorded vote set out above, the request was approved.
__________
Item 5.4. Resolution to accept Ravenscroft Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering staff, the following Resolution requesting
==
acceptance of roads in Ravenscroft Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways, was
adopted:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Ravenscroft Subdivision, described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 4, 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 road(s) in
Ravenscroft, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 4,
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 road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
1) Ravenscroft Way (State Route 1685) from Route 1670, Ashwood
Boulevard, to the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded 07/29/1998 in
the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 1730, pages 54-63, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.08 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.08 mile.
__________
Item 5.5. FY 2003 Appropriations, $222,020.25 (Forms #2003-021, #2003-022, #2003-023,
#2003-025, #2003-026, #2003-027).
It was noted in the staffs report that 15.2-2507 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that any locality
='
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000.00, whichever is lesser,
must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before
amending the budget. This Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds,
E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of these requested additional FY 2003 appropriations is $222,020.25, which is below the
threshold level for a budget amendment on its own. It is anticipated that a budget amendment will be
proposed in January 2003, and these appropriations would be incorporated.
This request involves the approval of six new FY 2003 appropriations as follows: one appropriation
for School programs in the amount of $18,333.71; three appropriations are grants for County Police
Department programs totaling $3,970.00; one appropriation to the Capital Fund in the amount of
$190,000.00 is for the acquisition of the Permit Automation System software through lease purchase (the
Board approved this proposal on October 2, 2002); and, one appropriation of $9,716.54 for the
pass-through of additional dedicated State revenues to the County's Volunteer Fire Companies and Rescue
Squads.
Staff recommends approval of the following appropriations:
Appropriation #2003-021, $18,333.71. Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation
in the amount of $1,200.00 from Elizabeth and George Neff. This donation will be used to purchase books
or computers for the school.
The Textbook Fund collected $5,690.71 from the schools for textbooks, which were lost, damaged
or sold. It is requested that this money be appropriated for FY 2002-03 to purchase replacement textbooks.
The Virginia Department of Education has designated $1,443.00 to Albemarle County Public
Schools for assistive technology equipment. This money will be used to purchase adaptive equipment for
students with disabilities.
The 2002 General Assembly appropriated funds to support the Teacher Mentor Program for
participating school divisions. Albemarle County Public Schools anticipate receiving $10,000.00 in support
of the Teacher Mentor Program.
Appropriation #2003-022, $190,000.00. At its meeting on October 2, the Board approved a
request to pursue a lease/purchase agreement for the purchase of a permit automation system to assist the
County's development departments in tracking and maintaining records of all land use activities, such as,
but not limited to: rezonings, special use permits, subdivisions, site plans, variances, building permits,
erosion control permits, stormwater management agreements, violations, complaints and Comprehensive
Plan amendments. The system will also be integrated with the County's GIS and CAMA systems.
Currently no single integrated tracking system exists. This appropriation provides authority in the General
Government Capital Improvements Fund to acquire the system software through a financed
lease/purchase contract.
Appropriation #2003-023, $1,000.00. The Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles has approved two
$500.00 mini-grants providing a total of $1,000.00 in funds to assist with the child safety seat program.
There is no local match.
Appropriation #2003-025. $1,500.00. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has funded a
grant to increase enforcement of DUI offenders through assignments employing officers working overtime.
This program is funded with a Federal pass-through grant in the amount of $1,500.00. There is no local
match.
Appropriation #2003-026, $1,470.00. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has funded a
grant to purchase three new Alco sensors to aid in the detection of DUI offenders. This program is funded
with a Federal pass-through grant in the amount of $1,470.00. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2003-027, $9,716.54. The County receives dedicated State revenues from Fire
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Program funds and the EMS "Two-for-Life" program. These funds are estimated in the budget and passed
to each of the County's Volunteer Fire Departments and Rescue Squads on an equal basis. For FY 2003,
the County received an additional $9,184.54 from the State Fire Program fund. This amount is being
appropriated among the seven volunteer fire departments on an equal basis of about $1,312.08 per
department. Also, the County received an additional $532.00 in EMS Funds, which is being appropriated to
each Volunteer Rescue Squad on the equal basis of about $177.33 per Squad.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas noted that thank-you letters are sent to all of these people from the
Board.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of
Appropriation:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP # 2003-021
APPROPRIATION DATE: 11-11-02
EXPLANATION: SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2206 61101 601200 Books/Subscriptions J 1 1,200.00
1 2114 61101 602000 Textbooks J 1 5,690.71
1 2112 61102 800701 ADP Equipment-Rpl J 1 1,443.00
1 3151 61311 160100 Stipend-Teacher J 1 9,235.00
1 3151 61311 210000 FICA J 1 765.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 1,200.00
2 2000 19000 190214 Recovered Cost-Books J 2 5,690.71
2 2000 33000 330127 Sp Ed Tech-Equip J 2 1,443.00
2 3151 24000 240380 Teacher Mentor Pgm J 2 10,000.00
2000 0501 Est Revenue J 8,333.71
2000 0701 Appropriation J 8,333.71
3151 0501 Est Revenue J 10,000.00
3151 0701 Appropriation J 10,000.00
TOTAL 36,667.42 18,333.71 18,333.71
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP # 2003-022
APPROPRIATION DATE: 11-11-02
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR CITY VIEW PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 81040 950151 PERMIT TRACKING J 1 190,000.00
2 9010 41000 410500 FINANCING PROCEEDS J 2 190,000.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue J 190,000.00
9010 0701 Appropriation J 190,000.00
TOTAL 380,000.00 190,000.00 190,000.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP #2003-023
APPROPRIATION DATE: 11/11/02
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR CHILD SAFETY SEAT GRANT
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1530 3013 580000 CHILD SAFETY SEAT GRANTJ 1 1,000.00
2 1530 24000 240010 GRANT PROCEEDS J 2 1,000.00
1530 0501 Est. Revenue J 1,000.00
1530 0701 Appropriation J 1,000.00
TOTAL 2,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP #2003- 025
APPROPRIATION: DATE 11/18/02
EXPLANATION: POLICE GRANT, DUI Overtime
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1535 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 1,393.40
1 1535 31013 210000 FICA J 1 106.60
2 1535 33000 330300 Fed Categorical Aid J 2 1,500.00
1535 0501 Est Revenue 1,500.00
1535 0701 Appropriation 1,500.00
TOTAL 3,000.00 1,500.00 1,500.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP #2003-026
APPROPRIATION DATE: 11/18/02
EXPLANATION: POLICE GRANT, DUI Alco-sensors
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1533 31013 800100 M & E J 1 1,470.00
2 1533 33000 330300 Fed Categorical Aid J 2 1,470.00
1533 0501 Est Revenue 1,470.00
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
1533 0701 Appropriation 1,470.00
TOTAL 2,940.00 1,470.00 1,470.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP #2003-027
APPROPRIATION DATE: 11/19/02
EXPLANATION: Allocation of Fire Program funds in excess of original budget.
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 32020 560702 N GARDEN J 1 1,312.08
560802 SCOTTSVILLE J 1 1,312.08
560902 CROZET J 1 1,312.08
561002 EARLYSVILLE J 1 1,312.07
561102 E. RIVANNA J 1 1,312.07
561202 STONY POINT J 1 1,312.08
561302 SEMINOLE TRAIL J 1 1,312.08
2 1000 24000 240417 FIRE PROGRAMS J 2 9,184.54
1000 0501 EST REVENUE 9,184.54
1000 0701 APPROPRIATION 9,184.54
1 1000 32030 565002 CH'VILLE/ALB J 1 177.33
565202 SCOTTSVILLE J 1 177.33
565102 WESTERN ALB J 1 177.34
2 1000 24000 240415 EMS FUNDS J 2 532.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE 532.00
1000 0701 APPROPRIATION 532.00
TOTAL 19,433.08 9,716.54 9,716.54
__________
Item 5.6. Mountain Overlay District (MOD) - Proposed schedule for public hearing and information
comparing versions of MOD.
It was noted in the staffs report that at its meeting on November 6, the Board decided to schedule
=
a public hearing on the Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Ordinance. Staff was requested to provide a
proposed schedule for the public hearing and also provide a comparison of the MOD recommended by the
Planning Commission and the final version considered by the Board in 1998. The County Attorney's Office
has provided the requested comparison of the two versions of the MOD. Staff has established a schedule
for the public hearing based on the following factors:
1. The public meetings on the Rural Area update of the Comprehensive Plan are completed
prior to beginning work on the MOD. Those meetings run from November 11 to December
11, 2002.
2. The GIS parcel data layer is completed by the consultant and staff and approved (for
parcels as of 12/31/01), and new 2002 parcels (as of 12/31/02) are identified for public
notification purposes. This information (approved maps and 2002 new parcels) will not be
available until early January. At that point, the Geographic Data Services Office will need
approximately one month to complete MOD/parcel map development.
Staff included in this schedule a work session with the Planning Commission. This will allow an
opportunity to review the ordinance with the Commission and answer any questions the Commission may
have regarding the MOD and its history. This should be done prior to sending notices to the public so the
Commissioners can respond to any questions they may get from the public/their constituency.
* Internal staff training on MOD (Development Departments), mid-December and early to
mid-January;
* Updated Tax Maps (2001 parcels) with MOD boundaries (92 maps to develop), complete
1/29/03;
* 2002 parcels identified for public notice, complete 2/4/03;
* Planning Commission work session to inform Commissioners on the MOD, 2/4/03;
* Notice sent to property owners, 2/12/03 (1,800+ properties);
* Open House informational meeting for public, 2/26/03;
* Joint Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors Public Hearing, 3/19/03;
* Board work session/action 4/03, if necessary.
To complete this project will interrupt other scheduled work on the Rural Area (RA) review and
extend that work by two months. That interruption will occur after the RA public meetings and analysis and
report of the findings of those meetings are completed and presented to the Planning Commission and
Board in early February. Therefore, drafting of the RA section will be delayed from April, 2003 to June,
2003. This revised schedule for the RA update assumes there will be no significant rewrite or further
analysis of the MOD or MOD alternatives after the public hearing process. Unless otherwise directed by the
Board, staff will advertise the MOD ordinance dated June 16, 1998, for a public hearing based on the above
noted schedule.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked when the hydro-geology study will be completed. She wondered
if that should influence the Boards time schedule. Mr. Tucker said staff will make sure that study can fit
=
into the proposed schedule.)
This report was received for information only.
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
__________
Item 5.7. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, December 2002, was received as
information.
__________
Item.5.8. Update on State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee (SLEAC) Values for 2003 Tax
Year.
It was noted in the staffs report that the SLEAC values for tax year 2003 have been received and
=
show a significant difference from the 2001 values. A schedule attached to this report (on file) details the
total County acreage in each land use category based on tax year 2002, and the SLEAC values used by the
County for the last five reassessments. Also provided are the 2003 SLEAC values and the percentage of
change from 2001. The current tax rate of $0.76/$100 is used for both 2001 and 2003 for comparative
purposes. The actual tax revenue for 2002 on property in the Land Use Program was $308,202, and it will
increase to $312,585 in 2003. Despite the substantial percentage decrease in agricultural values, there will
be an increase in tax revenues of $4,383. The reason for this is the increase in the value per acre of the
forestry acreage. The five-year average crop values used in SLEACs formula are the items that primarily
=
impact the final value. The five-year average values reflect the elimination of the oldest two years and
inclusion of the two most recent years for which information is available. Crop values for the two most
recent years are substantially down from the two oldest years due to droughts, yields and market
conditions.
This report was received as information only.
__________
Item 5.9. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for August 20, October 8, October 22 and
October 29, 2002, were received for information.
__________
Item 5.10. Letter dated November 18, 2002, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Philip S. Marshall, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax
Map 36, Parcel 19 (Property of Philip S. Marshall) Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
__________
Item 5.11. Letter dated November 18, 2002, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to E. Darlene Crawford, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax
Map 35, Parcel 25 (Property of E. Darlene Crawford) Section 10.3.1, 5.1, was received for information.
__________
Item 5.12. Letter dated November 8, 2002, from Jarad L. Morton, Environmental Engineer,
Department of Environmental Quality, to Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, acknowledging receipt of a
wastewater discharge permit application from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, for the North
Rivanna Water Treatment Plant facility, VPDES Permit No. VA0091120, Albemarle County, was received
for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Rural Rustic Roads Pilot Program, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said this matter was brought to the Boards attention at last months meeting by Mr.
==
Perkins. Information concerning several pilot projects undertaken in Augusta County was furnished to the
Board.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, handed to the Board members copies of the State law giving
VDOT the ability to have this program. The information contains a lot of photographs of projects, and
contains information about time and cost. In a nutshell, it is a gravel road which has been surface-treated,
but the geometry has not been changed. The ditch line has been reclaimed, no trees have been cut down,
and the road has not been widened, it stays 16 feet wide. He said the last page is a spreadsheet of
Albemarle County roads which shows a starting point for the program. He will be working with staff on this
program while reviewing the Six-Year Highway Program for its next update.
Ms. Thomas asked if any Board members had comments about the roads listed.
Mr. Perkins mentioned Route 807 in the northern part of the County which is a dead-end dirt road,
Route 666 (Allen Road), Route 606 (Dickerson Road) and Route 707 (a dead-end road off of Jarmans Gap
Road which at one time was being considered for the Pave-in-Place Program), and Route 667 (Catterton
Road).
Mr. Bryan said if this program had been in place a couple of years ago, Catterton Road would have
qualified. He mentioned Reservoir Road and said that it appears to be an excellent candidate, but
considering the amount of traffic using that road and its curves and hills, it may not be in the best interest to
surface treat that road. It might be better to stay as gravel because surface-treating would increase the
speed on the road.
Mr. Martin said he would like to put in a word of support for improvements to Rocky Hollow Road.
Mr. Rooker said the difference in cost between this program and the old program is astounding.
Mr. Bryan said that is correct. He was told that many of the projects in Augusta County were done with
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
State maintenance forces. They did the preliminary work and then contracted for the surface treatment,
which saves time and money.
Mr. Martin asked if the Board will be considering this program for the Countys unpaved roads and
=
possibly reprioritize the unpaved road list. Mr. Bryan said there will still be unpaved road projects, this is just
a subset of those projects.
Ms. Thomas said Broad Axe Road (Route 682) is one road that some people want to do, while
other people want to leave it as it is. It seems that road is a possibility unless it opens it to more truck traffic.
However, the Ivy Landfill does not get as much traffic as it used to get.
Mr. Bryan said he is hopeful about the future of the Rustic Roads Policy. There is a lot of
experimentation going on right now with natural or man-made chemicals like Roadbind, which secure the
A@
road better, and also control dust. That might be the future of this, so rather than surface-treat with tar and
gravel, it could be treated with the water-binding agents. That would be even less expensive, but it is
probably way off in the future.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6b. Transportation Matters: Route 250 East Bridge Replacement at Carroll
Creek, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said concern has been expressed by the East Rivanna Fire Department regarding
closure of a bridge on Route 250 East at Carroll Creek for bridge repairs. Work on the bridge is scheduled
to begin next summer. VDOT currently has no plans to ensure emergency access back and forth along
Route 250. Members of the East Rivanna Fire Department and County staff have met with VDOT on
several occasions and have been unable to come to a resolution on how best to handle access concerns.
VDOT indicated that it will be unable to make a commitment regarding access until a contractor is in place.
East Rivanna believes VDOT should make a commitment to construct a temporary road during
construction for emergency access. He said there were several people present today from Fire/Rescue
who may want to speak, but maybe Mr. Bryan has a solution.
Mr. Bryan said the project will be advertised next month. VDOT will ask the successful bidder how
they can accommodate construction of an emergency lane, and at what point of the project. Right now,
VDOT cannot do it, but he is confident that there can be an emergency lane, a lane which is not open to the
public. The way the project is currently designed, there is no reason the contractor cannot fit it in.
Mr. Bowerman asked how it can be regulated so the public cannot use it. Mr. Bryan said there will
be a detour before one gets to it. The public will not know there is an emergency lane involved with the
project.
Ms. Thomas asked those who were invited to be here this morning to speak.
Mr. Lanny Moore, Chief, East Rivanna Fire Department, said they were concerned that there be
emergency access, otherwise it could add 20 minutes to their response time. This is the first time he has
heard there will be any access road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the firemen will be involved in the design to make sure it will work. Mr.
Bryan said he does not see why they cannot be involved. He has been vague in this answers because he
cannot make a positive response until the project gets down to the nitty-gritty.
A@
Mr. Moore said a lot of their personnel live east of the fire station and have to have access to the
station. He asked if they will be able to use the emergency access also. Mr. Bryan said that is a detail
which can be worked out.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6c. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bryan said there is prediction for snow tonight. VDOT is ready.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Bryan to meet with him at Hydraulic Road to discuss the sidewalk issue. The
sidewalk has about an inch of mud on it at this time.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if there has been any determination about lowering the speed limit on Barracks
Road at the entrance to Colthurst. Mr. Bryan said the request was made to the Traffic Engineering people
and it was rejected. Mr. Rooker asked for a copy of the correspondence. The residents in the subdivision
may want to meet with the people making the decision.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked if it has been determined whether the Dry Bridge project can be considered as
a safety project. Mr. Bryan said the nature of the project and the length of the project makes it a regular
construction project in the Six-Year Plan. Its a matter of reprioritizing it and moving it up on the list, or
=
waiting.
__________
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Thomas asked if Mr. Bryan got the communication from the Route 250 West Task Force about
the commercial area in Ivy and a request for bike lanes along Route 250 from Bellair to the University. Mr.
Bryan responded that he has not received any request at this time, but is aware of their recommendations.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned some dead trees near the Ivy Nursery on Route 250 West that were killed
by VDOT while trimming a few years ago.
__________
Mr. Perkins mentioned the new four-way stop sign in Crozet. Mr. Bryan said he sat there for 20
minutes last week and five vehicles ignored the stop sign and proceeded straight through. He understands
that is a typical response to a new sign. VDOT would like to wait for six months to see if people can adjust
because it is definitely needed. If they cannot adjust to it, it will be relocated.
__________
Mr. Perkins asked if VDOT could put rumble strips on Route 810 at its intersection with Route 240.
Mr. Bryan said VDOT would check into it.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Mr. Steve Koleszar, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was present to make the
presentation. He said since the Board had mentioned snow, he would like to say that because of budget
cuts, the School System will not pay overtime compensation for snow removal as it has done in the past.
That means it may take a few more days to get schools reopened should there be a snow event.
Ms. Thomas asked if he was talking about opening schools, or just clearing parking lots. Mr.
Koleszar in the past when there was a sizeable snow, they worked hard to get schools reopened within two
or three days. Now it may be longer because they will not allocate overtime pay based on a forecast for
snow.
Mr. Bowerman said the schools can be open a lot faster than roads are cleared in the County. If
the roads in the County are not cleared, what difference does it make whether the schools lots are
completely cleared. Mr. Koleszar said that there have been times when 80 to 85 percent of the roads were
passable and safe. They used to have an alternate road plan, but that plan was scrapped. Now, the bus
drivers call the five or six kids on their route who live on an impassable road and get the parents to drive the
children out to a road that is passable. Therefore, they were able to open the schools even though 15
percent of the roads were not passable.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Koleszar was referring to overtime pay for those people making the
calls, etc. Mr. Koleszar said no, this overtime pay is for removing snow from the parking lots at the
A@
schools. It can create a significant overtime cost when there is a heavy snow.
Dr. Castner said it depends on the severity of the snow. Normally, they would run two 12-hour
shifts because there is not enough equipment for everyone to work at the same time. They have always
anticipated keeping parking lots free because of bus turnarounds, etc. In the past, they have put money
into the budget to assure that, but because of 15 percent cuts in the budget, that is one area where they felt
a savings could be made. Snow is predicted for tomorrow, and in the past they would have had a crew
come in tonight, but now they will wait until after 6:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.
Mr. Koleszar said it could mean there that would be one extra day the schools are closed.
__________
Mr. Koleszar said a 15 percent hold-back has been instituted on all schools and departments to be
prepared for any shortfall. He noted that attached to the monthly report is a list of reductions which will be
made by the individual schools. They did this same thing last year, and the year did not turn out as badly as
predicted. But with the uncertainty of the States budget and with local revenues being somewhat uncertain,
=
it behooves the School System to be prepared for the worse case scenario.
__________
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has put out its 2002 Annual Progress Report. It is one of the
finest reports in the Commonwealth, and possibly in the country. The report is in two volumes. Part 1
relates to the School Boards priorities. Part II will give information on standardized tests with breakdowns
=
for each individual school.
__________
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has received a report concerning vending machines in the
schools. The Board has been discussing whether or not vending machine contents that are unhealthy
should be removed from machines and replaced by more nutritional items.
__________
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board decided not to do the spot redistricting of the middle schools. It
was a 7:0 vote. It was referred back to the Long-Range Planning Committee with a request for a report in
March. There will probably be a redistricting in the Spring because of capacity and feeder problems for
2004.
__________
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Koleszar said the School Board, on October 10, 2002, voted to increase the maximum middle
school size from 750 students to 900 students. By doing this, the School Board feels there will be less of a
need for redistricting of the middle schools in the future.
__________
Mr. Koleszar said the Building Capacity Formula has been modified to reflect the reality of current
instructional programs. In the high schools that is a technical reduction of 400 seats.
Mr. Rooker noted a statement which said ... could result in a reduction in capacity at all of our
A
comprehensive high schools. He asked when the decision will be made about capacity. Mr. Koleszar said
@
the change has been approved. He said there are two different kinds of capacity in the high schools. There
is classroom capacity, and then there is the core capacity, which includes the size of the gym, the
auditorium, the cafeteria, the halls, etc. Trailers help to solve the classroom capacity problem. When
Albemarle High School had 2200 students, the trailers helped to provide the classroom capacity, but the
core capacity made for a very bad instructional setting. There are rooms in the high schools, such as
computer labs, which are used by many different functions on a rotating basis, so that room is not available
as a teaching space. In three or four years, he believes all high school students will have a computer. At
that time, there will be no need for computer lab space, so that space will increase capacity by almost 200
seats. In the future, the School Board will recalculate the capacity formula based on how space is actually
used.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks there should be some blending of core capacity and classroom capacity,
because what Mr. Koleszar is saying is that mobile classrooms are not acceptable. He does not agree with
that. This has a great impact on the CIP. If the schools are 400 seats short now, and there will be another
400 seats needed, that is the size of a new high school costing $35.0 million. He thinks there should be
some blending of the two calculations.
Mr. Koleszar said that under the old formula there were schools which were below capacity, or right
at capacity. They had trailers. All of the trailers were there because they needed classroom space
because of the way the space was actually being used.
Dr. Castner said it would be good to have all the kids in the building. When there is 100 percent
capacity, does that mean a new school must be built? He thinks the School Board will have greater
flexibility by saying it should not worry until capacity is over 120 percent. There will not be a middle ground
where no trailers are needed.
Mr. Perkins said his wife had the same classroom at Western Albemarle for over 20 years.
Assuming they were on a six-period day, she taught five classes. So that classroom was empty one period
per day. In her situation, and for others at the school, there were these empty classrooms. Dr. Castner
said at Monticello High School in their master schedule there are no empty classrooms. Mr. Perkins said
he is just emphasizing that there has to be good utilization of available space. There have to be some
teachers who must wander from one class to the next.
Mr. Koleszar said having floating teachers is something which must be done when there is limited
A@
space. He said that Walton Middle School is one of the schools which is over capacity. He was there
observing one day when the sixth grade was taking a Stanford 9 Test. They had to change the schedule for
the seventh and eighth graders because they had no available classrooms so they could stay on a regular
schedule.
Mr. Rooker asked how many computer labs are in the high schools. Mr. Koleszar said there are
five or six per school. Dr. Castner said that two or three are all business classrooms and used for that
purpose only.
__________
Mr. Koleszar said that on November 9, the School Board met with the Long-Range Planning
Committee for the purpose of discussing and setting priorities for redistricting. He said that a year ago when
the School Board began this process, it made a major mistake because it did not set down with this Long-
Range Planning Committee and tell it what was important in the matter of redistricting. After the Long-
Range Planning Committee was appointed, there were two new members on the School Board, and with a
change in emphasis on the School Board, the whole thing was out of sync. The meeting on November 9
was very productive, and the Committee got a very good understanding of what the School Board is
thinking. The next process should be more successful.
__________
Mr. Koleszar said Mr. Al Reaser is very concerned about the Countys proposed new Parking
=
Ordinance, and the School Board supports his concern. He sent a letter to the Board in reference to the
problems with the ordinance, and he hopes they will take into consideration how the ordinance affects the
schools.
Mr. Koleszar said Mr. Reaser wondered if the parking ordinance would be applied when there is an
addition to a school. Would they have to retrofit existing parking lots? Mr. Tucker said parking for the
addition would have to comply with the standard, but existing parking would have to be retrofitted.
Mr. Koleszar asked about expansions which are in progress now. Mr. Tucker said if there is an
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
expansion going on now, the site plan has already been approved and it would have been approved under
the old standards.
Dr. Castner said the two Boards have talked about working together and it has been said that
School Staff input is necessary for certain things. They want to be able to run the same programs, with the
same availability as the public. He has a lot of confidence in Al Reaser, and he is saying the Schools will
not be able to operate a school in the same way. To him, the Supervisors are taking School staff out of the
team and dictating how to run a school. This may cause parking on the street, or at the least, the
Supervisors do not know the implications of its decisions. It is the Supervisors decision to make, but the
letter from Mr. Reaser only set forth the necessary information concerning the schools.
Ms. Thomas said the planners have said that people will not use alternatives to the single occupant
vehicle unless something brings it to their attention. When doing a site plan, it is possible to make people in
near-by neighborhoods walk to school. DISC and this Board have said to think seriously about how you can
make it easy to walk. If what will get you to thinking along those lines is realizing that you will have to go to
extra trouble to get extra parking spaces, that provides an incentive to insure that this will be a school where
people can get to it by walking. The waiver process is an extra step, but it is part of the process that every
developer in town has to go through. The School System is just another developer when it is building a new
building. Dr. Castner said the letter that was sent was built on the existing paradigm and maybe they have
not appreciated the Boards philosophy. School staff may have to rethink the matter. He understands it a
=
little better now. He just did not want to let the opportunity pass to express School staffs thinking.
=
Mr. Rooker asked why the concern was expressed so late in the process. Dr. Castner said some of
their staff concerns were there at the beginning. They were actually trying to see if there could be some
variance for the schools, but in the end, the document did not include any such provisions. The discussion
was going on throughout the process, but in the end, it turned out to be their last recourse.
__________
Mr. Koleszar said there was a joint meeting with the Charlottesville City School Board on October
17. They had a consultant there to help the Boards talk about working together. There are a lot of things
which the two School systems do together, but there are many other things which could be done together to
save the taxpayers money and deliver a better education for students. One item they are working on is the
area of high school courses. With the availability of distance learning, there is an opportunity to have
children from multiple high schools taking the same course at the same time. They are also investigating
whether there is any possibility of saving money by creating a larger pool of employees for health
insurance. They even mentioned going beyond Charlottesville and Albemarle to create a regional
approach.
Ms. Thomas said that has been looked at in the past, and she assumes they are building on what
was done in the past. Mr. Koleszar said the question has been studied a couple of different times.
Basically, just adding the City of Charlottesville to Albemarles policy would not be beneficial to the
=
Albemarle School System because the Countys rates would go up considerably.
=
Ms. Thomas said if the City Schools want to improve their health insurance rates, they could go to a
commonality policy with City employees. Mr. Tucker said he has been encouraging the City Manager to
consider this idea first.
__________
Mr. Koleszar said it is time to prepare the 2003-04 Budget. The School Board directed Dr. Castner
to prepare a needs-based budget. Because of the anticipated revenue problems, the budget will be bare
A
bones. The School Board will be meeting with area legislators on Friday, December 13. One of the issues
@
they will bring up is revenue. In looking at Virginia School laws in the Constitution, it says the State has the
responsibility to provide a quality education. The State is supposed to determine what its portion of
education is going to be and fund it. They had the JLARC Study which said that the State was $1.0 billion a
year behind in funding K-12 education based on their numbers and their audit. He will personally try to hold
them to what he thinks is their constitutional responsibility. He said local government and school divisions in
Virginia need to be strong and united about this question.
__________
Mr. Martin said he thinks that moving from 750 to 900 students in the middle schools is wrong.
Obviously, he does not have a say, but he said a 900-student middle school looks and smells like a high
A@
school.
Mr. Koleszar said the vote of the School Board was 6:1. He voted against it. He agrees with Mr.
Martin, but across the Commonwealth more middle schools are being built at those higher numbers.
__________
Mr. Rooker said one of the things discussed with the City School Board was an educational
foundation. He asked what that would be. Mr. Koleszar said the concept is to set up a foundation so that
people who want to contribute cash to the school systems could contribute through that vehicle. Funds
could be built up and interest, not the principal, be used to support on-going programs.
Ms. Thomas said the Shannon Foundation is a very nice foundation, but it is small. Mr. Koleszar
said that is true. He thinks there should be something like an Albemarle High School Alumni Fund. That
would be a nice way to fund special activities at the schools.
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7b. Commission on Children and Families Annual Report, Presentation of.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, was present to introduce Ms. Ruth Stone who is
the present Chair of the Commission. She reminded the Board that in 1995 when the first Human Services
Strategic Plan was drafted, the primary recommendation was to set up this coordinated body which would
assess human service needs for the City and County. They were to look at the number of programs in the
community and to bring recommendations to the Board and City Council about priorities and services. They
have met that charge, and exceeded expectations. This is a working board which has been productive over
the past four years. One thing they did was to publish an informational booklet entitled
Stepping Stones
which contains the data necessary to show what is being done right and things which indicate that there are
needs which must be addressed. The Committee has developed outcome measures which are being used
for all programs. The Budget Review Committee is using them because it is a valuable way of looking at
the efforts and results being put into different programs.
Ms. Ruth Stone noted that CASA is sponsoring a Legislative Forum on children & Families on
December 10, 2002, at the UVA Law School. She invited the Board members to attend. She introduced
members of the Commission and Commission staff members who were present: Madison Cummings,
Kevin Castner, Sapphira Baker, Sterling Robinson, Cindy Stratton, John Freeman, Kathy Ralston and Rory
Carpenter. She thanked everyone who had worked on the 2002 Annual Report of the Commission.
Ms. Stone said the Commission has completed its fourth year as a planning and coordinating body.
During that time it has had 22 Commission members, staff and many work groups looking at four primary
areas. This included identifying community needs, engaging the community in planning and decision-
making, facilitating and implementing coordinated strategies, and recommending the investment of State
and local resources. She said part of their efforts were to understand the conditions facing children and to
identify the gaps within the community. The Commissions work groups reviewed the characteristics of the
=
most at-risk children and families during 2002. She said Ms. Sapphira Baker, Director of the Commission,
will speak to the Board about their research and focus on the impact of family violence.
Ms. Baker said research on the most high-risk children in the City and the County has shown a
history of family violence. Studies of children in the juvenile justice system show that 38 percent had been
exposed to or witnessed adult violence. They also found that 26 percent were confirmed victims of abuse
and neglect. In the work done by Kathy Ralston and the Children Needing Extensive Services Work
A@
Group, it was found that among those children, 80 percent were abused and neglected, and 61 percent
were exposed to domestic violence. They felt a need to do something more preventive to reach those
families in order to help those children have positive influences in their lives.
Ms. Baker said they looked at the foster care rate. The Countys rate is 7.1/1000. The State
=
average is about 4.7/1000. In Charlottesville that jumps up to 30.0/1000 with many children being placed in
foster care as a result of child abuse or neglect. The definition being used of domestic violence is a
A@A
pattern of violence which can be physical or emotional in which one person in an intimate relationship uses
that violence to control another person. Child abuse and neglect is defined as Physical or mental injury
@A@A
to a child by his or her parent or caretaker. In looking at State and National research, it indicates that
@
exposure to domestic violence has a negative impact on the physical, emotional, educational and
interpersonal aspect of a childs life. Also, in from 30 to 60 percent of all cases there is also child mal-
=
treatment. Research shows that it is more frequent in single parent families and in families with an annual
income of less than $15,000.
Ms. Baker said they were able to plot domestic service calls in Charlottesville by neighborhood.
This plotting showed that calls for service (particularly repeat calls), come from people with lower SOL
scores, a higher than average rate of eligibility for free and reduced lunch, and mobility. Family violence
tends to be a hidden problem. They hope that a targeted prevention effort can make an impact and reduce
the impact on children as well as the financial impact on the locality. If the impact can be reduced, the
number of children exposed to potential injuries or psychological disorders will be reduced.
Ms. Baker said services to treat children exposed to family violence has been growing. That is seen
in the rates for the Comprehensive Services Act. She said a Work Group has been convened, and will
basically be mimicking what has shown to be effective nationally. A multi-discipline area approach has
been shown to be the best approach. The Task Force is reviewing all local resources to determine which
are most effective in reducing family violence. The results of that review are coming quickly. They have
just applied for a $5000 pilot grant to work in a neighborhood in Charlottesville where the rates are
particularly high. She then introduced Mr. Sterling Robinson who is to speak about the future.
Mr. Robinson, the citizen member from Albemarle County, said he would speak about the future
directions of the Commission. Family violence is a growing problem. They will continue to gather data, and
will also do a community needs assessment where they will survey at least 847 households and put
together a document which will identify the early problems of family violence and its affect on children.
Another area they will be working on is school readiness by looking at children between ages 0 and 6, and
creating a healthy environment for those children so they will be ready to start school. Another area to
study is a collaborative area of schools and human services agencies. They will try to improve information-
sharing within the confidentiality law between public and non-profit agencies. They will be looking at
outcome measurements for the City and County when funding agencies. In the Annual Report and today,
they are asking for more of the Boards attention and time to children and family issues. They seek to
=
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
increase the input into City and County planning efforts. Their original 1997 mandate was to advise local
government and to improve systems of services. Finally, they thank the Board for its continuing support,
especially when CCF is faced with its funding being reduced by one-third. They are grateful to be part of a
community where children and families are being considered as its central concern.
Ms. Thomas said the Board appreciates the report. She, personally, is delighted with the approach
of looking at outcome measures. She said it seems to be common in social work to count the number of
clients seen, and that does not let anyone know what has really happened. She said that when this Board
meets with the Legislators, it will focus on these issues.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Social Services Annual Report, Presentation by Kathy Ralston.
Ms. Martha Orton, Chair of the Advisory Board of Social Services, was present to present its annual
report. She introduced Mr. Harry Levins who is Vice-Chair Ms. Karen Powell, Board members. Also
present was Kathy Ralston, Director, Paul McWhinney, Assistant Director, Sonja Davies, Management
Analyst. She said the report has a new look this year which makes it more attractive, and hopefully, more
interesting. Pictures have been added, as has color.
Ms. Orton said the Annual Report provides information on the Departments programs and includes
=
the nature and purpose of each program. The database of the Family Support Program became
operational during 2002. Now, they are able to track a considerable amount of data. This is part of an on-
going evaluation process in cooperation with the Curry School of Education. Specifically, they are tracking
abuse and neglect, financial status, and school behavior as part of the program. Under Benefit Programs,
there was a major development in the Food Stamp Program. There is a new way to deliver the Food
Stamp benefit. It is no longer done through paper coupons. Instead, every Food Stamp recipient has a
Cardinal Card which is used as a debit card. The benefits are electronically transferred. It is a good
A@
improvement for everyone.
Ms. Orton said that in FY 2002, the department continued striving to meet the needs of the
community, especially, in its mission of putting the customer (new term for client) first. She said the
department continues to use its continuous quality improvement plan which contains the guidelines used to
identify agency-wide priorities for the year. They are agreed upon and supported by the quality caseload
standards which are in their second year of use. These standards provide a basis of agency values and
standards of practice in all areas of decision-making.
Ms. Orton said that in March, 2002 the department conducted a customer satisfaction survey. It is
part of integrating the quality caseload standards into every part of the agency and putting them into action.
The survey was based on 31 customer satisfaction attributes. The survey was mailed to 3642 customers
of the department, and 1032 responses were returned. The response rate of 28 percent was considered
high for this type of survey.
Ms. Orton said the Advisory Board has continued to work to fulfill its role of serving as liaison
between the Board of Supervisors, the department, and the community. Several of the Advisory Boards
=
efforts are outlined in the report. She drew the Boards attention to its advocacy efforts such as presenting
=
a legislative agenda to the local legislators. She mentioned the pie-charts at the end of the report which
A@
show the Departments budgeted funds and actual expenditures, and the Departments funding sources.
==
She said that in FY 2002 there were some financial challenges, and the department responded by making
innovative changes in organizational structure and programming. In conclusion, the Advisory Board would
like to thank Kathy Ralston and the staff of the department for another year of excellent service. She
offered to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker noted that the total budget was about $27.0 million, with $19.0 million of that being for
Medicaid. He said the other largest categories are Other-Federal, and Other-State. He asked what is
covered in these categories. Ms. Ralston said those are funds which support the infrastructure of the
department, such as salaries, benefits, all operations, plus programs. Included are programs such as day
care services and foster care services.
Ms. Thomas said she was impressed by the report. Ms. Ralston said the department is working
now to identify its critical measures, department-wide, as well as what the outcome measures are for each
of the program areas. The annual report next year will better reflect those things.
__________
(Note: At 10:35 a.m. the Board recessed, and reconvened again at 10:51 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. CPA-01-04. Albemarle Place. Work Session on a request to change the
land use designation from Industrial Service to Regional Service for TM 61W, Ps 19A & 19B, Sec 3, to
support an eventual rezoning from LI to PUD for the purpose of creating a mixed residential, office and
commercial development.
Ms. Thomas said she was impressed by the packet of materials forwarded to the Board on this
request. It certainly shows how much work has gone into this request by County staff, the applicant and the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Michael Barnes, Planner, gave a slide presentation. He showed photographs of two projects in
other parts of the country which are similar to this request. Staff focused on the site itself in what is referred
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
to as the Hydraulic Super Block. That is an area which is bounded by Hydraulic Road, Commonwealth
A@
Drive, Greenbrier Drive and Route 29 North. They began the process by deciding if this was an appropriate
area for a town center. About 15 percent of the population in the development area is within walking
distance of the site. It is on Industrial Service land which is outmoded in todays economy. Potentially it
=
could serve as an office center like North Fork, but as a town center it serve as the focal point for the
southern part of Neighborhoods 1 and 2. While there are transportation problems, this is an area where the
best roads in the development areas are located.
A@
Mr. Barnes said staff looked at how this proposal relates to the Neighborhood Model. He said
some of the strengths of the proposal are: it has a strong pedestrian orientation, the buildings are of human
scale, it relegates a lot of the parking by its mixture of uses, and it is a strong in-fill candidate. Some of the
weaknesses of the proposal are: there is to be a large footprint store proposed for the northern portion of
the property, and surface parking lots. He said the Comprehensive Plan language tries to nail down the
A@
stronger points in the proposal. It also tries to mitigate issues with the Neighborhood Model that are not as
favorable in the proposal. A key issue for the Planning Commission was the projects interface with the
=
exterior roads. Another issue had to do with open space. The applicant provided a breakdown of spaces
which are hard scape, or green areas. Staff divided those between spaces which were more useable, i.e, a
park setting or hard scraped area. There was a debate as to whether there is enough open space on this
site. Staff did note that there is open space in the area about one-quarter mile from the perimeter of the
site. Whitewood Park is less than one-half mile away. There is also the green space in the Meadow Creek
drainage area. He said that stream impact is also a point of contention. No staff member will recommend
storing a stream, but in trying to balance the Countys in-fill policies with what exists on the ground, the
=
Engineering Department determined that the stream is in relatively poor condition. It is highly degraded,
there are erosion problems, and there is not much aquatic life especially in the northern portion. Finally, the
Water Protection Ordinance does not protect these intermittent streams. What came out of that are a
couple of strategies. One would be to leave it in the condition it is in today, but it is still an erosion problem.
Second, piping is not the same thing as protecting because if development is done on the site, there would
potentially be a basin in the stream, and the remainder of the stream would have to be stabilized. Third, if
there is higher density on the site, more and more of the stream would be piped. Staff decided on the latter
option balancing that against the in-fill issues.
Mr. Barnes said another major topic of discussion had to do with "big boxes". He broke the
discussion into two categories. First, a design standard approach as recommended by the applicants
=
consultant. It was taken up by the Planning Commission. They took into consideration ways to manage the
size of a large building. The second option was to limit the floor plate size of the building and make a larger
user go to multi-floors and design those floors so they could be reused. Finally, apply the design standards
on top of that.
Mr. Barnes said the other big issue had to do with the traffic study. Basically, staff and VDOT, with
the applicant, moved from assessing the current conditions and forecasting future conditions, they never
agreed on what the improvements would be because it got to a point where staff said what was proposed
was not what they wanted. He said that current conditions at the Hydraulic Road intersection are at a level
of service D. With just normal background traffic it will drop to a level F in 2006. The applicant said they
A@A@
could provide some improvements, i.e., lane widening and signal time improvements, and bring it down to
less than an average of F. They were asked to provide improvements that would get the service level
A@
back to D. Finally, if they do a by-right development, it drops to a level of F anyhow.
A@A@
Mr. Rooker said there are a lot of thin areas in what could be done by-right. Mr. Barnes agreed.
A@
He said certain improvements would have to be made for any development.
Mr. Rooker asked if the traffic study has been completed. Mr. Barnes said the analysis aspects
have been completed, but what can be done to ameliorate conditions in the area have not been settled. He
showed a slide indicating what the applicant has proposed. The intersection at Route 29/Hydraulic Road
was studied, and the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 intersection, but not a full study of the Route 29 Bypass
intersection, and some of the turning movements in the cloverleaf. He said the situation in the area in 2006
will become a level F even without this development. The Commission agreed that this situation will not
A@
be caused entirely by the applicant. It is more of a County/City problem. Secondly, just adding additional
lanes is not getting toward a more walkable area as envisioned in both City and County plans. Staff told the
Commission that when this gets to the rezoning stage, the specifics of how to make those improvements
would be discussed. The applicant, and their ability to provide right-of-way and money toward studies or
improvements, would be used. These key intersections are expanded from what is seen in the MPO Study
and also creates a network of parallel roads to provide alternatives to using Route 29. Staff wanted to
provide Comprehensive Plan language which could resolve when the request gets to a more detailed level
of a rezoning.
Ms. Thomas said she tried to find the status of the MPO's endorsed study. Commissioner Shucet
and others were meeting yesterday, so it is moving right along. They are hoping to do it mostly in-house by
bringing in consultants at certain key points. That will probably expedite it.
Mr. Barnes said the final slide is in relation to transportation and ties in with the whole development
community. It shows the site being discussed today. The next question is where and when the County
wants to provide the big box regional service store as related to traffic.
A@
Mr. Rooker asked if there are any final results from the retail analysis. Mr. Barnes said yes. Both
A@
the County and the applicant tried to tackle the market analysis angle of this proposal. Mr. Steve Allshouse,
Fiscal Impact Planner, went back ten years and did a correlation between income growth and increases in
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
square footage. He then extrapolated that for future use. He used 1990 which was a boom time. By 2011,
there would be an expected increase in demand of 1.7 million square feet. The applicant did several
scenarios on his own using comparison buying power in this community compared to other communities.
They came up with a figure of 2.0 million square feet which could be absorbed by the community in the next
ten years. The applicant is going for the higher end market because people are going outside of the
community to shop.
Mr. Rooker said there is a huge development going in at Short Pump which will have higher end
stores. He thinks the transportation component of this is very important to the developer because if it
becomes difficult for people on the east side of Charlottesville to get to this center, they can just as easily
use I-64 to get to Short Pump.
Ms. Thomas said she made a list of capital improvements that will have to be made related to
development of any sort on this piece of property. She wondered if Planning staff had also developed a list.
There is the question of Whitewood Park, the sewer interceptor, stormwater facilities, Hydraulic Road, and
many more. She asked how this fits in with CIP planning. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is already looking at the
sidewalk systems, and other improvements which are not even in the CIP at this time, but staff has not
looked at them in detail or in terms of associated costs. That will need to be addressed during the rezoning
process. There will be a need to identify what part of that capital demand is being created by the
development itself.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board approves this request soon, that will be a major announcement. She
thinks the CIP budget will have to take some extensive revisions upward. Mr. Cilimberg said the sidewalk
program is already in the CIP, but it may need to be increased. Stormwater improvements will
predominantly fall on the applicant. If the sewer interceptor is necessitated by the development, it will be
the developers responsibility. One thing that still needs to be determined is whether Whitewood Park will
=
be what is relied on, or whether some part of this development will be providing recreational opportunities.
That has not been decided yet.
Mr. David Benish said the sidewalk improvements for the super block area are in this six-year part
A@
of the CIP. Hopefully, the study that is underway for recreational facilities will help the County gain some
additional information as to how to address urban recreational needs. He said capital planning is based
largely on the Comprehensive Plan. Once this amendment is adopted, and specific expectations have
been established by the Board, then staff will go back and fine tune the CIP. One basic improvement
required by any by-right development in this area are the sidewalks.
Mr. Dorrier said that five of the nine meetings were joint work sessions with the City. He asked if the
City has voted on this issue, or is their input still pending. Mr. Cilimberg said they provided input on a
regular basis. Staff did not wait for the City to vote because it is the Countys decision. The Planning
=
Commission spent almost one entire work session changing and modifying the wording of the amendment
to reflect the City's input. Most of that had to do with transportation, but beyond that, they discussed how to
treat relationships with City neighborhoods. The Commissions recommendation reflects that input. They
=
went through the information provided by the City very deliberately.
Mr. Rooker said he had discussed this request with two members of City Council and they felt that
their concerns had been addressed. Looking at the draft amendment recommended by the Commission,
there are many things such as transportation, land use, environmental design standards, etc., which have
been addressed. Also, they set up what will be required for the rezoning of the property when the proposal
becomes more definitive. He was a member of a panel with Mr. Caravati and Mr. Caravati indicted that he
thought it was a pretty good project. Mr. Kevin Lynch, City Councilor, and Mr. Rooker went to Florida to
view a similar project and Mr. Lynch felt it was a pretty good project, was actually interested in getting a
similar project done in the City. There is one substantial difference with the Florida development because it
did not have a big box component. What is being planned here on the south side of the project matches up
with what was done in Florida. Another substantial difference is that in that case the City bought a blighted
area of land in an effort to improve that area of their city. Also, their transportation network is laid out on a
grid system. They do not have the terrain problems that are present here, so transportation planning is a lot
easier. Mr. Rooker said generally what was done down in Florida, if it is somewhat duplicated here, would
be a meaningful project for the community.
Ms. Thomas said what came out of all the work done by the Planning Commission is encapsulated
in the pages with Roman numerals (staffs report). She was pleased from the beginning that the staff and
=
the planners looked at this project in terms of Neighborhoods One and Two to see how it would fit. That is
a large part of the transportation improvements. She had raised a large conceptual issue earlier, and is
sorry she did so because the Board is down to the language of the Comprehensive Plan amendment now.
Mr. Rooker said the issues raised will be important in the rezoning. He spent a fair amount of time
on this request, reading, and then walking around the area to think about how it would fit in. He followed
the process through the Commission, actually participating in the first few work sessions because this has
been going on for several years. He cannot think of anything that has not been addressed in the proposed
language of the Comprehensive Plan language.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the issued raised by Mr. Frank Cox in a letter addressed to the Board. Mr.
Rooker said he would not oppose changing the footprint of the building from 65,000 square feet to 70,000
square feet. Mr. Cox has indicated that they have a retailer who is interested in a 70,000 square foot facility,
and he believes they want to locate in the town center part of this development. When the rezoning comes
to the Board, the issues which have been addressed in a general way will have to be addressed in a
particular way. Things like how to screen the existing neighborhoods, how to provide for access to
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Commonwealth, if Whitewood Park is to be relied on for recreational opportunities for the people living in
this development, and how the people get to the Park easily. Having an urban gym in this area would be a
great idea. He would like to see a library in this area. Those are things that can be looked at during the
rezoning.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Rooker had mentioned buffering. On Page 9, IX, last bullet it says maintain
A
a wooded buffer. A Mr. Cross, during his presentation to the Commission (Page 96 of staffs report) said it
@=
should be appropriate buffers to screen uses on adjacent properties as opposed to a wooded buffer.
A@A@
She said if the Board decides to change any words, she thinks the word wooded should be changed to
A@
appropriate. It might fit the situation better. It takes a lot of trees to do a real buffer.
A@
Mr. Bowerman said the word appropriate would allow this question to be addressed during site
A@
plan review so might add more flexibility without detracting from having a wooded buffer.
Mr. Perkins said he wondered about the words Maintain the wooded ridge line along Berkmar drive
A
to buffer the residential properties along Woodburn Road. He asked what that language has to do with this
@
amendment. Mr. Cilimberg said that language is part of the existing Comprehensive Plan, and would
remain in the Plan.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Board could hear from the applicant.
Ms. Thomas said this is not a public hearing. She said the Board might let the applicant address a
specific question, but not receive a presentation. Mr. Cilimberg said this request has been advertised for a
public hearing at the Boards meeting on December 11. Unless there is something the Board does not
=
want to review at the public hearing, they should keep the request as it is, and just make comments about
things that might potentially be changed after the hearing. Mr. Tucker said one item was mentioned by Mr.
Dorrier earlier, and was the subject of discussion in Mr. Coxs letter to the Board.
=
Mr. Martin said it might be helpful to have the applicant speak to the 65,000 square feet
requirement. Also, Mr. Rooker had mentioned that he had information that there might be a retailer who
was interested in 70,000 square feet.
Ms. Thomas asked if the difference between these two figures would make a significant difference
to the applicant.
Mr. Frank Cox said the applicant would prefer to have one-half a million square feet to give
flexibility. There are a number of stores the owners are presenting negotiating with. Those people are
considering two-story buildings which would be in excess of the 65,000 square foot floor plate. They had
hoped the wording would allow the applicant the flexibility to negotiate with the County at the time of
rezoning the appropriate amount of square footage. He said that 70,000 would be preferable to 65,000
because they have a preliminary commitment from a major retail department store for a 140,000 square
foot building on the new main street.
Mr. Dorrier asked for an example of a building of 70,000 square feet. Ms. Thomas said she was
told that 65,000 square feet is the size of a city block. Mr. Cox said the Sperry building itself is 225,000
square feet, so it would be one-third the size of that building. The Comdial building is about 400,000 square
feet.
Mr. Rooker said 65,000 square feet is about one and one-half acres. He said Mr. McLeod called
him to talk about making that change. At the time, he indicated that he basically agreed with what the
Planning Commission had passed, except for this one item.
Mr. Bruce McLeod said the 70,000 square feet is specific and would be acceptable. He said the
size of the footprint has been an issue in Albemarle before this time, and they do not care to become
embroiled in that matter. The 70,000 square feet would work for them, and the facility being considered is
in the town center part of the project. He said that 70,000 square feet is about one-half the size of the
footprint for a Lowes store, a Wal-Mart, or a Home Depot. If that were cut in half and stacked, it would be
=
that total area on two floors.
Mr. Martin asked if the 65,000 or 70,000 square feet being discussed is only in relationship to this
CPA. Ms. Thomas said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas said this amendment clearly reflects a great deal of work. She wondered about the
new stormwater regulations which will go into effect under Federal edict. Under Environmental Protection,
A
Paragraph E-1", there is a sentence which reads The project should over treat and/or detain stormwater to
A
provide additional stormwater protection. She asked if that wording is sufficient. Mr. Tucker said that
@
wording came from Engineering staff and they are the ones who will be managing the new EPA standards.
Ms. Thomas asked the meaning of the sentence Projects should relegate parking to the maximum
A
extent possible. She does not know the definition of relegate parking. Mr. Cilimberg said it is an attempt
@A@
to make it not the primary visible use of the land. In many cases, it is to provide for parking on the back side
of the development. It has been interpreted primarily from the street. It is the dispersing of parking
locations.
Mr. Perkins asked about the words green roofs in the sentence (E2) Projects should incorporate
A@A
the principles of sustainable design, such as green roofs, natural lighting within buildings, and energy
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
efficiency, to a significant extent. Mr. Cilimberg said the green roofs are to serve an environmental purpose
@
in how water is handled. In some cases, it is actually meant to have some of those roofs have vegetation.
Mr. Rooker said he is in favor of the 70,000 square foot request. However, he has a business trip
he cannot change, so he will not be present at next weeks Board meeting. He would like to have the
=
petition deferred, but he knows the applicant does not want a deferral. Based on what the Planning
Commission has done, he supports the Comprehensive Plan amendment as presented with a change from
65,000 to 70,000 square feet. If there were to be a substantial change made, he would ask the courtesy of
the Board to defer it until the next meeting so he could participate.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board could go ahead tonight and recommend that it be increased to
70,000 square feet. Mr. Tucker said that is basically what the Board has already done.
Ms. Thomas said she believes there is a consensus of the Board on that question. She said that
after all the work that has gone into this request, she believes this has been one of the shortest work
sessions ever held. She thanked everyone for the impressive amount of work that has gone into this
request.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Transportation Issues within the Route 29 Corridor between the North and
South Forks of the Rivanna River.
Mr. Cilimberg said there had been a work session by the Planning Commission within the last
month on the Hollymead Town Center rezoning proposal. In two weeks, the Commission will hold a public
hearing on the North Point rezoning request. Staff provided to the Commission an overview of the
transportation issues facing the County as it tries to coordinate future development in the Route 29 North
Corridor. Additionally, staff hopes the Commission and the Board will request that the CHART and/or MPO
study a specified list of roadway improvements to support the development called for in the Countys
=
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said the discussion today is timely. Route 29 and the Western Bypass have been
discussed, as well as a study of the Route 29/Hydraulic Road area, and the extended analysis as a result of
that study. Also, the region is now in a process with CHART of developing a regional transportation plan.
Mr. Rooker said changes were made by the Board about a year ago to the Comprehensive Plan
concerning this area. He asked if what is now being recommended by staff fits with that change. Mr.
Cilimberg said what staff brought to the CHART process is beyond what was recommended in the Plan two
years ago. Staff has looked at the history of projects, things which were removed from the Plan, and the
whole northern transportation system which has relied exclusively on Route 29 to move traffic north/south
through the area.
Mr. Davis Benish said what is being presented today is intended to build off of design and network
concepts. In the executive summary that was mailed to the Board, there were additional linkages
mentioned. One of those would be a western parallel road connecting to either the proposed Western
Bypass or Berkmar Drive Extended. At the time the previous Comprehensive Plan amendment was
adopted, this was discussed with the Planning Commission, but there was a desire to terminate the roads
generally at the Hollymead Extended roadway for planning purposes. Any extension beyond that point
introduces new roads into the Rural Area. From a land use standpoint, that was reasonable. But looking to
the long-term to contain and accommodate the development the Comprehensive Plan calls for, and to do it
in a manner which is consistent with the design concepts for an urban type road system, there have to be
reasonable limits to widths of roadways and the need for additional connections. The biggest deviation
from the last Comprehensive Plan amendment was to extend those roadways. What the road should look
like, and what the road needs to do builds off of what has already been adopted.
Mr. Rooker said the difference between the maps in the staffs report and the Comprehensive Plan
=
is the recommended addition of the sentence Any system of parallel roads to augment Route 29 should be
A
constructed as an urban cross-section design (curb/gutter) with sidewalks and bike lanes. He thought the
@
idea was to create a system of parallel roads which would be of a neighborhood scale to foster
development of neighborhood scale, and to have lots of a size which would create walkable blocks as
recommended in the Neighborhood Model. The proposed language (see staffs report) might bring the
=
County back to what was rejected by VDOT (an access road off of Route 29 with a 100 foot right-of-way
that would become a high speed road fostering more strip development). That would lead to the kind of
development the County was trying to avoid when it adopted the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Benish said staff does not disagree with Mr. Rookers comments, and that was not their intent.
=
He said the Hollymead Town Center Maps in the staffs report show within development areas local roads
=
which create a grid. That would be the expectation throughout that development area. The language
presented was an attempt to emphasize major connection points. Staff will try to articulate that better
during the rezoning process.
Mr. Rooker said the Comprehensive Plan language needs to be communicated to CHART so that
everyone will understand the scale of the roads being discussed, the purpose of those roads, the number of
roads and the size of the lots that will be created. If that is not done, the County will be back to where it was
a few years ago.
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Benish said there are six points in the staffs report which are based on options County and
=
VDOT staff laid out. The strategy was to focus on providing the parallel and gridded system along with
access management, as opposed to the more conventional focus of having one corridor serve as the
primary route for traffic. Those six improvements (a couple of them would be new to the Comprehensive
Plan) indicate some of the crossing and neighborhood connections, but some are not consistent with
existing policies in the Comprehensive Plan. One is a potential connection to Pritchett Lane which is a very
specific connection which the Board chose not to include in the Comprehensive Plan when that quadrant
was added to the Development Area. Another east/west connection is also shown to the North Fork
Research Park. It was not previously planned for that development. The concept is to focus on a few
strategic areas, and to build those crossings and gridded street connections. It is important to make sure
those are emphasized.
Mr. Martin said in talking about connecting the proposed North Point development to Pritchett Lane,
he hopes what staff is really talking about is leaving future access points. Mr. Benish said at this time, for
CHART and the MPO process, the roadway system must be used more completely, and it must be more
integrated. During the rezoning process, the County would want to reserve that access point for the likely
community need. Staff is working with the impacts of the traffic assessment. Whether it will be a short- or
long-term recommendation is not known yet.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Martin where that answer leaves his longstanding position on this issue. Mr.
Martin said it is not just his position, the Board voted on it. He is not really sure what Mr. Benish said in
regard to his question. If that connection shows on a map, it will upset people. On the other hand, he truly
believes that eventually there will be a desire for that connection. But, by showing it before people can
visualize what they might want to connect to, he thinks that will make it more difficult for there to be a desire
for the connection.
Ms. Thomas said on the other hand it will be hard to get the developer to reserve land for that
roadway if it is not shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martin said that is not a problem. He has talked
to Mr. Rotgin and Mr. Rotgin is more than willing to have access there. He has made some commitments
to people on Pritchett Lane as well. They both think that once people on Pritchett can see what they will
back up to, there will be a desire for a connection.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in the rezoning process for North Point, which is on-going at this time, staff
cannot allow for that connection because the Comprehensive Plan expressly prohibits it. The best that can
be done during the rezoning is to get a reservation for the future opportunity. What this does is introduce
the concept for future transportation studies to do what Mr. Martin said.
Mr. Martin said he is not opposed to having that line show on the map if that is what is needed for
CHART. He suggested it be a line of a different color.
Mr. Rooker said it could be labeled possible future connection.
A@
Mr. Cilimberg said staff needs to make CHART aware of what is in the Countys Comprehensive
=
Plan today, and this would be something to look at in the future.
Mr. Rooker said roads have a tendency to open up land for growth at the time they are approved,
one cannot imagine how great that growth might be. He wants to be sure that any parallel roads approved
in this area are of a neighborhood scale and provide multiple transportation outlets and opportunities, as
opposed to being another mini-Route 29 running beside Route 29.
Mr. Cilimberg said how the transportation system would be accommodated is a question in dealing
with the potential development of Hollymead. Staff worked for a long time with a Comprehensive Plan
which contained no specific projects and square footages and traffic generation figures. In looking at the
two projects which could total 1.0 million square feet in commercial development, plus a research park
which could employ as many as 8000 people, staff realized that there could not be enough lanes added to
Route 29 to deal with the traffic from that amount of development. Staff had to look at the transportation
system more holistically. The only way to get across the river now is to cross at just one point until the
Meadow Creek Parkway is built. In looking at the parallel roads, staff cannot forget the system that is
desired for the area. Any road that could provide north/south access in combination with Route 29 must fit
into the land use scheme which is not about building arterial roads.
Ms. Thomas asked about the issue of building crossovers. Mr. Benish said staff has identified as
one of the six points, that Route 29 be a six-lane highway. That was based on a liveability and management
concept that set a parameter for how much development would be accepted for that corridor. Part of this
exercise is to get concept studies to evaluate how many connections are needed, and which strategic
connections would be a benefit. What goes into that are the expectations for capacity of that roadway,
which is affected by design. If the road is kept to six lanes, and the parallel roads kept to a neighborhood
scale, there will be certain expectations for the limits of those roads.
Mr. Rooker said there was a report concerning micro-simulations given to the Board by Glatting-
Jackson at the time the Comprehensive Plan was discussed. He thinks the Board wants to create a
network that matches land planning ideas for that area and is workable.
Ms. Thomas said when Secretary Witt Clement and Commissioner Shucet met with local elected
officials recently, Mr. Shucet said VDOT should be providing modeling so that localities can make better
land use decisions. No one at VDOT has ever said that before. If that indicates the availability of tools the
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
localities did not have access to before, it is good news.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks simulations should be run based on the absence of the Western Bypass.
The reality is that there is no funding for that road, and there probably will never be the funding for the road.
Mr. Butch Davies told Mr. Rooker he no longer supports the road and is looking for other options to better
move traffic in the corridor. He said the Glatting-Jackson Report indicates that if the Bypass is not built, the
level of service actually improves in that area. Because of where the Bypass was proposed to start and
stop, there would have been a great increase in traffic in the Hollymead area.
Ms. Thomas asked if all the Board members agree with the following six points.
1. Route 29 should not be widened to more than six lanes (excluding turning lanes).
2. The County should establish a grid network by interconnecting existing roads and
proposed roads.
3. If the County approves the North Point rezoning, the County should reconsider
the possibility for connecting to Pritchett Lane.
4. The County should consider extending the road that the Comprehensive Plan
currently shows paralleling Route 29 to the west but stopping before it enters the
Rural Area.
5. If the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II is built, the County should reaffirm its
commitment to create road interconnections between the Parkway and South
Forest Lakes.
6. The County should commit to the integration of a viable public transport service
to serve the Hollymead Community, especially as this portion of the
Development Area matures in density and intensity.
Mr. Rooker said he does not agree or disagree with these points because he does not know how
they fit with what is in the Comprehensive Plan. Some of these things were not anticipated in the current
Comprehensive Plan. Is it wise to run that western road down into and through the Rural Area? He does
not want to make that policy decision today based on the information provided.
Mr. Cilimberg said this report did not anticipate any policy decisions being made. It was presented
for exploring processes occurring at CHART and the study recently agreed to for Route 29. Staff does not
propose any of these as roads to be built. There is no Pritchett Lane connector. There is no road crossing
the river on the west side. Staff made this report to the Planning Commission as information it felt was
representative of possible ways to address the macro needs in that area.
Mr. Rooker said he wants to be sure CHART gets this information in a finer analysis. He then
proceeded to read several recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan concerning grade-separated
crossings of Route 29.
Mr. Cilimberg said CHART will get everything that is in the Comprehensive Plan. The report today
is intended to look beyond what the Plan immediately identifies, things staff felt may need to be
investigated, and ultimately may need to be in place to deal with the bigger transportation issues of 1.0
million square feet of development, plus employment and residential growth in that area. Staff would like to
know if there is any recommendation the Board feels should not be explored at all. Staff has already given
CHART everything that is in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rooker said he is concerned that there is no map which incorporates everything that has been
talked about today. He thinks there should be something which depicts what is contemplated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board members are generally in agreement with this request. Mr. Martin
said it will just be adding a few more lines on the map. Mr. Cilimberg said an important piece of the
information given to the Planning Commission, and the Board has a copy, was a conclusion that leads the
County into how to look at the development proposals that will be coming to the Board soon. He drew the
Boards attention to the following language: To meet the challenge of providing an adequate
=A
transportation system that will support the relatively dense, walkable, intensely-utilized neighborhoods that
are envisioned in both the Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan amendment and the
Neighborhood Model, staff encourages the Commission and ultimately the Board to consider taking three
steps. The first is to link the rate of development to the provision of road infrastructure and public
transportation. The second is to make a commitment to determine the most suitable solutions to meet the
envisioned demand. The third is to make a commitment to building the necessary road and public
transportation infrastructure necessary to support the envisioned development. He said the Commission
@
agreed that this was appropriate, and staff wants the Board to understand that this sets out a basis for how
to deal with and advise the Commission and the Board on new developments as they relate to the
transportation system.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:26 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; under Subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of property for public facilities;
under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring the
provision of legal advice relating to an agreement between the County and other political entities; and,
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring the
provision of legal advice relating to probable litigation and contract issues relating to a public safety facility.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Certify Closed Session. At 2:06 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker 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. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to appoint Mr. David Phillips to
replace Mr. Bob Watson on the Historic Preservation Committee. Roll was called, and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-2002-12. 4749 Plank Road Driveway (Sign #32). Public Hearing on a
request to allow construction of driveway in floodway fringe in accord w/Sec 30.3.05.2.2 of the Zoning Ord.
TM 99, P 10, contains 3.65 acs. Loc on Plank Road (Route 692) approx 0.4 mls from intersect of Route
692 & US 29. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on
November 18 and November 25, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant constructed a parking area of approximately 2900 square feet in
the floodway fringe of the South Branch of the North Fork Hardware River without the necessary special
use permit. The applicants home, a former mill, is located within several feet of Plank Road, and the
=
existing parking area appeared unsafe both for entering and exiting the parking area, and for keeping the
applicants child away from the truck traffic on Plank Road. By adding a new driveway and a parking area
=
away from the road, the applicant intended to make this situation safer.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of this request, and the Planning Commission, at
its meeting on November 19, 2002, unanimously recommended approval of SP-2002-12.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Charles Lunsford was present, and offered to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board. (Note: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 2:10 p.m.)
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve SP-2002-12
as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman (Abstained because he was not present to hear the full presentation).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-2002-025. Time Disposal Services (Sign # 51). Public Hearing on a
request to allow outdoor storage of portable toilets in accord w/Secs 10.2.2(31) & 5.2 of the Zoning Ord.
TM 33, P 47A2, contains 4.051 acs. Loc on W sd of Route 640, approx 1.5 mls NW from intersect of Route
640 & Route 784. Znd RA. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on
November 18 and November 25, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission, at the first hearing, deferred the request and
asked for additional information from the applicant. It was heard the second time on August 20 and the
Commission again requested information which they felt had not been provided satisfactorily. On October
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
29, at the third meeting of the Commission, they received information from the applicant, and considered
the application and the request for three waivers. The applicant provided three sketch plans to show the
proposed building and fenced area, building elevations and the proposed storage in relation to the overall
property. This was intended to provide some guidance not only to the consideration of the special use
permit itself, but the waivers which would be necessary.
Mr. Cilimberg said the first waiver request is for the size of the storage and building area in
proportion to the size of the dwelling. The current residence is a little less than 1400 square feet. The
proposed home occupation does not meet the 25 percent proportion of size to the dwelling. It is in total an
area of about 8000 square feet fenced; 1500 square feet would be in a storage building. That greatly
exceeds the proportional size of the current residence. He said the applicant determined that the total
square footage for the storage building and fenced area is necessary for the operation of their business.
Mr. Cilimberg said the second waiver request was for the overall size limitation. The proposed size
of 8000 square feet fenced area does not meet the 1500 square feet maximum limitation. It greatly
exceeds over five times the 1500 square foot maximum. The applicant has stated that to properly screen
the vehicles to protect the quality of the neighborhood, it would be necessary to provide the size of the
fenced area proposed.
Mr. Cilimberg said the third waiver request was for a change in the outside appearance of the
buildings/premises. The Department of Building Code and Zoning Services has determined that outdoor
storage, even when screened by a fence or landscaping, does not comply with Section 5.2.2.1(b) of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator has noted that according to available information there have
been no home occupations approved with outdoor storage of this scale.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has stated that the storage building and fenced area would change
the outside appearance of the premises. However, the applicant notes that the proposed building and
fence would be constructed of wood and would be properly screened with landscaping reviewed by staff.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant submitted a petition supporting the request from the residents in
the area. He did address, with the sketch plan, various questions and points raised by the Planning
Commission. In summary, staff recommended that the special use permit request and the three waivers be
denied due to the scale and scope of the use for a home occupation. Staff believed from the beginning,
and advised the Commission, that the business would be more appropriate in an industrial-commercial
area. Staff did provide conditions of approval should the Commission or the Board approve the special use
permit. He said the Commission, at its meeting on October 29, 2002, by a vote of 3:2 recommended denial
of the special use permit and the requested waivers.
With no questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and requested the applicant to
speak.
Mr. Larry McElwain was present for the applicant. He said he sees a lot of validity to this project.
One thing to consider is the nature of the neighborhood, and this is a rural area. Mr. McCauley owns
approximately 13 acres. Within a couple of miles to his property, there are at least five other businesses
that have hauling trucks, dump trucks, etc. The truck aspect of this business is not inconsistent with what
goes on in the neighborhood as it now exists. Mr. McCauleys business consists of a round trip for two
=
trucks. Each truck makes one round trip five days a week.
Mr. McElwain said Mr. McCauley is currently building a new residence. He is living in his current
residence of about 1500 square feet. The new residence will have in excess of 4000 square feet. He has a
dump truck on site. In the past, he has offered that truck out for hire. He has used it for only about six days
during the last year, and he has been advised that he cannot do that. As soon as construction of the new
house is completed, Mr. McCauley has agreed to relocate the truck to another site out of the area. He has
a backhoe which he does not use in any commercial endeavor. He uses it for maintenance of the property,
clearing of snow, etc. A parking spot for the backhoe and the truck has been provided on the back of the
property, and the dump truck will be gone soon.
Mr. McElwain said the storage area of 1500 square feet was designed with the statute in mind. In it
are to be stored 24 regular units and four handicapped units, as well as all the supporting supplies needed.
The rest of the area is open space which he needs in order to maneuver the trucks. He has two trucks,
one is a service truck and one is a hauler truck.
Mr. McElwain said the fences to be installed will be eight-feet tall and will be done using a
landscaping plan. It will be consistent with the neighborhood. He said there has been some talk that some
of the discharge will go off on the property. The applicant has an existing outdoor swimming pool so it is not
where one would want to dump stuff next to it. The applicant denies having dumped anything next to it.
The material goes to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority for disposal. Mr. McElwain showed some photos to
the Board and asked that they look at the kind of plantings which exist on the property, and the kind of care
the applicant takes of the property. The applicant is very organized in what he is doing.
Mr. McElwain said there has been an issue as to whether Mr. McCauley is running more than one
business on the property. He has not run the truck hauling business for the past year, and will not be doing
it in the future. He owned a waste disposal business. Approximately three years, he sold that business to
BFI in Charlottesville. Unfortunately, BFI has not yet removed the Time Disposal name on a lot of the
A@
haulers, or some of the equipment they bought. Recently, he sent them a letter informing them that they
are no longer permitted to use that name. That has raised confusion as to whether Mr. McCauley is
running more than one business from this property. He categorically denies that to be the case. The only
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
business he is running from this property is the portable toilet business. Because of the nature of the
neighborhood, he will not be increasing the impact on a rural neighborhood.
Mr. McElwain said there has been mention of the current zoning violation. Mr. McCauley was cited
because he was operating this as his sole source of income for approximately two years since he got out of
the trash hauling business. He was doing it in ignorance. He came to the County and got a Class A permit.
He was under the impression that he needed to do that before he got a Class B permit. He knew that the
Class A permit enabled him only to operate in his house, but he thought it was a stepped process to get to a
Class B. That is why this request is before the Board tonight. If this application is approved. Mr. McElwain
said he understands that will abate the zoning violation. There has been an allegation that Mr. McCauley is
throwing trash and other things on the property. That is denied. The pictures he showed earlier will show
that fact, and the pictures are not new ones.
Mr. McElwain said that in the neighborhood there are other entities in close proximity that have
parked vehicles with construction debris. He said this is not out of line with the current neighborhood. He
asked the Board to consider the fact that only 1500 square feet is used for storage, the rest of it is parking
and maneuvering area. It is not an intensive use of space. The manner in which the construction will take
place will be attractive. All in all, the use would meld into the neighborhood. Given the fact that this is Mr.
McCauleys sole source of income at this point, he asked that the Board consider supporting this request.
=
He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said she drove by the site, and there is a Holt Construction sign on the property. She
asked if that is the company constructing Mr. McCauleys house. Mr. McElwain said that is correct. Mr.
=
McCauley is acting as his own general contractor, but he has a principal subcontractor. He owns 13 acres,
but is building right next to the existing house and swimming pool. As soon as the new house is complete,
the old house will be torn down.
Ms. Deborah Frederickson said this business directly impacts her property. She said storage at this
time is directly along her driveway. She is concerned about the nature of the business. When she built her
house 15 years ago, she was under the impression that this was a residential area. She would not have put
her house where it is if she had known that this type of business would be coming into the area. She is also
concerned that with the type of building he is proposing, he can increase the size of the building. She thinks
that would impact the value of her property.
Ms. Frederickson said she has no qualms that the dumping takes place away from the site. There
are no smells, but this is a port-a-potty business and she feels it would probably be better located in an
industrial area. She said Mr. McCauley has been found in violation on a number of occasions. During the
time he has had the business on his property, he has not seemed to care what the property looked like.
She said people in the neighborhood have complained about the things stored on the property. She does
not think he will change the way he does things because of the type of building he has.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Martin asked Ms. Frederickson if she had bought her property 15 years ago. Ms. Frederickson
said she has lived in the neighborhood 18 years, but built her house 15 years ago.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Cilimberg if Mr. McCauley wanted to build an 8000 square foot fence on this
property, would that be possible without a special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg said yes.
A@
Mr. Martin said you could consider the 1500 square feet of the building as the business portion of
this since he could build a fence without a permit. Mr. Cilimberg said it was not the fence itself, but the
activity within the fenced area associated with the home occupation.
Ms. Thomas said she drove out to see the site, and asked if anyone else had seen the site. Mr.
Martin said he has.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks people have a right to some consistency in the application of the Zoning
Ordinance. When people move into an area they can look to see its zoning category and the uses which
are permitted even under a home occupation situation. In this case, staff clearly recommends against
approval because the size of the operation exceeds the size of the building by 5.77 times. Then there is an
absolute limitation of 1500 square feet which the County has consistently applied for a home occupation.
This application is for 8000 square feet.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks when people buy a house in the area, they have a right to expect that
certain things will not occur on the adjoining property relying on the Ordinance. He thinks the business
needs to be operated in an area that is zoned for this kind of a use. He thinks the recommendation of the
staff was correct, and the Planning Commissions recommendation is correct, and he cannot support the
=
request.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. McCauley how long he has lived there. Mr. McCauley said it has been about
nine years.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the violation has been continuing for nine years. Mr. Martin said no.
A@
Ms. Thomas said he has not had this business that entire length of time. Time Disposal used to be
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
a different business. She said she does not think of this as being an 8000 square foot business. The 30-
foot by 50-foot enclosure for the port-a-pots seems to be more than the area that is the actual business.
But, it uses the trucks, and it takes room to move the trucks around.
Mr. Martin said if he had a truck and wanted to put up a fence big enough to move that truck
around, that would be okay. He sees it as Ms. Thomas does, the Board is really talking about the building.
Mr. Bowerman said it is the consistent application of the ordinance that Mr. Rooker mentioned.
Ms. Thomas she is grappling with this request. She is concerned that the County may try to make
the rural area a place that is too neat and pretty, and it might then not be rural area anymore. She has
some sympathy for the rural area that looks like the picture shown to the Board earlier. Obviously people
do value their homes, but also some of them are just scrapping by. She would hate for the County, just for
the sake of consistency, to make it impossible to have some rough and tumble in the rural area. She told
A@
Mr. Martin earlier that she was struggling with this application, but that did not help him much.
Mr. Dorrier said he is concerned that in the zoning report it states that Mr. McCauley was also sited
for multiple inoperable vehicles, discarded materials, trash and debris accumulated on the property. He
asked if staff had any picture of this situation. Mr. Cilimberg said he had no pictures.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. McElwain if the property had been cleaned up. Mr. McElwain said yes. He
A@
said this is a construction site with a new house being built at this very time. There is some stuff associated
with that new construction. His subcontractor is maintaining that in conformance with what would be
associated with new construction. There is no old debris, and there are no inoperable vehicles on the
property. There is a 1966 Mustang which Mr. McCauley is rebuilding. That is the only unlicensed,
inoperable vehicle on the premises. He said Mr. McCauley owns 13 acres, so the fencing can be put
wherever. The site chosen was done as a matter of convenience, and because it is adjacent to the house.
It is also 350 feet off of the road. It will not be seen while driving along the road. The eight-foot fence is
being done to hide the vehicles and the area will be landscaped. They will try to get this to merge into what
is already on site. It is 35 feet from the boundary line on the one side, and if dictated it can be moved
further away. The visual aspect of this will be attractive. The hauling trucks will not be seen. He said that
only the 1500 square foot building will be seen. The rest of it will be open space and fenced in for the
benefit of both the neighbors and Mr. McCauley.
Mr. Bowerman said emotionally he feels the way Ms. Thomas does, but factually he is inclined to
support Mr. Rookers discussion. He said if the Board approves the application on the basis of a perceived
=
requirement to keep the Rural Area green, then he thinks the Board needs to look at readjusting the
ordinance.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with Ms. Thomas. He would have no problem supporting this application
if this operation had been there before the neighbors. But, because it was not there, it makes Mr. Rooker's
argument more important. He said he grew up in the country, and if one went into the woods, they might
find anything. If a person were stupid enough to build next to it when they knew it was there, then they have
to take responsibility. He said this cannot be seen from the road, but it can be seen from the neighbors
=
house. Mr. Martin said he cannot support the request. If he bought a home in the rural area, he would
expect certain things to occur or not occur next to him. If he buys where it has already occurred, that is a
different story. He hopes Mr. McCauley has another way of continuing his business.
Motion was then made by Mr. Martin to deny SP-2001-025. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. SP-2002-038. Lone Oak LLC - Helicopter Landing (Signs #35, 36 & 52).
Public Hearing on a request to allow private heliport in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.19 & Sec 5.1.01 of the Zoning
Ord. TM 134, P 03, contains 1,330.490 acs. Loc on N sd of Route 626 (James River Rd) approx 3600 ft
from its intersec w/Route 723 (Chestnut Grove Rd). Znd RA & is w/in Totier Creek A/F Dist. Scottsville
Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on November 18 and November 25,
2002.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 17. SP-2002-039. John A. Griffin (Signs #53 & 82). Public Hearing on a request
to allow private heliport in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.19 & Sec 5.1.01 of the Zoning. TM 28, P 12, contains
153.120 acs. Loc at 3332 Millington Rd on N sd of Route 665 (Millington Rd) & E of Route 671 (Ballards
Mill Rd). Znd RA & is w/in Moormans River A/F Dist. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
given in the Daily Progress on November 18 and November 25, 2002.)
Ms. Thomas said the Board had received a letter from Mr. Forbes R. Reback asking that these
petitions be deferred until January 8, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. since the applicant cannot be present today.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to defer both petitions until January 8, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Rural Areas meeting scheduled for tonight has been changed because of
weather predictions to January 8, 2003, at Stony Point Elementary School from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked that the Board reconsider Item 5.6 on the Consent Agenda, Proposed schedule
for public hearing and other information regarding the Mountain Overlay District Ordinance. He then
offered motion that the Board reconsider its vote on Item 5.6 from the consent agenda.
Mr. Davis said the Board would need to vote on a motion to reconsider the vote on Item 5.6, the
motion should be seconded, and a vote taken. The item would then be back before the Board for other
action.
Mr. Bowerman gave second to the motion.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Dorrier why he wanted the motion reconsidered. Mr. Dorrier mentioned an
e-mail communication from Mr. Fred Scott. Ms. Thomas said the e-mail was addressed to her, and she
responded that she thought people were sincerely concerned about different aspects of the mountains, and
for him to suggest that it is only a matter of taste is unfair to all the people who worked for a couple of years
on this question. Mr. Scott wrote back that he had not meant to be insulting to anybody, and would be
happy to meet with Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Martin said he voted for the Consent Agenda this morning not having been at the last day
meeting, and under the assumption no one had reservations about moving forward. Today, he heard from
Mr. Dorrier that he had reservations, so he is willing to go back to what Mr. Rooker stated when he first
brought up this matter. Is there any point in moving forward if there is a chance the vote will still be 3:3?
That is one of the reasons he suggested to Mr. Dorrier that he bring this back up for more conversation.
The Board did not pass this ordinance four years ago, so he wanted staff to say what had happened to the
mountaintops during these four years that makes it necessary to reopen this discussion. If nothing has
happened, the ordinance should be taken in the framework of the letter received today. Staff will have to
change their schedule and not deal with other things all want done. He asked himself why the Board is
making staff spend so much time on this issue and forcing itself to spend time on this issue if nothing has
happened during the last four years that drives home the point that the Board needs to act on this now.
Mr. Dorrier said he has three concerns he wanted to mention. First is the definition of mountaintop.
He would like to have a clarification about the Mean Sea Level definition. Also, he wanted a clarification
A@
about the valuation of the property. He asked if this is a piecemeal down zoning, or a comprehensive down
zoning. In either case, it will affect the values of property, and he wanted to know how much it will affect
property values. Are the statements being made that it will devalue property substantially accurate or
inaccurate? Third, in the four years since the ordinance was considered, what sites where a building has
occurred are not in compliance, and what mistakes have been made that the Board is trying to correct. He
thinks everybody supports protection of the mountaintops and want Albemarle County to remain scenic. He
thinks that if the Board goes forward with a public hearing based on the ordinance as it is written now, he is
not sure the Board will learn the answer to those problems. What he wanted to do before the public
hearing is to actually visit some of the sites where building has occurred to see what is there to determine
whether or not it is offensive to County standards. That is why he is bringing this question back before the
Board. He said that in February there will be better information for the public hearing. He said he should
have brought this up this morning when the Board was considering the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said the three well-defined issues that Mr. Dorrier has asked about need to be
answered by staff. She said Mr. Dorrier was not a member of this Board when the public hearing was held
on the ordinance in 1998. However, there were widely divergent opinions in the audience at that time about
the value of property.
Mr. Dorrier asked the Countys assessment policy. What do so-called mutual assessors say
=A@
about that question?
Ms. Thomas said what has actually happened in four years is also a question to be answered. She
asked if any of these questions can be pulled and answered earlier than the time frame given by staff. Mr.
Cilimberg said the definition of what is being considered is clearly defined in the ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said he talked to Mr. Fred Scott by e-mail. Mr. Scott has a disagreement with MSL and
he encouraged him to put forward an alternate definition. He said there are some people who will argue
against using MSL as the definition. Between now and February, Mr. Scott can articulate a different
approach if he so wishes.
Mr. Davis said the overlay district was actually mapped. MSL may be a problem for someone if
they think that is the only way it is being identified. Staff actually mapped every piece of property and
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
showed the overlay boundary line. It roughly follows the MSL because that is the standard that was used.
That was given a lot of thought and consideration by staff back when they were trying to decide how to map
it. Those maps were available for everyone to look at. The line was deemed to be the visible part of the
mountain and the steepest part of the mountain which needed to be addressed. Mr. Cilimberg said it was
actually an amendment in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Thomas said that is the one part which was adopted. Mr. Cilimberg said for staff there is
nothing clearer than using the established elevations that are available on the contour maps. They have
topos of the entire County. Of all the questions about the ordinance, this is the one which is the most clear
cut. He does not think it will be hard to respond to. He cannot answer questions about the assessment of
property. Mr. Tucker said he does not know what type of information Mr. Dorrier wants.
Mr. Davis said there has been no change in assessment. The assessor would just be speculating
because assessments are based solely on sales. As to the question about whether this would be a
piecemeal down zoning, the Countys position is that it would not be piecemeal, but would be
=
comprehensive because it would affect all property in the County which is similarly situated. The argument
as to whether it is a taking as far as devaluing the property, legally it is not a taking of any property.
Whether the ordinance would devalue property, the experts argue that generally it would not affect property
values. Whether it might affect some individual piece of property differently, he cannot say. There will never
be a one hundred percent answer for every piece of property.
Mr. Dorrier said there was a case in Fairfax County that said when they downzoned land around the
Occoquan Reservoir (one-third of Fairfax County) that was piecemeal rezoning. Mr. Davis said that is
correct. Mr. Dorrier said they were protecting a reservoir, and Albemarle would be protecting a mountain
(20 percent of the Countys land), so it could be analogous to that which was ruled to be a piecemeal down
=
zoning. Mr. Davis said people will make that argument, but he is comfortable that this would not be
considered s piecemeal down zoning, but there has been a great difference of opinion on what constitutes
piecemeal versus comprehensive. Virginia law is not favorable to comprehensive down zonings, but this
would be done after an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, it is not being done to spot zone a piece of
property. If this is not comprehensive, he is not sure anyone can do a comprehensive down zoning
anymore.
Mr. Martin said if it is not broken, why spend a huge amount of time trying to fix it?
A@
Ms. Thomas said she picked up that as the third point. The second point was about valuation. She
remembers that Mr. Fred Scott hired a consultant and had them do a worse case scenario, i.e., assume
that if he were to subdivide his land so that every parcel went straight up and down the mountainside so that
every parcel ended up having to be built on the lower part, that he would then have lost a great deal of
value in his property. The members of the Mountain Protection Committee saw clearly what was going on.
She does not think the public did and took that as an indication of the impact of this ordinance. She said
that exercise surely did not accurately show what the impact of this ordinance would be.
Ms. Thomas said the third point was what has happened during the intervening four years.
Mr. Martin asked what has happened in four years that makes the Board now feel something is so
broken that it needs to put other stuff aside in order to deal with this. It was pretty clear in that letter that
stuff is being moved and shuffled around in order to deal with this. What has happened in the past four
years that makes this so important that other stuff will be pushed aside especially when getting into budget
time?
Ms. Thomas said she understands the argument. She asked if staff has the ability to say how
many lots and how many building permits have taken place in what the Comprehensive Plan designates
as the Mountain Overlay District. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has already provided the number of building
permits issued. To do the actual division activity would take a little time.
Mr. Martin said he was not talking about the number of permits because even if there were an
ordinance there would still be people getting permits to build. He said when the conversation first started
several years ago everybody knew the one case that got everybody thinking that something needed to be
done. He asked if there has been another one like that, or a rash of them, or something that stands out and
says we have got to fix this.
A@
Mr. Dorrier asked why the Board is even talking about it.
Mr. Rooker said he brought this up several months ago. The Board talked and agreed to put it on
the agenda for a work session. The Board went through virtually all of these questions, including talking
about staff time. Staff said if they included mountain protection in the Rural Area review, there would be the
same amount of time devoted to it as to an ordinance. To him it made sense to deal with it as a separate
issue. He thinks it is an important issue which should be decided on its own merits. After that work session,
the Board voted unanimously to put the ordinance on the agenda for a joint public hearing with the Planning
Commission in order not to string it out too long. He said the ordinance itself is not a long, complicated
ordinance. This Board never voted on the ordinance in 1998. He thinks it is an important issue to bring
forward and vote on. That is what the Board voted on a month ago, unanimously, to set it for a public
hearing. He does not know what has changed since that time. He knows Mr. Martin was not present at that
meeting.
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Perkins said he voted for it feeling it was better to get it out and be done with it. He does have
some concerns. His biggest hang-up has always been that the County could tell someone not to build, but
they build a big house, paint it white, cut down all the trees around it so it sticks out like a sore thumb, and
the County cannot do anything about that. He has other concerns also. Whether the Board will end up in a
different position than four years ago, he does not know. He understands the Piedmont Environmental
Council is taking the position that they dont care one way or the other because through a special use
=
permit process, you can do this. Things have happened in the last four years which have addressed some
of the issues of the Mountain Protection Ordinance. He is somewhat concerned that the definition of land-
A
disturbing activity is called clearing. He said that he and Mr. Dorrier talked with someone from Warren
@A@
County during the NACO Annual Conference. This man said he hated to see all the timber cutting, the
clear-cutting. Does that relate to clear-cutting of timber? Mr. Davis said it does not if it is a timbering
operation. Mr. Perkins said he pointed out that if gypsy moths come by they will do clear-cutting, and there
are storms which do the same thing. This man was hung up on the temporary things that happen on the
mountainside.
Mr. Rooker said the Board could get into the merits of whether to vote for or against this ordinance.
There are certain things which the Board cannot do, but it does have the authority to enact this ordinance.
Mr. Perkins said the last time this ordinance was considered, it brought out a good number of
people who have mountain homes.
Mr. Rooker said the Commission had about an equal number of people speak for or against the
ordinance at its hearing.
Mr. Martin said when Mr. Rooker brought up this subject two months ago when he was present at
the meeting. He said if it looked like it was going to be a 3:3 vote again, why move forward? When he
came to this meeting today, he did not know what had happened at the last meeting. He assumed since it
was a 5:0 vote, everybody wanted to consider it. Yet, today, it has become clear to him that it goes back to
the original question. If it is going to be a 3:3 deadlock, should the Board really go through all of that effort?
Mr. Rooker said people who support the ordinance have suggested to him that the ordinance be
stronger. He said the special use permit provision was added so it would not take away property rights, so
people could show that the purpose of the ordinance could be furthered better by building in the overlay
district rather than not. Part of the compromises that were reached are reflected in the ordinance to try and
defer to people who own mountain property and who were concerned about impacts on value. If some
Board members feel nothing should be done because the ordinance is not strong enough, he would be
willing to consider the ordinance with or without a special use permit provision. That was done to garner
broader support at the Planning Commission level. He does not think the Board should not deal with an
issue just because it will bring a lot of folks out one way or the other. He thinks the Board should deal with it
if it is the right thing to do. He thinks the Board should take it forward and vote. Hopefully, the Board will
stick with the decision it made a couple of weeks ago to go ahead with a hearing on the ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board was furnished with two drafts of the ordinance, one dated May and
another June. Some language was added in the June draft. He wonders if the Board should look at what it
has before it and see if it can deal with some of the objections by drawing up another draft and putting that
to public hearing. Mr. Davis said if this is the ordinance the Board wants to take to public hearing,
staff would create a new draft which would be updated consistent with the current Zoning Ordinance. That
would be the new ordinance; the Board would not be dealing with three different drafts.
Ms. Thomas said that four years ago the Board ended up with an ordinance that said someone can
build on a visible place on a mountain ridge, but they will have to go through extra steps to do so because
the County encourages that person to build lower on the mountain. But, if it can be shown that the best
building site on that parcel is at the very top, then they would be allowed to build there. That clearly shows
the communitys concern for that type of building and insofar as the County can, that person will be
=
encouraged to build other than on the ridge top. If the Board members are not willing to work toward that
end product, then Mr. Martin is right that staff should not be put through all this work. The Board can
quibble on how to get to that end point. It seems that is where things ended in 1998.
Mr. Dorrier said the special use permit process costs quite a bit of money.
Ms. Thomas said that is what she just said. If Mr. Dorrier is not willing to say that the Board wants
to make it easier for this person to build elsewhere than on the steep slope mountain portion of the
property, that is the purpose of the process that the Committee worked toward, and that this Board came
close to approving.
Mr. Dorrier said he does not know how many homes have been built on the ridge lines in the past
four years. That is why he wanted to check into what actually exists. Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not locate
the building permits, but simply gave the Board a listing. To go and locate them would be very time-
consuming.
Mr. Rooker said that will be the case whenever the ordinance is considered. He said this
discussion was not listed on the schedule, and there were people present at the last meeting when this was
discussed, and he thinks it would be inappropriate to take it off of the agenda at this point. He asked that
the Board stick with the decision made earlier today. If at a later time someone wants to make a motion to
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
change the hearing date or to postpone it, it can be decided at that time.
Mr. Martin said he agrees that the Board should not sneak it off the agenda. He is not going to
A@
make a motion to take it off at a later date either. He was just responding to Mr. Rookers original thought.
=
When Mr. Rooker brought up this subject initially, he said that if it were not going anywhere he did not want
to do it. It just came to his attention today that it is likely that the Board will not be going anywhere, so he
wanted to bring it to the Boards attention.
=
Mr. Dorrier said he does not know how he will vote on this question. He does not have all of the
facts. He thinks it is unfair to place it before a public hearing, and he thinks the Board should put forth the
best ordinance it can put forth to be fair to the citizens and particularly the property owners. The property
owners are the ones who will be bearing the brunt of what the Board does.
Mr. Tucker said staff is not going to identify properties that have been built on, and what impact that
has had. The Board will not know that in March either.
Mr. Rooker said Board members can go out and do detective work for themselves. The public
hearing is about getting all possible information on the table from which the Board can make a decision.
Ms. Thomas said she was about to suggest that the Board alert the members of the former
committee just as a courtesy. This has not been a big item for press coverage. She said there is a motion
on the floor to bring up this item for discussion. Voting yes on this motion would be to continue the
A@
discussion the Board just had. Voting no would get the Board out of this meeting faster.
A@
Roll was called at this point, and the vote was recorded as follows:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
Ms. Thomas said the motion to hold the discussion the Board just had, has died.
__________
Ms. Thomas said there was a good turnout for the Planning Districts Legislative Luncheon. The
=
Board will have its contact with Legislators on Monday, December 16, at 3:00 p.m., followed by a joint
meeting with the Planning Commission at 4:30 p.m..
__________
Ms. Thomas said a couple of the Board members had a meeting with the editorial staff of the Daily
Progress to educate them on the water issue.
__________
Ms. Thomas said there are a lot of guests coming from Albemarles Sister county for the Lewis and
=
Clark event. She invited Board members to attend the Lewis and Clark breakfast on January 16,
2003, in the lobby of the County Office Building. There will be an opening of an art exhibit about the dog
that went on the exploration. The exhibit is on loan from another state.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) recently discussed the water
situation and the North Grounds connector to the proposed Western Bypass. If all else fails for having a
grade-separated interchange, they would like to have it be a right turn in, and a right turn out situation. The
MPO passed a resolution saying it opposes anything except a grade-separated interchange, but will help in
any way possible to get the interchange.
Mr. Rooker said there have been a lot of rumors about the growth of the University student body.
Some have said it may grown by 10,000 students over the next decade. Mr. Leonard Sandridge said that is
absolutely not true. UVAs plans are for growth to continue at 50 to 100 students per year. There was talk
=
about the large number of kids working their way through high school now, but what they have seen is that
most of the increase has gone to a community college, or somewhere outside of the system. Absent the
Legislature dictating enrollment by more than is planned now, they will stay with the same number.
Ms. Thomas said the multiplier used was true in the 1960s and 1970s, but they are a leaner,
meaner operation these days, and they dont have anywhere that kind of staff increase for students. Mr.
=
Sandridge alluded to the fact that what is driving growth is what the UVA Real Estate Foundation is doing
rather than student numbers. The State bond issue recently passed so they will have many new buildings
going up. She said they used to have more things done in-house than they do now, like the whole food
operation. Now that is contracted out.
Mr. Rooker said they are starting about $600.0 million in construction projects over the next two or
three years. That should have a significant impact on the local economy. They said that almost all of the
subcontractors hired for this work are local people. They also buy nearly all of the materials locally. There
have been some hits locally in jobs, but this is a bright spot in terms of employment.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the University let the Countys Historic Preservation Committee tour the Blue
=
(December 4, 2002, Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Ridge Hospital site recently. It was a very productive day.
__________
Ms. Thomas said a letter has been sent to AT&T to ask them to camouflage, or tone down that
bright, white facility on the top of the Southwest Mountains. An interesting number of people signed on to
that letter, and some other political support will be given to the request.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the County is part of the High Growth Coalition which just sent a letter to
Secretary Whit Clement about a lot of proposed things that can help the County plan and develop roads
that fit the DISC project better than current standards. Some people are calling DISC smart growth, but the
whole Coalition signed and sent the letter Mr. Cilimberg and he staff worked on.
__________
Mr. Davis said there is a piece of property adjacent to Darden Towe Park owned by Ms. Betty
McClanahan. She has been contacted by people who are interested in placing the Lewis & Clark Museum
in that vicinity. She is willing to grant an easement to the County and the City for purposes of having a
passageway from the Rivanna River to the proposed Lewis & Clark Museum site, as well as providing
greenway access from the Rivanna River trails to the Darden Towe Park. She is anxious to have this
easement recorded because she may be in the process of selling the property in the near future. She has
signed a Deed of Gift to the County and the City. The Board needs to authorize the County Executive to
execute that deed.
Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Not Docketed: At 3:29 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 (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice relating to probable
litigation and contract issues relating to a public safety facility. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
At 3:39 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. 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. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 02/05/2003
Initials: EWC