2003-02-05(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February
5, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire 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 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. The Chairman asked that the public remember the
families of the people in the Columbia shuttle disaster which occurred last Saturday, and that all remember
the family of Roger Hildebeidel, the County's budget director, who died suddenly last week, as it takes a
moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Rev. Stanley Woodfolk said he is the Pastor of the Evergreen Baptist Church located on Proffit
Road. He and his congregation are concerned about the increased rental fee to use the County Office
Building on Sundays, because the fee has increased from $180 to $240. He thinks they use the building
more often than any other religious organization. They have never been late in paying the rental fee.
Sometimes they clean up before they begin worship, although they do not think that is required. He has
assured his congregation that the County will do the right thing. They want the best for their church and the
community. They are in the beginning stages of building their new church facility.
Mr. Martin said he has talked with the County Attorney and other staff members about the increase.
It was raised primarily due to security and janitorial services. He thinks the Board should be able to get the
price reduced, but there is a stumbling block which Mr. Davis will explain.
Mr. Davis said because of the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, the County cannot favor
religious organizations in any manner. Staff is looking for a way to make different security arrangements on
Sunday mornings so that any organization which used the building on Sunday morning would not have to
pay the security fee. Currently, police officers open the building to assure there is no improper access to
the building, and they also close the building.
Mr. Martin asked if the extra $60 is for that service. Mr. Davis said the County must open the
building and make sure it is in suitable condition. It is a matter of how the County can cover those costs
reasonably. A reduction in cost would have to relate to providing less security.
Mr. Martin said he is asking the Board to help support staff in finding a way to reduce the security
price.
Mr. Rooker asked if one of the parishioners could volunteer to open and close the building. Mr.
Davis said there is a first-come, first-served policy for use of the building. On Sunday, this policy would
apply to everyone, so every applicant would have to agree to do that. He is not sure staffwould be
comfortable with doing that in every situation.
Mr. Tucker said staff will look to see if there is any other appropriate way of doing this.
Mr. Dorrier asked that Rev. Woodfolk keep in touch with staff concerning his question.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.10 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items
as information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Resolution approving a plan of financing and authorizing the County Executive to sign
and execute documents with the Industrial Development Authority.
It was noted in the executive summary that several capital projects have been authorized by the
Board to be funded by the issuance of bonds by the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority
(IDA). These projects include the acquisition of additional office space, the County's share of renovations to
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
the Juvenile Court, and may include funds for the regional 800 MHz radio system.
In order to proceed with this process, a number of items require the Board's approval and
authorization. Adoption of a Resolution will approve all financing documents which are available for review
in the Clerk's office, authorize the County Executive to sign and execute these documents, and approve the
selection of A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., as the bond underwriter. The selection of the underwriter is based
on the recommendation of the County's financial advisors, Davenport & Company, LLC, after review of
responses to an RFP issued for this service.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the Resolution approving the plan of financing. Supporting
documents for the resolution are available in the Clerk's Office or on the Board of Supervisors' website.
Mr. Martin offered motion to adopt a Resolution approving a Plan of Financing with the
Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the Acquisition, Construction
and Equipping of Certain Public Improvement Projects. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAN OF FINANCING
WITH THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, FOR
THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING
OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board of Supervisors") of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the "County"), desires to undertake, in conjunction with the Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), the financing of various public
improvement projects from time to time, including without limitation, the acquisition, construction
and equipping of new administrative facilities for the County (the "Administrative Building"), the
County's capital contribution to the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping, in collaboration
with the City of Charlottesville, a juvenile courts facility and related improvements and, in
collaboration with the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, the Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport
Authority and the University of Virginia, the costs of acquiring and installing a new emergency
communications system (collectively, the "2003 Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Authority, pursuant to the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act
(the "Act") under which it is created, is authorized to exercise all the powers set forth in the Act,
which include, among other things, the power to make loans to, among others, a county in
furtherance of the Act, to finance or refinance and lease facilities for use by, among others, a
county, to issue its revenue bonds, notes and other obligations from time to time for such
purposes and to pledge all or any part of its revenues and receipts derived from payments
received by the Authority in connection with its loans or from the leasing by the Authority of such
facilities or from any source, as security for the payment of principal of and interest on any such
obligations; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, the County has requested the
Authority to undertake the 2003 Project, and the Authority has determined to issue its public
facility revenue bonds and to use the proceeds thereof to finance costs incurred in connection
with the 2003 Project for the benefit of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority proposes to issue its Public Facility Revenue Bonds (Albemarle
County Project), Series 2003 (the "Bonds"), in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$30,000,000 to finance the 2003 Project, to fund a debt service reserve fund and to pay the costs
of issuing the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the County administration has recommended that A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.
be approved as the underwriter (the "Underwriter") for the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, there have been presented to this meeting drafts of the following documents
(the "Documents"), proposed in connection with the undertaking of the 2003 Project and the
issuance and sale of the Bonds:
(a)
Agreement of Trust (draft dated January 24, 2003), as supplemented by a First
Supplemental Agreement of Trust (draft dated January 24, 2003), including the
form of the Bonds (collectively, the "Trust Agreement"), each between the
Authority and a trustee to be named (the "Trustee"), pursuant to which the
Bonds are to be issued and which is to be acknowledged and consented to by
the County;
(b)
Financing Agreement (draft dated January 24, 2003), between the Authority and
the County (the "Financing Agreement") pursuant to which the Authority will loan
the proceeds of the Bonds to the County and the County, subject to
appropriation, will make payments to the Authority in amounts sufficient to pay
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
the principal of and interest on the Bonds and certain other related costs;
(c)
Bond Purchase Agreement (draft dated January 24, 2003), between the
Authority, the Underwriter and the County pursuant to which the Authority will
agree to sell the Bonds to the Underwriter;
(d)
Preliminary Official Statement (draft dated January 24, 2003), of the Authority
relating to the public offering of the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement");
(e)
Continuing Disclosure Agreement (draft dated January 24, 2003), pursuant to
which the County agrees to undertake certain continuing disclosure obligations
with respect to the Bonds;
(f)
Prime Lease (draft dated January 24, 2003), between the Authority and the
County (the "Prime Lease"), conveying to the Authority a leasehold interest in the
Administrative Building;
(g)
Lease Agreement (draft dated January 24, 2003), between the Authority and the
County (the "Lease Agreement"), conveying to the County a leasehold interest in
the Administrative Building; and
(h)
Assignment Agreement (draft dated January 24, 2003), between the Authority
and the Trustee, which is consented to by the County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The following plan for financing the 2003 Project is hereby approved. The Authority
will issue the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $30,000,000. The Authority
will use the proceeds of the Bonds to finance the costs of the 2003 Project, fund a debt service
reserve fund and finance the costs of issuing the Bonds. Pursuant to the Financing Agreement,
the County will make Basic Payments and Additional Payments (as each is defined in the
Financing Agreement) to the Authority in amounts sufficient to amortize the Bonds, to pay the
fees or expenses of the Authority and the Trustee and to pay certain other related costs. The
obligation of the Authority to pay principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds will
be limited to Basic Payments and Additional Payments received from the County. The Bonds will
be secured by an assignment of the Basic Payments and certain Additional Payments due under
the Financing Agreement, all for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds. The obligation of the
County to make Basic Payments and Additional Payments will be subject to appropriation by the
Board of Supervisors from time to time of sufficient amounts for such purposes. The plan of
financing for the 2003 Project shall contain such additional requirements and provisions as may
be approved by the County Executive, including providing as additional security for the Bonds a
lease of the Administrative Building if deemed by the County Executive to be necessary to the
marketing of the Bonds. If such additional security is required, payments due under the Lease
Agreement will be credited in an amount and time to the extent the County makes all of the Basic
Payments and Additional Payments due under the Financing Agreement.
2. The Board of Supervisors, while recognizing that it is not empowered to make any
binding commitment to make appropriations beyond the current fiscal year, hereby states its
intent to make appropriations in future fiscal years in amounts sufficient to make all payments due
under the Financing Agreement, which payments, as applicable, shall be credited toward the
payment of amounts due under the Lease Agreement, and hereby recommends that future
Board of Supervisors do likewise during the term of the Financing Agreement and, if applicable,
the Lease Agreement. The 2003 Project is hereby declared to be essential to the efficient
operation of the County and the Board of Supervisors anticipates that the 2003 Project will
continue to be essential to the operation of the County during the term of the Financing
Agreement and, if applicable, the Lease Agreement.
3. The County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Documents to
which the County is a signatory, which shall be in substantially the forms submitted to this
meeting, which are hereby approved, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes
not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by the County Executive, his execution
to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions
and changes. If the County Executive determines that the marketing of the Bonds requires
additional security in the form of the Lease Agreement, the County Attorney is hereby authorized
to cause the Prime Lease, the Lease Agreement and other documents as are necessary to be
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County.
4. In making completions to the Financing Agreement, the County Executive, in
collaboration with Davenport & Company LLC, the County's financial advisor (the "Financial
Advisor"), shall provide for Basic Payments in amounts equivalent to the payments on the Bonds,
which shall be sold to the Underwriter on terms as shall be satisfactory to the County Executive;
provided that the Basic Payments shall be equivalent to the Bonds maturing in installments or
subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption ending not later than December 31,2030; having a
true or "Canadian" interest cost not exceeding 5.75% (taking into account any original issue
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
discount); being subject to optional redemption, if at all, at a premium not to exceed 2% of their
principal amount; and being sold to the Underwriter at a price not less than 98% of the aggregate
principal amount thereof (without taking into account any original issue discount). The County
Executive is also authorized to approve (a) a lesser principal amount for the Bonds, (b) a maturity
schedule, including serial maturities and term maturities for the Bonds and (c) the redemptions
provisions of the Bonds, as the County Executive shall determine to be in the best interest of the
County.
Following the sale of the Bonds, the County Executive shall evidence his approval of the
final terms and purchase price of the Bonds by executing the Bond Purchase Agreement. The
actions of the County Executive in approving the final terms and purchase price of the Bonds shall
be conclusive, and no further action shall be necessary on the part of the Board of Supervisors.
5. The Preliminary Official Statement in the form presented to this meeting is approved
with respect to the information contained therein pertaining to the County. The Underwriter is
authorized to distribute to prospective purchasers of the Bonds the Preliminary Official Statement
in form deemed to be "near final," within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Rule"), with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes
not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by the County Executive. Such
distribution shall constitute conclusive evidence that the County has deemed the Preliminary
Official Statement to be final as of its date within the meaning of the Rule, with respect to the
information therein pertaining to the County. The County Executive is authorized and directed to
approve such completions, omissions, insertions and other changes to the Preliminary Official
Statement that are necessary to reflect the terms of the sale of the Bonds, determined as set
forth in paragraph 4, and the details thereof and that are appropriate to complete it as an official
statement in final form (the "Official Statement") and distribution thereof by the Underwriter shall
constitute conclusive evidence that the County has deemed the Official Statement final as of its
date within the meaning of the Rule.
6. The County covenants that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or
omission of which shall cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section
148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and regulations there-
under, or otherwise cause interest on the Bonds to be includable in the gross income for Federal
income tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, the County shall comply with any provision of law that may require the
County at any time to rebate to the United States of America any part of the earnings derived from
the investment of the gross proceeds of the Bonds. The County shall pay from its legally
available general funds any amount required to be rebated to the United States of America
pursuant to the Code.
7. The County Executive is authorized to cooperate with the Authority regarding obtaining
a municipal bond insurance policy to guarantee the payment of principal of and interest on the
Bonds if the County Executive, in collaboration with the Authority and the Financial Advisor,
determines that selling the Bonds insured by such a policy would be in the best interests of the
County. In addition to the authorization under Section 3, the County Executive is hereby
authorized to agree to such changes to the form of the Documents and the Bonds as he may
consider appropriate to comply with requirements of the bond insurer.
8. All costs and expenses in connection with the undertaking of the 2003 Project and the
issuance of the Bonds, including the Authority's fees and expenses and the fees and expenses of
bond counsel, counsel for the Authority, the Underwriter and counsel to the Under-writer for the
sale of the Bonds shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds or other legally available funds of
the County. If for any reason the Bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses
shall be paid by the County from its legally available funds and that the Authority shall have no
responsibility therefor.
9. The Board of Supervisors hereby approves of the selection of A.G. Edwards & Sons,
Inc. as the Underwriter for the Bonds.
10. Any authorization herein to execute a document shall include authorization to deliver
it to the other parties thereto and to record such document where appropriate.
11. All other acts of the County Executive and other officers of the County that are in
conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the issuance and
sale of the Bonds and the undertaking of the 2003 Project are hereby approved and ratified.
12. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Item 5.2. Approval of Minutes: March 25(A), August 7, October 2, October 9, November 6,
December 4 and December 11,2002; and January 15(N), 2003.
Ms. Thomas had read March 25 (A), 2002, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of December 4, 2002. He said they were in order except for the
misspelling of the name "Shucet.'
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Thomas had read January 15(N), 2003, and found them to be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, all the minutes which had been read were approved.
The other minutes will 9o forward to another agenda for approval.
Item 5.3. Proclamation recognizing February, 2003 as School Board Recognition Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following Proclamation:
School Board Recognition Month
WHEREAS
it shall be the mission of the Albemarle County School Division to
provide all students with the best possible education; and
WHEREAS
the School Board sets the direction for our community's public schools
by envisioning the community's education future; and
WHEREAS
the School Board sets policies and procedures to govern all aspects of
school division operation; and
WHEREAS
the School Board keeps attention focused on progress towers, the
school division's goals, and maintains a two-way communications loop
with all segments of the community; and
WHEREAS
serving on the School Board requires an unselfish devotion of time and
service to carry on the mission and business of the school division;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, do hereby declare our appreciation to the
members of the Albemarle County School Board and proclaim the
month of
February, 2003
as
SCHOOL BOARD RECOGNITION MONTH
in the County of Albemarle and urge all citizens to join us in recognizing
the dedication and hard work of local School Board members and in
working with them to mold an education system that meets the needs of
both today's and tomorrow's children.
Item 5.4. Request to set public hearing to include Blue Springs Farm Subdivision under Sec 4-213
of the County Code as an area where dogs are prohibited from running at large.
It was noted in the executive summary that according to the County's policy, homeowners may
request the Board to designate specific areas in which dogs are restricted from "running at large" or what is
often referred to as the "Leash" law. In accordance with County policy, 58 percent of the residents of Blue
Springs Farm Subdivision support the petition to designate this as an area in which it is unlawful for dogs to
run at large. According to the petitioner, seven property owners signed the petition, one property owner
does not support the designation and four property owners were unavailable.
Staff recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing on this request for March 5, 2003. If
the Board views the request favorably after the public hearing is conducted, the Board will need to adopt an
ordinance to amend the County Code to include this area as one in which it is unlawful for dogs to run at
large.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set this request for a public hearing on March
5, 2003.
Item 5.5. Jefferson Ridge Apartments Road Name Changes.
It was noted in the executive summary that pursuant to Part I, Section 6(e) of the Albemarle County
Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual, road name change requests may be forwarded to the
Board for approval upon validation that the landowners for more than fifty percent of the parcels served by
the road in question have signed a petition in favor of a common road name, and that the proposed road
name is otherwise consistent with other road name guidelines outlined in the Manual.
A request was received from a sole landowner to change the name of the roads associated with
the Jefferson Ridge Apartments. Those road names are:
Existinq Road Name
Copper Beech Court
Proposed Road Name
Water Oak Court
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Copper Beech Terrace
Larch Court
Larch Terrace
Aspen Court
Aspen Terrace
Honey Locust Court
Lacebark Terrace
Silverbell Court
Silverbell Terrace
Tupelo Court
Tupelo Terrace
Buckeye Court
These changes meet the criteria for road name changes. The Board is requested to approve the
new road names, and that staff be granted the authority to coordinate/implement the changes.
By the recorded vote set out above the Board approved the new road names as requested
and granted staff authority to coordinate/implement the changes.
Item 5.6. Authorize County Executive to sign Storm Sewer Permit required by the Department of
Environmental Quality.
It was noted in the executive summary that Albemarle County must comply with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater permitting requirements, because it
is within an "urbanized area" as defined by 2000 Census data. The permit requirement applies to small
"municipal separate storm sewer systems" (MS4s), meaning municipally owned and/or operated systems
that receive and convey runoff to streams. Municipalities that operate regulated MS4s must develop a
stormwater management program that meets minimum standards.
The County's Stormwater Management Program must include the following six required program
elements referred to as "minimum control measures:"
Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts
Public Involvement/Participation
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
Post-Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and
Redevelopment
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
The regulations require that measurable goals be presented for each of the six minimum control
measures, including interim milestones and frequency of each activity.
Additionally, the County's Program must incorporate technical criteria, minimum ordinance
requirements, and administrative procedures specified for a local program in accordance with the Virginia
Stormwater Management Act and Regulations (Title 10.1, Chapter 6, Article 1.1, Section 10.1-603.1 et.
seq. and 4VAC 3-20-10 et. seq.).
The County must submit a Registration Statement to the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) on or before March 10, 2003, to apply for coverage under the permit. The programs outlined
in the registration statement must be put on a schedule to be implemented within five years.
The NPDES Phase II requirements apply to the storm sewer system that is "owned or operated" by
the County. Much of the storm sewer system in the County is owned and operated by private entities,
including most stormwater management facilities. However, the County does own and/or operate eight
regional stormwater basins and various drainage easements along channels, pipes and ditches. In
addition, the Board voted on April 5, 2000, to require that drainage easements in subdivisions be dedicated
to public use. Therefore, every new plat that is approved with public drainage easements expands the
County's MS4 that falls under the NPDES requirements. One could say that our current MS4 is small, but
continually expanding.
Fortunately, the County has all ready adopted in its existing stormwater program some of the
components that are required in the NPDES permit. This particularly applies to measures adopted with the
Water Protection Ordinance in 1998. However, the County must initiate new programs or expand existing
efforts to fully comply with the permit requirements. County staff has also met with representatives from the
other local entities which must obtain the permit, and plans to form collaborative programs and partnerships
where all parties will benefit. These parties include: City of Charlottesville, University of Virginia, Virginia
Department of Transportation (Culpeper District), and the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (Moores Creek
facility).
For each minimum control measure, the County must develop "measurable goals" and report to
DEQ on progress toward and attainment of the goals. The recommended program for each of the
minimum control measures is outlined below. The attachment outlines a five-year implementation
schedule for each program element.
Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts
* Meet with partners to develop list of targeted audiences and collaborative programs.
* Develop a stormwater information website as part of the water resources site.
* Workwith schools on educational materials.
* Develop and disseminate educational materials (adds, PSAs, posters, etc.) in conjunction with
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
partners. Ensure that materials are accessible to Spanish-speaking audiences.
Public Involvement/Participation
* Work with citizen committees on stream protection and stormwater issues as each
Development Areas Master Plan is developed (such as the "Green Infrastructure" committee in
Crozet).
* Develop a storm inlet stenciling and storm outfall inspection program with volunteer groups.
* Set up a hotline and tracking system for water quality and stormwater complaints.
Illicit Discharqe Detection and Elimination
* Compile a map of the public and related private storm sewer system.
* Prioritize areas for pollution problems.
* Develop an illicit discharge ordinance.
* Form a Stormwater Enforcement Task Force in conjunction with local agencies.
* Evaluate household hazardous waste program.
* Develop a GIS tracking tool.
Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
* Existing Article II of Water Protection Ordinance largely meets standard.
* Develop a system for measuring and tracking program implementation.
Post-Construction Stormwater Manaqement in New Development and Re-Development
* Existing Article III of Water Protection Ordinance largely meets standard.
* Use stream assessment and stormwater master plan process currently underway to enhance
program to address watershed projects.
* Develop a system for measuring and tracking program implementation (GIS tool).
* Develop educational materials and outreach for those responsible for maintenance of private
stormwater facilities.
* Organize and provide resources for a County stormwater maintenance team under Public
Works.
Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
* Develop a tracking system to document existing practices that are in compliance with the
permit.
* Install secondary containment around all County above-ground storage tanks.
* Develop and implement pollution prevention plans for each Parks/Schools maintenance yard
and the bus shop.
* Identify and develop standard operating procedures (SOPs) for components of landscape
management, vehicle maintenance, snow removal, and storm inlet cleaning that may expose
pollutants to runoff.
* Increase the number of staff with State certification for chemical application.
* Identify training programs needed and develop training materials in conjunction with partners.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Department of Engineering & Public Works
to proceed with development of the Registration Statement, and also authorize the County Executive to sign
the registration statement and authorize the appropriate permit fee.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas inquired as to the budget implications of the Albemarle County
Stormwater Permit. Mr. Tucker said he does not believe staff has any estimate for that at this time. Mr.
Rooker said the County does not have any choice in this matter. Ms. Thomas said that was not why she
asked the question. She is just curious as to the cost.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the Department of Engineering
and Public Works to proceed with development of the Registration Statement, and also authorized
the County Executive to sign the registration statement and authorized payment of the appropriate
permit fee.
Item 5.7. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) applications from Year 2001-02 and Year
2002-03.
It was noted in the executive summary that one of the functions of ACE staff is to provide the Board
with a periodic status report on the ACE Program and applications in the current year. As indicated by the
statistics compiled from the first three years of operation, the ACE Program is clearly providing its intended
benefit to the County in terms of reducing growth in the Rural Areas and protecting natural resources with
the potential protection of nearly 5000 acres and elimination of 330 development rights.
Upon reviewing the Flow Chart/Timeline for ACE, it is apparent that various aspects of the appraisal
process have created unanticipated delays in the processing (from start to finish) of ACE applications. The
primary complications arise from the appraisal RFP process, execution of the contract agreement and
revisions to the initial appraisals, which together have added five to seven months to the process. Through
planned improvements in the procurement and contracting process, staff believes that these delays and
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
complications can be avoided. It expects to be able to maintain the most recent schedule for completing
the process for the Round Two and Round Three applications. Currently, staff is processing two separate
applicant pools - FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03.
FY 2001-02. Properties from the Year 2001-02 pool were initially appraised and reviewed by the
Appraisal Review Committee (ARC) in mid-October. Due to revisions ordered by the ARC, the final
appraisals were not completed and approved by ARC until early January, 2003. Based on these revisions
and the appraiser procurement process, it now appears that easements on these properties may be
purchased in mid-May, 2003. Before the County can extend an "Invitation to Offer to Sell" a conservation
easement on these properties, the appraisals must be formally approved by the Board. After a thorough
review of the appraisals for year 2001-02 properties, the ARC approved the appraised values for all eight
properties. Of these eight, the current budget would allow the County to purchase easements on the top
six.
FY 2002-03. For Year 2002-03 applicants, the calculation of "usable" division rights took
approximately two months more than anticipated. The final ranking order was formally approved by the
ACE Committee at its January 22, 2003, meeting. These properties are now ready for appraisal. For the
year 2002-03 cycle (application deadline of September 1,2002), the ACE Program received eight
applications. These properties were ranked according to 17 different objective criteria. To be eligible for
funding, an applicant must score a minimum of 15 points from the established "ranking criteria". Once a
final ranking order is established and approved by the ACE Committee and the Board, the Board must
approve a select number of the highest ranked properties for an appraisal, depending on what the current
budget allows.
From the third round ACE application cycle, all eight applicants are eligible for funding by virtue of
having scored a minimum of 15 points. Applications represent properties dispersed throughout the County
and include properties as follows: mountaintop protection, presence in a historic district, location along a
scenic highway, and, major entrance corridor. This round includes several applications which scored well
above the minimum and whose inclusion in the ACE Program would greatly benefit the County by
eliminating a significant number of division rights and protecting prime farm and forest land in perpetuity. At
its January 22, 2003, meeting, the ACE Committee formally approved the final ranking order. Based on the
projected easement value from the first two years of appraisals and some hope of obtaining other outside
funding, it is estimated that the current ACE budget may permit the County to purchase the top five ranked
properties from year 2002-03.
The following recommendations are provided for action by the Board:
1)
Approve all eight appraisals by Hallmarke Properties for applications from the year
2001-02 applicant pool.
2)
Approve the final applicant ranking priority list for year 2002-03 applicants and order
appraisals on the top five ranked properties from the final applicant ranking priority list of
year 2002-03 applicants.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she had wondered if there would be the money necessary from
the transient occupancy tax. She said the bill in the General Assembly which would have removed the
County's ability to use proceeds from the transient occupancy tax for the ACE program was defeated 51 to
48, so the vote went the County's way.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the eight appraisals by Hallmarke
Properties for applications from the year 2001-02 application pool as recommended by staff; and,
approved the final applicant ranking priority list for year 2002-03 applications and ordered
appraisals on the top five ranked properties from the final applicant ranking priority list of year
2002-03 applicants as recommended by staff.
Item 5.8. Adopt resolution authorizing County Executive to serve as Albemarle County's Agent for
U.S. Department of Justice Grant Funds process and approve plan to apply grant funding.
It was noted in the executive summary that the U.S. Department of Justice issued an equipment
program grant to assist localities in preparation for their response to weapons of mass destruction incidents.
The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) is the Federally-designated state agency
that will assist localities with the grant administration. The funding is derived from three separate Federal
grants available to Virginia. The funds do no require any local match. The equipment purchased under
these grants is designed to go to areas targeted by the Federal government.
The Fire/Rescue and Police Departments met and identified the equipment that would be needed
to improve the County's response to a terrorism type incident. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a
resolution authorizing the County Executive to serve as Albemarle County's Agent for this grant process,
and also approve the proposed plan to apply the grant funding for items listed in the executive summary
(self-contained breathing apparatus for Fire and Rescue personnel, and gas masks for patrol officers in the
Police Department).
At the request of staff, the Board adopted the following Resolution (Designation of
Applicant's Agent), and approved of the proposed plan to apply the grant funding for items listed in
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
the executive summary (self-contained breathing apparatus for Fire and Rescue personnel, and gas
masks for patrol officers in the Police Department).
DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (Governing Body) OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY (Public Entity) THAT ROBERT TUCKER (Name of Incumbent),
COUNTY EXECUTIVE (Official Position), is hereby authorized to execute for and in
behalf of Albemarle County, a public entity established under the laws of the State of
Virginia, this application and to file it in the appropriate State Office for the purpose of
obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under the OJP, National Domestic
Preparedness Office Grant Program(s), administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
THAT, Albemarle County, a public entity established under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the Common-wealth
and to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) for all matters pertaining to such Federal
financial assistance any and all information pertaining to these Grants as may be
requested.
Item 5.9. Adopt resolution authorizing County Executive to provide necessary materials and enter
into agreements to qualify for VRTFP Grant for Rivanna Greenway segment from Darden Towe Park to
Riverbend.
It was noted in the executive summary that the Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program is a grant
program established for the purpose of providing and maintaining recreational trails and trail-related
facilities. It is funded by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which establishes a
program for allocating funds to the states for recreational trails and trail-related projects. The program is
administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, in consultation
with the Department of the Interior. The state agency which is responsible for administering the program in
Virginia is the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
This project includes the construction of approximately one mile of compacted crushed stone trail
from Free Bridge downstream to the Riverbend beach area. This trail is being built on property which is
being proffered to the County by the developers of the Riverbend Garden Apartments and the Pavilion at
Riverbend. The estimated project cost is $43,150. The grant program will provide successful applicants
with a reimbursement of 80 percent. The 20 percent matching cost will come from funds all ready
appropriated for development of the Rivanna Greenway.
This application package requires a resolution of support from the governing body. Staff
recommends that the Board adopt a resolution authorizing the County Executive to provide the necessary
materials and to enter into such agreements as necessary to qualify for a VRTFP grant.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution authorizing
the County Executive to provide the necessary materials and to enter into such agreements as
necessary to qualify for a VRTFP grant.
RESOLUTION
FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR
RECREATIONAL TRAILS AND TRAILS-RELATED FACILITIES
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
WHEREAS, the Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program provides grant funds
to assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in providing and
maintaining recreational trails and trails-related facilities;
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to develop an accessible section of
the Rivanna Greenway along the Rivanna River from Darden Towe Park at Free Bridge
to a point approximately one mile downstream;
WHEREAS, the funding available from the Virginia Recreational Trails Fund
Program is limited to 80% on projects totaling $12,500 to $125,000;
WHEREAS, funding necessary in addition to the Virginia Recreational Trails
Fund Program share to complete the project will be provided by the County of Albemarle;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle that the County Executive is hereby authorized to cause such
information or materials as may be necessary to be provided to the Virginia Department
of Conservation and Recreation and to enter into such agreements as may be necessary
to permit formulation, approval and funding of the above described segment of the
Rivanna Greenway.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Albemarle County hereby agrees to accept
all maintenance responsibilities, and keep this facility reasonably open for public use for
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
the expected useful life of the project.
Item 5.10. County/City Fire Dispatch Services Agreement.
It was noted that an Agreement between the County and City for fire dispatch services has been
developed to address a requirement of the current County/City Fire Services Agreement. As the Board may
recall, in addition to the cost of providing emergency response services, the agreement included a separate
requirement that the County begin paying for City dispatch services after July 1,2002, if dispatching
services were not transferred to the Emergency Communications Center (ECC). Only recently has a
response been received from the City regarding the proposed agreement.
Although the County had originally considered moving dispatch services prior to January, 2003, it
continued with the City due to the cost savings provided. The City's proposed fee for the current fiscal year
is actually less than what would be paid to the ECC. Because this fee will increase significantly beginning
July 1,2003, staff is currently working with the ECC to fully take over County dispatch service prior to that
time.
Because the agreement represents a savings in the current fiscal year and the County intends to
move dispatch services to the ECC prior to July 1,2003, staff recommends approval of the Agreement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the Chairman to sign the following
agreement:
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated and effective the __ day of ,2003, between the
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter the "City") and the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter the "County") and provides as follows:
WHEREAS, the City and County have negotiated an agreement governing the
provision of fire services for both localities (the "Fire Services Agreement") dated
, which continues in full force and effect; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5 of the Fire Services Agreement provides that if the
Emergency Communications Center ("ECC") is not providing fire dispatch services for the
County after June 30, 2002, the City and County will negotiate a reasonable charge for City
dispatching services delivered after that date for County responses to calls for services in the
County; and
WHEREAS, fire dispatch services for County responses to calls for services in the
County have not been transferred to the ECC as of the effective date of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City and County have determined that it is desirable and necessary to
continue to have fire dispatch services provided by the City for County responses to calls for
services in order to continue to serve the health, safety and welfare needs of the County and
its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City and County have negotiated a reasonable charge for City
dispatching services for County responses to calls for services in the County, and desire to
enter into this Agreement for the limited purpose of amending section 9.5 of the Fire Services
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, and covenants
hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows:
SECTION ONE
TERM
This Agreement shall become effective on the date written above, and shall continue
in effect until June 30, 2003, unless terminated earlier by either party in accordance with the
provisions of this section, or extended as provided in Section Two. This Agreement may be
terminated by mutual agreement of both parties at any time, evidenced by a written
amendment to this Agreement or other similar document signed by both parties.
SECTION TWO
COST
The County agrees to pay the City $10,117 per month for the term commencing July
1,2002, and ending June 30, 2003, for fire dispatch services provided by the City for County
responses to calls for services. The parties further agree that if these dispatch services
continue to be provided by the City after June 30, 2003, the cost of providing these services
will increase and the County agrees to pay the City $17,072 per month beginning July 1,2003
for up to an additional twelve (12) months or until such time as the County provides written
notice to the City of an earlier termination date, whichever first occurs.
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Pursuant to the second paragraph of section 9.5 of the Fire Services Agreement, the
amount of the Base Annual Payment for the contract year beginning July 1,2002, shall be
increased, and the methodology to determine the adjustment in the Base Annual Payment
shall be modified, in accordance with the provisions of that paragraph.
All other terms and conditions set forth in the Fire Services Agreement continue in full
force and effect.
Item 5.11. Copy of letter dated January 6, 2003, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Ps: Tax Map 79, P 12A (property of
Ray A. Graham, III), Sec 10.3.1, was received for information.
Item 5.12. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002, was received for information.
Item 5.13. Draft Planning Commission minutes for November 26, December 3, December 10 and
December 17, 2002; and January 21,2003, were received as information.
Item 5.14. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, February, 2003, was received as
information.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she believes the Board needs to decide how far down the list the
ACE Committee should do appraisals. Mr. Tucker said staff recommended the top five properties and by
approving the Consent Agenda that was the Board's decision. If the Board wishes to do something else, it
will need to take another action. Ms. Thomas agreed that it was appropriate to just approve the Consent
Agenda.
Agenda Item No. 6. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, said the CTB's Annual Primary Road Pre-allocation Hearing will
be held in the Albemarle County Office Building on March 5, 2003. Mr. Tucker commented that staff is
working on the statement for the Board.
Mr. Bryan said Dry Bridge is being fixed today. It was scheduled to be done two weeks ago, but the
weather canceled that project.
Mr. Martin said there have been a few of what he would call "little snows." He asked if it takes the
same amount of effort on VDOT's part to handle those events. Mr. Bryan said it does. It is still an
overnight, 24-hour operation.
Mr. Martin asked if the same amount of materials are used. Mr. Bryan said it is very similar.
Mr. Bowerman said residents in Berkeley Subdivision have expressed concerns that the signage
where Commonwealth Drive dead-ends is not sufficient. People are coming in on Dominion Drive and then
go the full length of Commonwealth before realizing it is a dead-end road. These drivers are looking for an
alternate route to Route 29 so they then have to turn around and come all the way back to Dominion. He
asked that VDOT install some better signage.
Mr. Bowerman said there continues to be problems with speeding on Carrsbrook Drive. It is a curvy
road and VDOT has posted it for 35 mph, but he disagrees with that posting. He asked if VDOT would look
at something such as rumble strips or a four-way stop sign at the top of the hill on Carrsbrook Drive at Clark
Lane. The residents have asked for some kind of consideration over and over again.
Ms. Thomas said there is a lot of concern about the intersection of Tillman Road. All are waiting to
see if Faulconer Construction will go in that area. It will be a nightmare to have huge trucks going slowing
out of that intersection.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that he had received a letter from the Lucks about Clark Road. There is
some misunderstanding about what VDOT tells landowners about the Board's powers in road matters. He
said the County does not have any money to fix the road. It is not in the Six-Year Road Plan unless
something is scheduled to be done with maintenance funds. He thinks VDOT staff is telling citizens to call
their Board member. He does not know how to take care of the situation, and there have several other
such calls. Mr. Bryan said his staff met with the Lucks and they will try to do what they can. But, it is a very,
very narrow gravel road.
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Perkins said the letter states "If traffic is to continue to come through our property, we need help
from the state." He does not believe the road goes through their property, but over state right-of-way. He
appreciates their frustration, but he thinks VDOT is telling people that the County has control in these
matters, when it does not. Mr. Bryan said the road has a very Iow volume of traffic, but he will take care of
the situation in his office.
Mr. Rooker asked if the road qualifies for the "Pave-in-Place" program. Mr. Perkins said he thinks
the road would have to be widened first. It is not wide enough to pave. Mr. Bryan said the road carries such
a Iow volume of traffic, it is almost like a driveway.
Mr. Perkins said the road has hairpin turns and drop-offs. That is a question he has about the Rural
Rustic Roads Program. He asked if staff has determined which roads might have access to that program.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is going to look at roads in Augusta County on Friday to see what they have done
with the program. Staff is looking at roads which may qualify for the program.
Mr. Dorrier asked when the public hearing for the Secondary Road Plan is scheduled. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Planning Commission is finished with their review. Mr. Tucker said there will be a work
session on March 5, and then the public hearing can be scheduled.
Agenda Item No. 7. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Ms. Diantha McKeel, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was present. She said in
November, the School Board directed the Superintendent to prepare a needs-based budget maintaining
current efforts and including only essential initiatives. On January 22, the Superintendent presented his
funding request. Tomorrow night, February 6, the School Board will hold a public hearing. The
Superintendent's budget includes an average 3.8 percent merit pool for classified staff, and an average
4.08 percent increase for teachers (including step). The proposed request totals $105,322,108, which
requires $1.65 million more in revenue than is projected to be available.
Ms. McKeel said the Parent Council has made a video for the schools and the public to inform
them about the budget. It was made in conjunction with Monticello High School students, as well as school
staff members.
Ms. McKeel said on January 9 she was elected as Chairman of the School Board, with Mr. Chuck
Ward being elected as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Stephen Koleszar was appointed as the PREP representative.
Ms. McKeel said she will remain on the CATEC Board along with Mr. Ken Boyd and Ms. Pamela Moynihan.
Ms. McKeel said teachers, staff and students are all excelling nationally. In April, 2000, Ms. Nancy
Markos was selected by the National Association for Sports and Physical Education as the 2002 National
Elementary Physical Education Teacher of the Year. She is at Broadus Wood Elementary and has been a
teacher for more than 19 years in Albemarle County. Because of this award, she has been traveling across
the country presenting her strategies to those in other school divisions.
Ms. McKeel said the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards works to strengthen the
teaching profession and to improve student learning in America's schools. The aim is to certify all teachers
who meet the established standards. Two Albemarle teachers were recently certified: Margie Shepherd
(Henley) and Tom Sutliff (Baker-Butler). Albemarle now has a total of five teachers who have been
certified.
Ms. McKeel said the press has been covering the nutrition issue in the schools. The
Superintendent held a town hall meeting on January 27 at Monticello High School to take comments about
the nutrition of items placed in vending machines at the high school level. This came about as a result of
recommendations from the Health Advisory Committee. People spoke about having healthier snacks and
drinks, about educating students on nutrition, about the amount of physical activity during the day, and
about the health risks involved with sodas and unhealthy snacks. The Board will discuss the issue further
on February 13.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the School Board deals with the issue of obesity among the school population.
Ms. McKeel said they do, and there is a task force working at this time composed of both Albemarle and
Charlottesville people. They are presently working with a number of elementary schools.
Mr. Dorrier said his son has a weight problem, and they have found that after-school activities are
very limited unless a child is a member of some sports team. He thinks more should be done to provide
different activities for these young people. Ms. McKeel said students have mentioned that in high school
physical education is only required two out of the four years.
Ms. Thomas asked if any member of the School Board or school staff participates in the Walk-to-
School Program. The ACTC, which is connected to the MPO, has a national grant to make sure that it gets
one school more walkable. It is going to be a City school, but it is a program with which a County staff
member or the School Board should be involved.
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Rooker said he recently read an article about juvenile diabetes which has increased by 500
percent since the 1960s.
Ms. Thomas said the nurse at Monticello High School said she has more children with Type II
diabetes than with Type I. Type I is the traditional juvenile on-set type, while Type II is what old, fat people
used to get. Ms. McKeel said pediatricians will say they are seeing 12 and 13 year-old children with the
same cardiac risk factors they used to see in middle-aged Americans. This is not a school issue, but a
community issue. She said the press interpreted the vending machine issue in way which was not accurate.
Channel 29 reported that the School Board talked about taking the vending machines out of the schools.
She said that was not discussed, it was a matter of what is in the machines.
Ms. McKeel said she and Mr. Ward, along with numerous students, teachers and staff attended the
bicentennial celebration of the Lewis & Clark Exposition on January 18 at Monticello. She said that
attached to today's written report is an attachment showing some of the activities which are taking place in
the schools.
Ms. Thomas said she went to the play put on at Cale Elementary and it was marvelous. It was
affected by the bad weather, so it could not be repeated that evening. She thinks that if anyone is searching
for awards to give out, elementary school music teachers should be high in the ranking.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board has been meeting with the Charlottesville School Board
discussing areas of collaboration between the two school divisions. At the last meeting, the boards
expressed an interest in creating an educational foundation. The boards also requested that their
instructional staffs review programs or areas where cooperation would be beneficial. At their next meeting
in March, Mr. John Redick from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation, will make a
presentation regarding establishment of a donor fund.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this money would be for a specific project. Ms. McKeel said it would be for
projects which have not been determined at this time. This is just in the discussion stage.
Mr. Dorrier asked if these meetings between the two boards have been helpful. Ms. McKeel said
"yes." There are a lot of things being done cooperatively, and the community does not know about those
things. Since she became a School Board member, they have been meeting more often, even socially, to
get to know each other. There have always been programs which have been shared other than CATEC.
Charlottesville has had seats at Murray High School for years. Albemarle has had seats at Charlottesville's
alternative disciplinary program. They are purchasing together. There is a whole list of things on which
they cooperate.
Mr. Martin said cooperation between the City's Alternative Education Program and the Murray High
School Program is the last thing the School Board did when moving toward more cooperation, and then the
question of reversion came up. Everything stopped at that point. Ms. McKeel said that did chill the dialogue
for a little while. She said they are very different school systems, and have different populations to service.
Mr. Dorrier said the foundation has a lot of potential. Ms. McKeel said they do not have to "reinvent
the wheel." There are school districts in other places that have education foundations which have been
successful.
Ms. Thomas said there is all ready an education foundation in place in the community. Ms. McKeel
said they are not trying to compete with the Shannon Foundation. Mr. Martin said it was actually started
using the same conversation and terminology that Ms. McKeel is using now. Ms. McKeel said the Shannon
Foundation gives grants for teachers to do projects in the schools. It is a beneficial program. This new
foundation would be one that targeted certain projects, probably bigger projects than an independent
project to a teacher.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation (Item 5.3 on the Consent Agenda) recognizing
February, 2003 as School Board Recognition Month, and then presented same to Ms. McKeel.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-01-08. Neighborhood Model District Status Report. To amend Zoning
Ordinance to modify Sec 8, Planned Districts - Generally, and to add Sec 20A, Neighborhood Model Zoning
District (deferred from January 8, 2003).
Mr. Cilimberg said that on January 8, the Board asked that DISC II review the changes proposed by
the Blue Ridge Homebuilders' Association and individual members of the Board. The staff report mailed
with the agenda materials for today's meeting gives a review of how much work has been completed. DISC
II still has some additional work to do on several sections. Staff anticipates that a public hearing on the
Neighborhood Model District can be set as early as March.
Mr. Tucker said the Board had planned to have another work session in March. He suggested that
the Board discuss this under "Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda." At that time, he will hand out a
meeting schedule of the Board's meetings in March. He believes it will be very hard for the Board to have a
public hearing on this question in March.
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Martin said DISC II is making progress. He thinks the final product will be something people at
the table will agree with. He does not see any need to rush.
Ms. Thomas said this whole district question was actually started by an applicant petitioning for an
amendment because they wanted to get started with some Neighborhood Model projects. She feels an
obligation to the people who brought this forward.
Mr. Martin said he thinks DISC II will be through in about two more meetings.
Mr. Rooker said the public hearing should be scheduled in March. He does not think the Board
needs another work session.
Mr. Tucker said it will be hard to hold the hearing in March. Mr. Martin suggested that the Board
skip having another work session, and schedule the hearing in March. Mr. Davis said it will be hard to meet
the advertising requirements for a March meeting.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think it will be a long public hearing because people have all ready
spoken.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it would be on the night agenda, or the day agenda. Ms. Thomas said she
would prefer that it be in the evening. Mr. Martin said he does not think the hearing would last longer than
15 minutes. He has no objection to it being at the day meeting.
Mr. Tucker said that for March, there is a third meeting scheduled for March 19, and there are five
public hearings scheduled for that meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg said the ordinance will have to be completed before the advertising starts. That
means it would have to be completed this week.
Mr. Martin said DISC II meets this afternoon, and he thinks they will finish their work.
Mr. Tucker said staff will do everything possible to schedule the hearing for March 5, but if all work
is not completed in time, the hearing will have to be on March 19.
(Note: At 9:55 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:08 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Real Estate Assessment Overview.
Mr. Bruce Woodzell, County Assessor, was present to make a presentation of the recent biennial
reassessment which generated an increase of 18.75 percent on properties. This generated many
questions about the property assessment process, i.e., how does the process work, how do citizens
address concerns about their individual reassessments, why have the assessments risen so high, as well as
questions about the validity and equity of the process itself.
Mr. Woodzell said the State mandates that localities reassess real property at least every six years,
but Albemarle County does it on a biennial cycle, every two years. The reassessment process for 2005 will
start in June or July of 2003, and take about 18 months to complete. Since 1977, the State has mandated
that all assessments be at 100 percent of fair market value. Currently, there are 36,511 parcels in the
County. In 1984, the County had 24,573 parcels, which makes an increase of almost 12,000 parcels in 19
years.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this reassessment compares favorably with past reassessments. Mr. Woodzell
said "yes." The Charlottesville-Albemarle Board of Realtors report that the median selling price for a home
in Albemarle has gone from $210,000 to $225,000 in one cycle. He then showed a slide on the overhead
projector showing the change in assessments for several counties in the State (see staff report which is on
file in the Clerk's Office). He showed a chart which shows that from 1997 to 1999 when the stock market
was increasing in price, the real estate market was depressed. Now that the stock market is down, there is
an increase in the level of value of real estate.
Mr. Woodzell said that in Albemarle/Charlottesville at this time there is a lack of inventory on the
market. He has been told by several realtors that new homes in subdivisions will probably not be available
until this fall. Existing homes sell in a very short period of time, sometimes within hours of going on the
market. There are homes which have sold for more than the asking price. He said the market is being
driven by an historic Iow in interest rates. Today someone can get a 30-year loan at six percent interest.
Data shows that people are moving out of apartments and buying a home for the first time because they
can afford a larger payment due to this Iow interest rate.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the issuance of building permits is still high. Mr. Woodzell said the number of
new home permits seems to still be high. He then went through the assessment process. He said the
Assessor's Office has 15 employees, six clerical, seven appraisers, a deputy assessor, and himself. The
dynamics of the office have shifted so that the clerical positions do not carry the same weight they did a few
years ago. The said the Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal System is responsible for this shift in duties.
Until 2001, as properties were appraised, the information was manually put on record cards. New cards
had to be filled out every two years, and the data transferred from one year to another. Appraisers in the
field did all their calculations on those cards which then had to be audited, the information typed into the
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
system, and at the end of a reassessment, the staff spent two weeks proofing that work. Now, all the data
is put into the computer as the work is completed. The appraisers are responsible for proofing their own
work, and they also run neighborhood reports which helps with proofing the work at completion of work in
that neighborhood.
Mr. Woodzell said that in early Spring, work will be assigned to the appraisers. Right now,
appraisers do about 5000 appraisals over the 18-month period. New land and building rates based on new
sales figures coming into the office will be developed. The appraisers will start field work on transfers and
building permits and new land use applications. In the Summer, they will attend the annual seminar in
Charlottesville. There are also schools for the appraisers held in June put on by the International
Association of Assessing Officers in coordination with the State Department of Taxation. There is a meeting
of the Virginia Association of Assessing Officers in the Fall of each year. In the Fall, the assessors will
begin their field work. As sales come in, a sales verification letter for every sale is mailed to get as much
information as possible about the sale. The property is visited to try and verify the data.
Mr. Woodzell then showed a slide representing a Neighborhood Profile for an unidentified
neighborhood in the County and explained what the slide indicated (see paperwork on file in the Clerk's
Office). Ms. Thomas asked why the appraisal price shown on the slide is above the sales price. Mr.
Woodzell said the appraisal for every like building in the County starts with a comparable. A 1000 square-
foot ranch-style home, no matter where it is located, will start with the same square foot rate. That works in
what is called a "standard" neighborhood. In areas where a home sells for more money, instead of
changing the rate for square footage, "a residential factor, or location factor" is applied.
Mr. Rooker said the paperwork the Board received shows the results of a sales ratio study. Results
seem to average between 96 and 97 percent of market. Mr. Woodzell said rates are locked in on January
1 of the odd-numbered year, and cannot change those rates or the assessment of the property
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
cannot be changed for two years unless a building permit is issued or there is a division of the property. He
said that when all of the financial analyses are finished, reassessment notices are mailed for every property
by December 31 of the even-numbered year.
Ms. Thomas asked why these notices are mailed on December 31. Mr. Woodzell said State Code
requires that the appraisal numbers be filed in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office prior to the year in which they
are effective.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Woodzell if Mr. Tucker is his boss. Mr. Woodzell said it is actually Mr. Melvin
Breeden. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Breeden told Mr. Woodzell that the County needed more money so he
should bring the assessments in at 18 percent. Mr. Woodzell said "absolutely not." Mr. Martin said he
thinks that is what the public really needs to understand. Mr. Woodzell said Virginia had a logical, futuristic
view of all this when they purposely kept the board of supervisors and any other department head out of the
process. They allowed the assessor to have full discretion over what he sees in the marketplace. Property
must be appraised at one hundred percent of fair market value with no undue stress or influence from any
official.
Mr. Martin said if Mr. Breeden started unduly influencing Mr. Woodzell, what would happen? Mr.
Woodzell said he would complain first to Mr. Breeden, and if it there was no change, he would go to Ms.
Roxanne White who is Assistant County Executive. Mr. Martin asked if he went all the way to Mr. Tucker,
and there was no change, what would he do? Mr. Woodzell said he would refuse to be influenced unless
Mr. Tucker put it in writing. If Mr. Tucker put it in writing, then he would be in trouble.
Mr. Martin asked how he, as a citizen, can know for a fact that neither Mr. Breeden or Mr. Tucker
have pressured him. Mr. Woodzell said the budget is still undeveloped at the time the assessments are
completed. Mr. Tucker said the reassessment work is done months ahead of any budget work. Mr.
Woodzell said that except for his individual department, he is not involved in the budgetary process at all.
He would refuse to hear any comments or concerns about how much money Albemarle County needed.
The first thing he tells people is that he is charged with assessing property; taxes are a different matter. Mr.
Davis said that is the purpose of the Sales Ratio Study which the State mandates. It actually looks over the
shoulders of all the assessors throughout the State.
Mr. Martin asked who conducts this study. Mr. Davis said it is done by the State Department of
Taxation. If that Sales Ratio exceeded 100 percent, they would be coming in and auditing Albemarle
County's department.
Mr. Rooker said it shows that the County's appraisals are consistently less than 100 percent.
Mr. Woodzell said he would like to say emphatically that no one has ever asked him to do anything
other than his job.
Mr. Martin said he can tell citizens that and they will say "sure, we know." But, what he is being told
is that if the County did that, the Virginia Department of Taxation would be auditing the County.
Ms. Thomas said she has had citizens say "they are government too." But, that is the mechanism
the General Assembly set up to make sure the assessments are accurate.
Mr. Rooker suggested asking any complaining person if they would sell their house for the tax
appraised value. Very few people would. Mr. Tucker said staff has heard many times that assessors
should be elected.
Mr. Woodzell said he will finish his report by showing an audit of the office produced by the State
Department of Taxation. Although, properties must be appraised at 100 percent of market, real estate
values are dynamic so that is a moving target. Albemarle has always been in the top quartile of the whole
State and has been in the top ten many times. Also important in the process is uniformity. Are all taxpayers
carrying the same burden? The COD (Co-efficient of Dispersion) is a measure of central tendency which
measures how far away all sales are from the median sales ratio.
Mr. Dorrier said the COD has gone from 6.8 to 9.7. What is the reason for that? Mr. Woodzell said
it is directly related to the sales ratio. The market is moving so fast that more sales are occurring above the
level of assessment (that is in the second year because the numbers cannot be changed during the cycle).
The lower the COD, the more uniform the assessment. Anything below 10 is acceptable as quality work.
There could be a wonderful Sales Ratio, but if the COD were 18 to 20, the burden of taxation would not be
equalized among the taxpayers.
Mr. Perkins said the question he gets from citizens is why the County averaged an 18 percent
reassessment, but their property's value went up 35 to 40 percent. Mr. Woodzell said the assessment
includes many types of properties; taxable, tax-exempt, commercial, industrial, residential, so the 18.75 is
an average of all property. He said the County's residential ratio is much higher than 18.75. What brings it
down is that industrial and commercial is not growing fast at this time. People are moving out of
apartments and buying first-time homes, so apartment properties are down, and there is also a lot of vacant
office space.
Mr. Tucker said when the value is up as much as Mr. Perkins said, then it is important to look at
comparables. More than likely properties around them have sold at a significantly higher amount and that
boosts the appraisal amount. Also, someone might have made improvements to their property during the
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
two-year period.
Mr. Woodzell said properties are worked in three ways: market (sales), cost (properties like
Monticello, the hospitals, and the University, would never have comparables so it is figured on cost) and
apartments, shopping centers and hotels (income).
Mr. Martin asked if the 18 percent also includes properties which are not taxed. Mr. Woodzell said
"no", the 18 percent is only on taxable properties.
Mr. Perkins said the ConAgra property went down in value $3.0 million. Mr. Woodzell said it is a
vacated special use building, and it was a sale. There are quite a few buildings like that. Whenever there is
a special use building, when it is open and running, it is a wonderful asset. When they close, there is a
super limited market for that facility. There are examples of that all over the County. Mr. Tucker said the
18.75 percent does include the land use properties.
Mr. Rooker asked the amount of land use deferrals this year. Mr. Woodzell said it is about $9.0
million. He said those properties are still assessed. The values assigned to the land for parcels in land
use, except for the house site, are created by the SLEAC Committee which suggests the values. Staff
reported to the Board last Fall that they felt comfortable using those SLEAC values. Mr. Davis said there
are also fair market values for those properties. Mr. Woodzell said there are 250+ parcels in the Open
Space Easement Program. They receive the same use value, so the buildings may show signs of
improvement, but the land is based on its use value. There will not be much increase in use value when
agricultural rates are falling like they are.
Mr. Melvin Breeden said in the 2001 reassessment, about $7.0 million was deferred from the Land
Use Program. The land use value is fairly stable, but the market value is jumping, and the figure has
jumped to $9.0 million. There may be an 18.75 percent increase in assessments, but there is not an 18
percent increase in revenues.
Mr. Perkins asked if the five-year rollback is based on the appraisals for the last five years. Mr.
Woodzell said they are tracked from one assessment to the next assessment during that five years.
Mr. Woodzell said he would explain the process followed by the Assessor's office. In late
December of the even-numbered year, assessment notices are mailed for the assessment which will be
effective January 1 of the odd-numbered year. The notice explains that if a property owner has concerns
they should call the Assessor's Office by the last business day of February. The owner still has until the last
business day in March to file an appeal with the Equalization Board. A further appeal may always be made
to the Circuit Court. In Albemarle, any citizen has the right to go directly to the Equalization Board, but the
Board prefers that this person speak to the Assessor first. It is possible an error may not be caught until the
property is visited. In that case, the Equalization Board's time would have been used for no reason, and
another person's review set off in time. He said this current reassessment is no different than previous
reassessments. In talking with his peers around the State, he believes there will be only a three to four
percent response out of the 34,000 parcels in the County.
Mr. Bowerman asked when the new assessment will be used for an actual tax bill. Mr. Woodzell
said it will be used for the June, 2003 bills.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many appeals end up in Circuit Court. Mr. Woodzell said that since 1988,
there have been three court cases.
Mr. Rooker said he believes the Equalization Board is thorough when it reviews properties, and he
thinks people are satisfied with that process. Mr. Woodzell said an appointment is set for the person who
filed the appeal, and the Equalization Board actually visits each property. With the new computer system, a
sketch of the property including houses, along with pictures of the property, can be input so the Equalization
Board may not always visit a property in the future.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Equalization Board is an experienced board. Mr. Woodzell said that two of
the six members are new. They must attend training sessions put on by the State Department of Taxation
to be state-certified.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many inquiries actually go before the Equalization Board. Mr. Woodzell
said two years ago during the last reassessment, there were 20+. So far this year, there have been about
15 inquiries.
Mr. Bowerman asked if someone can file an appeal just because they don't like the assessment.
Mr. Woodzell said they can. Since he has to provide information confirming the work of his appraisers, he
has asked the Equalization Board to request that the taxpayer present some facts behind their appeal.
Under current law, the Equalization Board is limited to ruling on the issues of uniformity. The Equalization
Board can listen to information about fair market value, but ruling on uniformity works well because if the
Board finds something wrong with one property, they are required to change the assessment on all like
properties.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff has thought about having an annual reassessment, like that done by the
City of Charlottesville. Mr. Woodzell said traditionally the City's assessments have matched Albemarle's on
the two-year period. Staff has discussed informally having an annual reassessment, but it would require
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
some detailed analyses, and would require additional money.
Mr. Bowerman asked if only one-half of the houses would be appraised on an annual basis. Mr.
Woodzell said they would still be required to look at every house. Without doubling staff, there would be no
way to physically look at every parcel annually.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a brochure which explains the whole process. Mr. Tucker said that
information is being upgraded, and will be put on the Internet. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the
information be reduced to some type of flyer. Mr. Dorrier said he has learned a lot from this presentation.
He thinks a flyer would be helpful to the general public.
Mr. Rooker said visiting every house is not required. He asked if there is some method of
appraising that does not require a visit. Mr. Woodzell said it would be critical to visit all sales properties.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Woodzell for this information.
Mr. Woodzell said he appreciates the opportunity to have the assessment records on the Internet.
He has received many compliments on that.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 4, Animals and
Fowl, Article IV, Section 4-401, Vicious and Dangerous Animals, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 20, January 23 and
January 27, 2003.)
Mr. Tucker said a recent review of provisions in the County Code relating to dangerous and vicious
dogs revealed that the Code does not conform in two respects to recent amendments to the State Code.
Virginia Code §3.1-796.93:1 was amended to allow an animal control officer to determine if a dog is
dangerous or vicious without such determination being made by a court, except upon appeal. In addition,
the Code was amended to require that animal control officers be responsible for confining a dangerous or
vicious dog pending a judicial determination of its status and providing that the owner of an alleged
dangerous or vicious dog can confine his dog until a court hearing only if the animal control officer
determines that the owner can do so in a manner that protects the public safety.
Mr. Tucker said the advertised ordinance would bring Section 4-401 of the Albemarle County Code
in compliance with the State Code, and improve the County's ability to address dangerous and vicious dog
enforcement. At the conclusion of the public hearing today, staff recommends that the Board adopt the
ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said he has talked with Ms. Foreman, President of the SPCA, and personnel in the
County's Animal Control Office. They had a couple of questions about the language in the ordinance, but
the County must use the same language as in the State Code. There was also a question about equipment
for the Animal Control Officers which staff will discuss with the Chief of Police.
Mr. Davis said there was a misstatement in the executive summary. It states that an animal control
officer is allowed to determine if a dog is dangerous or vicious without a court determination. Actually, the
State code says that they can determine if a dog is a "dangerous" dog. It requires a court finding as to
whether or not a dog is "vicious."
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adopt an Ordinance to Amend and
Reordain Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending
Section 4-401, Dangerous dogs; vicious dogs.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
ORDINANCE NO. 03-4(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article IV, Vicious and Dangerous Animals, is
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Section 4-401 Dangerous dogs; vicious dogs.
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE IV. VICIOUS AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS
Sec. 4-401 Dangerous dogs; vicious dogs.
A. The animal control officer upon reasonable belief that a canine or canine
crossbreed within the county is a dangerous dog or vicious dog shall apply to a
magistrate for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to
appear in general district court at a specified time. The summons shall advise the owner
of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. The animal control officer shall
confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. If
the animal control officer determines that the owner or custodian can confine the animal
in a manner that protects the public safety, he may permit the owner or custodian to
confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered.
The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian or harborer of
the animal to produce the animal. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the
animal is a dangerous dog, the court shall order the animal's owner to comply with the
provisions of this section. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is
a vicious dog, the court shall order the animal euthanized in accordance with the
provisions of Virginia Code § 3.1-796.119.
B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (A), an animal control officer
may determine after investigation whether a dog is a dangerous dog. If the animal
control officer determines that a dog is a dangerous dog, he may order the animal's
owner to comply with the provisions of this section. If the animal's owner disagrees with
the animal control officer's determination, he may appeal the determination to the
general district court for a trial on the merits. Such appeal shall be filed no later than ten
(10) days after receipt of notice of the officer's determination.
C. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or
vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed. No animal shall be found to be a
dangerous dog or vicious dog if the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person
who was (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's
owner or custodian, (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the
premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian, or (iii) provoking, tormenting or
physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented,
abused or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog which was engaged in the
performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to
be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog. No animal which, at the time of the acts
complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its
offspring or its owner or owner's property, shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a
vicious dog.
D. The owner of any animal found to be a dangerous dog shall, within ten (10)
days of such finding, obtain a dangerous dog registration certificate from the County for a
fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) in addition to other fees that may be authorized by law. The
County shall provide the owner with a tag which identifies the animal as a dangerous dog.
The owner shall affix the tag to the animal's collar and ensure that the animal wears the
collar and tag at all times. All certificates obtained pursuant to this section shall be
renewed annually for the same fee and in the same manner as the initial certificate was
obtained.
E. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section
shall only be issued to persons eighteen (18) years of age or older who present
satisfactory evidence (i) of the animal's current rabies vaccination, if applicable, and (ii)
that the animal is and will be confined in a proper enclosure or is and will be confined
inside the owner's residence or is and will be muzzled and confined in the owner's
fenced-in yard until the proper enclosure is constructed. In addition, owners who apply
for certificates or renewals thereof under this section shall not be issued a certificate or
renewal thereof unless they present satisfactory evidence that (i) their residence is and
will continue to be posted with clearly visible signs warning both minors and adults of the
presence of a dangerous dog on the property, and (ii) the animal has been permanently
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
identified by means of a tattoo on the inside thigh or by electronic implantation.
F. While on the property of its owners, an animal found to be a dangerous dog
shall be confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked structure of sufficient
height and design to prevent its escape or direct contact with or entry by minors, adults or
other animals. The structure shall be designed to provide the animal with shelter from
the elements of nature. When off its owner's property, an animal found to be a
dangerous dog shall be kept on a leash and muzzled in such a manner as not to cause
injury to the animal or interfere with the animal's vision or respiration, but so as to prevent
it from biting a person or another animal.
G. If the owner of an animal found to be a dangerous dog is a minor, the
custodial parent or legal guardian shall be responsible for complying with all
requirements of this section.
H. After an animal has been found to be a dangerous dog, the animal's owner
shall immediately, upon learning of same, notify the local animal control authority if the
animal (i) is loose or unconfined, (ii) bites a person or attacks another animal, (iii) is sold,
given away, or dies, or (iv) has been moved to a different address.
I. The owner of any animal which has been found to be a dangerous dog who
willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this section shall be guilty of a class 1
misdemeanor.
J. All fees collected pursuant to this section, less the costs incurred by the
County in producing and distributing the certificates and tags required by this section,
shall be paid into a special dedicated fund for the purpose of paying the expenses of any
training course required under Virginia Code § 3.1-796.105.
(Ord. No. 94-4(12), 8-3-94; Code 1988, § 4-37A.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-4(1),
2-5-02; Ord. 03-4(1), 2-5-03)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 3.1-796.93:1.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked if the word "vicious" had a specific meaning in the law. Mr. Davis
said "yes." If a dog has been determined to be vicious, the court can order it destroyed immediately. There
is a very specific state code definition of "vicious dog." A vicious dog is a dog which has killed a person,
inflicted serious injury to a person including multiple bites, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of
health, or serious impairment of bodily function, or continues to exhibit the behavior which resulted in a
previous finding by a court that it is a dangerous dog.
Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. Foreman, who was in the audience, if she would like to speak.
Ms. Carolyn Foreman, Executive Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle SPCA, said in January
they ran into situations involving JADE sting operations with drugs and murder charges where the SPCA
had to intake some very vicious animals. Even the drug enforcement officers were afraid of these animals.
She said it is not the breed of the animal, but any animal of a dominate breed which is large and strong.
Dogs become vicious due to the owner's or handler's abuse, and the way they are raised. The SPCA also
sees a lot of the losers in animal fights because they are dispatched on the side of the road. Her concern is
that these dogs are trained to be so violent that there is no way to subdue them. If the officers were to
discharge a firearm there would be an unimaginable amount of paperwork involved. The JADE officers
were surprised that animal control officers do not have dart guns so there is no way to tranquilize these
animals. For the animals recently encountered, they got the owner to get the dogs into cages, and then
there was no way to get them off of the truck. She had to have a veterinarian come in the middle of the
night to tranquilize these dogs in the cages. One of these dogs had actually eaten through a hinge of its
cage.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the SPCA can bring charges against the owners. Ms. Foreman said they can.
JADE was not looking for charges on animal abuse. It was a dangerous situation for the public and for
everybody concerned. These JADE officers asked if the dogs should be shot in the field. That is not a
good thought. She said she has pictures of losers which she showed in the General Assembly when they
were discussing animals. She is making a larger copy to take to the Senate.
Mr. Dorrier said this ordinance should help. Ms. Foreman said it will. She wanted to ask how to
arm people so they can have the ability to control an animal which is dangerous or vicious. Mr. Tucker said
the County needs to be sure the animal control officers have the proper equipment. Ms. Foreman said
JADE sees more of these animals than the animal control officers do.
Agenda Item No. 11. Proposed FY 2003 Budget Amendment.
Ms. Roxanne White, Executive Assistant, said Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any
locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount appropriated during the current fiscal year.
Any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted
budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget.
Ms. White said this proposed FY 2003 Budget amendment totals $10,741,376.70. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
School Fund
Local Government Programs/Grants
General Government Capital Projects
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds
$ 15,123.05
221,113.65
10,505,140.00
$10,741,376.70
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
Borrowed Funds
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds
$48,736.70
5,140.00
187,500.00
10,500,000.00
$10,741,376.70
This budget amendment is comprised of five new appropriations as follows:
Appropriation #2003-034, $5,140.00. In FY 2002, funds in the amount of $220,000 were approved
for the acquisition and implementation of a new document imaging and indexing system for the Circuit
Court Clerk's office. The State's Technology Trust Fund provided funding in the amount of $180,768 and
the balance of $39,232 was funded by the County. Notice was recently received from the State
Compensation Board that additional funding of $44,372 from the State's Technology Trust Fund has been
provided to the County for FY 2003 for this project. This additional funding will allow the County to recoup
the $39,232 advanced to the project in FY 2002 as well as provide a net additional amount of $5,140 to the
project. This additional funding will be used to convert additional microfilmed historical data to the imaging
system.
Appropriation #2003-035, $10,500,000.00. The Board of Supervisors previously approved the
acquisition of the Wachovia Bank Operations Facility on Fifth Street Extended for $7.0 million, as additional
space for County offices and operations. Additional costs to make the necessary renovations to the building
are anticipated to be $3.5 million. The $10.5 million is to be appropriated to the General Government
Capital Improvement Fund, and will be derived from bond proceeds.
Appropriation #2003-036, $15,123.05. Sutherland Middle School received a donation in the
amount of $4,000.00 from the James A. Meador Foundation. This donation will be used to support the
SHARK Time Program offered by the school. SHARK Time is a program where teachers volunteer their
time to tutor students that need assistance in their studies.
Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $9,613.05 from the Virginia L.
Murray PTO. This donation will be used to pay teacher assistant salaries for the school.
The Textbook Fund collected $1,510.00 from the schools for textbooks which were lost, damaged
or sold. It is requested that this money be appropriated for FY 2003 to purchase replacement textbooks.
Appropriation #2003-037, $33,613.65. Due to the extended length of time and additional work
incurred over the past year to complete the frequency and regulatory coordination and contract negotiations
for the 800 MHz Radio System, additional funding of $33,613.65 is needed for consultant services received
in October, November and December, 2002. The cost of this additional expense will be shared among the
County (50.71%), the City of Charlottesville (31.25%), University of Virginia (15.03%), and the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority (3.01%).
Appropriation #2003-038, $187,500.00. The County has been awarded a grant from the U.S.
Department of Justice in the amount of $187,500 to provide additional funding for the Police Department's
mobile data terminal system. Funding for the local match to the grant is all ready provided in the Capital
Improvement Fund.
Staff recommends approval, after the public hearing, of the FY 2003 Budget amendment in the
amount of $10,741,376.70, and then approval of Appropriations #2003-034, #2003-035, #2003-036,
#2003-037 and #2003-038 to provide funds for various General Government and School programs.
Mr. Rooker asked when the IDA loan for purchase of the Wachovia Building will close. Mr. Melvin
Breeden said it will be on or about March 18. Mr. Davis said the purchase will actually occur tomorrow. Mr.
Rooker said he just wanted to be sure; the money will come from General Funds, and then those funds will
be reimbursed by the IDA bonds. Mr. Breeden said that is correct. Mr. Davis said only the purchase price
of $7.0 million will be disbursed tomorrow. The rest of it will be spent as the improvements are made.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve the 2003 Budget
amendment as presented by staff. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt the following Resolutions of Appropriation totaling
$10,741,376.00 (#2003-034, #2003-035, #2003-036, #2003-037 and #2003-038). The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP: #2003-034
APPROPRIATION DATE: 12/23/02
EXPLANATION: CLERK OF THE COURT IMAGING SYSTEM
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 21060 800708 IMAGING SYSTEM J 1 5,140.00
2 9010 24000 240800 TECH TR FUND J 2 5,140.00
9010 0501 EST REVENUE 5,140.00
9010 0701 APPROPRIATION 5,140.00
TOTALS 10,280.00 5,140.00 5,140.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP: #2003-035
APPROPRIATION DATE: 01/15/03
EXPLANATION: PURCHASE OF NEW COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 11200 800750 PURCHASE OF PROP J 1 7,000,000.00
1 9010 11200 800901 RENOVATIONS J 1 3,500,000.00
2 9010 41000 410530 BOND PROCEEDS J 2 10,500,000.00
9010 0501 EST REVENUE J
9010 0701 APPROPRIATION J
TOTALS 21,000,000.00
10,500,000.00
10,500,000.00
10,500,000.00
10,500,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP: #2003-036
APPROPRIATION DATE: 01/15/03
EXPLANATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND DONATED FUNDS AND AMOUNTS RECOVERED FROM LOST
OR DAMAGED BOOKS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2255 61101 580000 MISC EXPENSES J 1 1,000.00
1 2255 61101 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES J 1 3,000.00
1 2215 61101 160909 SALARY-OVER STAFFING J 1 8,877.65
1 2215 61101 210000 FICA J 1 735.40
1 2114 61101 602000 TEXTBOOKS J 1 1,510.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 13,613.05
2 2000 19000 190214 REC'D COSTS-TXTBK J 2 1,510.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION J
TOTALS 30,246.10
15,123.05
15,123.05
15,123.05
15,123.05
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP: #2003-037
APPROPRIATION DATE: 01/15/03
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR 800 MHz RADIO SYSTEM
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4110 31050 312700 PROF SVS-CONSULTANT J 1 33,613.65
2 4110 16000 160502 CITY OF CH'VILLE J 2 10,504.27
2 4110 16000 160503 CO OF ALBEMARLE J 2 17,045.48
2 4110 16000 160512 UNIVOFVA J 2 5,052.13
2 4110 16000 160534 AIRPORT J2 1,011.77
4110 0501 EST REVENUE J
4110 0701 APPROPRIATION J
TOTALS 67,227.30
33,613.65
33,613.65
33,613.65
33,613.65
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP: #2003-038
APPROPRIATION DATE: 01/15/03
EXPLANATION: COPS MORE02 GRANT AWARD
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT
1 1541 31000 800700
2 1541 33000 300001
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
COPS MORE02 GRANT
FEDERAL GRANT
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
J 1 187,500.00
J 2 187,500.00
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
1541 0501 EST REVENUE J 187,500.00
1541 0701 APPROPRIATION J 187,500.00
TOTALS 375,000.00
187,500.00
187,500.00
Agenda Item No. 12. Second Quarter Financial Report.
Ms. Roxanne White said she would summarize Attachment A of the staff's report (on file in the
Clerk's Office). She said revenues are projected to be about $2.3 million below the estimate for the current
fiscal year. An additional $1.3 million will be collected in real estate taxes based on the reassessment.
Personal property taxes will be short by about $2.6 million. The sales tax is expected to be down by about
$1.0 million, and utility taxes will be down by about $0.266 million due to a shift in use coming from land
phone lines to cellular phones. Ms. Thomas asked if that is because the County does not tax cellular
phones. Ms. White said "yes". Ms. Thomas asked if that is because the State does not allow that. Ms.
White said staff has argued for that authority, but to no avail.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the sales tax is down because of people buying on the Internet. Ms. White said
she thinks it is due to the economy. She said Other Local Revenues are down about $0.430 million due to
investment earnings being down significantly. State revenues, the majority of which are for personal
property taxes, are down $0.300 million.
Ms. White said departmental expenditures are on target at about 50 percent of appropriations.
Projections have been changed to reduce expenditures to offset the shortfall. There is a $2.612 million
reduction, net of some additional appropriations. That is due mostly to the salary lapse in the Police
Department, Public Works and Social Services. Also, $54,000 was saved in the Planning Department by
not starting the second master plan in the current fiscal year. Also, there is about $197,000 from the one-
time VRS Life Insurance savings. The transfer to the School Division was reduced by $980,000 which is the
School Board's sixty-percent share of local tax revenues.
Ms. Thomas asked if the VRS Life Insurance will experience a jump in costs next year because of
the one-time savings. Ms. White said the State reduced that for one year, so it will go back to the regular
amount next year. Mr. Tucker said staff does not know if the premium will stay at the same level, or go
back to the previous year's level. Mr. Breeden said there will probably be a slight increase in the next year.
amount
shortfall
Mr. Martin asked if the transfer to the Schools has been decreased because there will be a lesser
of revenues received than anticipated. Ms. White said it is being reduced by 60 percent of the
in local tax revenues.
Mr. Bowerman asked the Schools original share in terms of total dollars. Ms. White said the
transfer was going to be reduced by $1.3 million, but now it will be $980,00. The Schools got $65.7 million
of total local revenues, and that will now be reduced by $980,000.
Ms. White drew the Board members' attention to Attachment C which shows how staff proposes to
meet the shortfall in revenues in the current fiscal year. She said funds will not be taken from the ACE
Program because they were able to find almost $1.0 million in the Capital Budget from one-time savings.
Mr. Dorrier referred to Attachment D and asked if the "remaining balance" of $443,132 is as of July
1. Ms. White said that is the expected balance at June 30, 2003, if the shortfall remains the same. Mr.
Dorrier said this is less of a balance than has been the experienced in the recent past. Mr. Tucker said that
is correct.
Agenda Item No. 13. FY 2003-2004 Revenue Projection Update.
Ms. White handed out copies of some charts and said she would give a brief explanation of them.
She noted that between the October estimate and January estimate, real estate tax revenues have gone up
by $0.634 million as a result of the reassessment. Also, the personal property tax went up by about
$50,000. Other local taxes have gone down by about $0.265 million which is a result of a decrease in
sales, meals and utility taxes, and business licenses. There was a slight increase ($400,000) in Federal
and state revenues for social services. The difference in total General Fund revenues since October is an
increase of $0.642 million.
Ms. White said the revenue change over FY '03 shows an increase of 12.7 percent in the real
estate tax. The personal property tax is down 9.3 percent over what was budgeted. The net effect of that is
an increase of 5.3 percent in property taxes. Other Local Taxes have increased by 3.4 percent, while Other
Local Revenues shows a decrease of 9.2 percent, which brings local revenues down to a 4.3 percent
increase. State and Federal Revenues are down 3.5 percent so total General Fund revenues shown an
increase of $5.045 million or a 3.7 percent increase which is still a substantial decrease over the prior fiscal
year.
Ms. White then explained that the revenue from the 18.7 percent increase in real estate
assessments will not be realized all in the same fiscal year. Half of the revenue from that increased
assessment will be collected in FY '03 and the other half will be collected in FY '04, because real property
taxes are collected twice each year.
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Bowerman said that effects the carry-over balance from this fiscal year into the next fiscal year.
Ms. White said the collection in FY '03 will only help to offset the lost revenues in FY '03. She showed a
chart indicating the Five-Year Revenue Trend and said that although Real Estate revenues have continued
to increase, Other Local revenues, Personal Property Taxes, and State & Federal revenues have all leveled
out over that five-year period from FY '99 through FY '03. She then showed a chart indicating the same
five-year period for Personal Property Taxes. In the past, the County has under estimated personal
property tax collections, but for FY '03 the budgeted amount is about $2.6 million more than estimated
collections.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the increase in real estate collections will go to cover that deficit. Ms. White
said that is correct. She said about 90 percent of personal property revenues come from used vehicles,
and the value of used vehicles has leveled out.
Mr. Perkins asked if the decrease in state funds includes funds for education. Ms. White said "no",
it is only in General Fund moneys. Mr. Tucker said Federal funds have been fairly steady. If State funds
were shown separately, they would show a decrease.
Ms. White next spoke about the distribution of the revised Revenues. She said the change in
revised local tax revenues is $346,448, and using the 60/40 split for new revenues, the School Division
would get $207,869 and Local Government would get $138,579 of that amount. Added to what the
Schools were allocated in October, they would have total new local tax revenues of $2.7 million. Local
Government would have new local tax revenues of $1.79 million.
Ms. White reviewed General Government revenues by saying General Government would have
$1.79 million in Local Tax Revenues, Other Local Revenues are expected to be down by $0.381 million,
State Revenues are expected to be down by $0.679 million, with Federal Revenues increasing $0.292
million, leaving a total of $1.02 million in new revenues for Local Government use.
Mr. Dorrier said at an earlier meeting, the Board was discussing tax rates, and Mr. Tucker had said
the staff wanted guidance as to what the Board might consider. Mr. Tucker said he knows that the Board
members have heard a lot from constituents about the reassessment. If the Board members feel there is a
need to consider a rate reduction, as the City has, staff needs to know that now rather than having to do that
after budget work sessions, etc.
Mr. Dorrier said it is a major issue, and everybody is looking to the Board. He asked for comments.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think there can be a decision until the Board sees some budget
numbers. He thinks staff should run some numbers with a tax rate decrease, with a one-cent increase, and
with a two-cents increase. The County will have to take on a huge expense for the Ivy Landfill that has
never been in past budgets. To be prudent, he thinks the Board should look at revenue numbers across
the range.
Mr. Tucker said part of this will be related to discussion with the School Board next week about
employee compensation. He knows what the Superintendent has proposed in his budget, but he does not
know what the School Board will support.
Ms. Thomas said it has been reported that in order to meet the Superintendent's budget, the
Schools need $2.0 million more than what this Board thinks it can provide. Mr. Tucker said the Board does
not yet have information about any unfunded mandates which will have to come off of local government's
reven u es.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any projected number for CSA. Mr. Tucker said the County should
probably put in about $600,000 for the amendment the Board made about a month ago. Staff does not
have a number, but will propose an amount of about $300,000. That number might have to be increased in
January, 2005.
Ms. Thomas asked if that is an increase of $300,000 over the total amount spent in the current
fiscal year. Mr. Tucker said "yes." Ms. White said that amount had to be put into the budget this year to
bring the amount up to $700,000, and that amount has to be put in again next year to bring it up to the same
level. Ms. Thomas said that is $400,000 less than what will be spent this year, and she does not think staff
knows how to save $400,000 in a mandated program.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to look at the budget from a realistic standpoint. This
year there was a big increase in CSA but the County had the funds to cover that mandate. He knows there
is a Task Force looking at ways to devise programs which are less expensive than the current programs for
troubled youth. He does not want to look at a budget which is based on an unrealistic assumption.
Mr. Rooker asked if any of those communities are in litigation about this issue. He said there has
been a lot of litigation under the Independent Education Program mandates. The children's parents have
won virtually all of those cases.
Mr. Martin said the County can be mandated to do something, but seldom is the way it has to be
done mandated. He said the school system might not be able to expel a child, but they can do something
other than the choices they are making.
Mr. Rooker said the Independent Education Program sometimes requires that a teacher be
assigned to a child. Mr. Martin said that is cheaper than some things they are choosing to do. Mr. Rooker
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
said some schools have said they will not do that, but provide an alternate program, and the parents have
litigated, and often won. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the County go with litigation some time. Mr. Rooker
said he is talking about this for budget purposes, and if the Board is going to talk about ways to cut CSA
expenses, it needs to know there is a legal way it can be done that can withstand a challenge.
Mr. Martin said the proposal Mr. Rooker is making to have one-on-one with that student in his home
is much cheaper than some of the things which are done. Mr. Rooker said that was not a proposal, he is
only comparing the litigation area of the Independent Education Program with the control the Board has
over CSA. Regardless of what is budgeted, he thinks that expense should be reduced.
Mr. Tucker said with the alternatives the Board has suggested today, staff will develop a balanced
budget within expected revenues. If the Board decides to reduce the tax rate by a penny, staff will list the
areas which would have to be reduced further. Staffwill also list where revenues would be used if the tax
rate were increased by one penny.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has not dealt with the issue of an increase in salaries for employees. Mr.
Tucker said that will be discussed with the School Board next week. Staffwill make a recommendation for
that in various scenarios.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the School Board asked the Superintendent to follow the
recommendations of the Human Resources office. The Board has not asked Mr. Tucker to do that.
Mr. Dorrier said there is also the issue of the Commonality Policy. Mr. Tucker said that is why the
meeting next week is important.
Mr. Perkins said there are other things to keep in mind, and one is the dependence being put on the
real estate rate. What kind of message does this send to the General Assembly? If the Board just keeps
upping the tax rate and pays for all the things they mandate, they will do less on their end. He is concerned
about the increase in taxes that people have on their homes. There are a lot of people on fixed incomes
and the poor people are being driven out of this county.
Mr. Dorrier said the level of government services is going up in every instance. He thinks everything
needs to be factored in.
Mr. Rooker said more services cannot be provided with less money. He said that politicians for
years have gotten in office by promising people fewer taxes, but when they get in office it can't be done. He
said that is being seen at almost every level government now. The Board either has to look at cutting
services or getting increased revenues to simply cover inflation, and the population growth in the County. I
could decide not to provide a certain number of police officers, or flrefighters per 1000 of population, or not
open the new library that is planned.
Mr. Tucker said staff is looking at all of these things. There may be delays in certain capital items.
There are many areas where the level of expenditure can be reduced in operations in many departments.
Ms. Thomas said this is an urbanizing county and things are getting more expensive. For the
master plan for Crozet, people are aware of the kind of infrastructure that will be needed in order to have a
viable community such as that called for in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board can't make it cheaper. It
could have allowed the City to annex a big area, and the County would just be dealing with the Rural Area
which requires less infrastructure. The Board chose to go with Revenue Sharing instead, and at this time
that seems to be a little topsy-turvy, but it is still a good bargain.
Mr. Bowerman said the County just raised real property tax bills hundreds of dollars. The issue is
how much the Board can do in one year. It might be reasonable to look at a tax rate increase next year.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with Mr. Bowerman. He thinks the idea of raising taxes is offthe table. If
staff is going to do different scenarios, it should be one with the same rate, and one with a reduced rate. He
asked how the Board would be able to face people if they proposed a rate increase.
Mr. Bowerman said the bottom line is that the Board is asking people who own real estate to pay
more in taxes this year. That is a strong rate increase.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is only asking for some figures on paper so it can analyze County
finances.
Mr. Bowerman said the worst scenario he would look at is leaving the rate as it is.
Ms. Thomas said she does not know how Mr. Bowerman can say that until he sees what the budget
needs are.
Mr. Rooker agreed.
Mr. Bowerman said he is not willing to raise taxes more than has all ready been done through the
reassessment.
Mr. Perkins said the School Board wants to make a great school system, but they admit they all
ready have a good school system. How much more will it cost to make it a great school system? In these
economic times, he does not think that should be done. These are austere times for local government and
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
businesses everywhere. He does not think it is time for the County to increase its level of services.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees, but in terms of looking at proposed numbers, it seems the Board
should examine various scenarios, otherwise there is no way of knowing what services will have to be cut.
He is advocating neither a tax increase or a tax decrease.
Mr. Martin said the Board normally starts off with one scenario, that is the scenario of "where we
are." Then during budget work sessions, the Board, with knowledge and information, comes to the point
where a decision has to be made about setting the tax rates. He has been on the Board for a few years,
and there have been times when the rates were lowered, and there have been times when they were
increased. He personally cannot support a scenario with a tax rate increase. Individual real estate owners
all ready know more money is being taken from their pockets. If the Board can't do just two scenarios, it will
have to do just one, which is the current rate.
Mr. Rooker said if the Board agrees with Mr. Martin's statement, there is no value in looking at more
than one scenario.
Mr. Martin said he is willing to look at just one scenario. If a scenario is laid out showing an
increase, people will assume the Board's intentions, and anger will be directed to the members.
Mr. Tucker said when the Board gets the budget document balanced within current revenues, it will
see where expenditures have been reduced in order to just balance within current revenues. If there is
enough support to increase the tax rate, the Board will be able to see where the money would go. On the
other hand, in order to reduce the rate, the Board needs to see where staff would suggest that it be done.
Mr. Bowerman said he would rather move through the process with revenue projections as they
currently are, which includes a significant tax increase from the real property reassessment, and not even
look at a tax rate increase. He said that is what has been done in prior years. If the Board collectively gets
to the point where an extra million dollars is needed, then the Board knows how to get it.
Ms. Thomas said her interest is in truth in government so when there is a significant new category,
it should be separated out so that people can see the category. In this instance, she is referring to the
County's dealing with solid waste. She said the last time the tax rate was lowered, it was when the
community formed the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. That was an entire category of expense that went
out of the County's budget and into individual household budgets. Citizens are still paying tipping fees, so
the new situation is not saving them any money. Now, the Authority no longer have a revenue stream
because there is no longer a landfill. There is now an entire new category which has come back into the
County's budget. That is a whole category that she would like to see separated out so everybody can see
its total cost. She thinks the public needs to know when an entire new function if taken on by government
so they are comfortable cutting every other function in order to pay for that one function.
Mr. Dorrier said truth in taxation almost means the public needs to know that ten cents on the tax
rate is going to the City of Charlottesville and that has not been emphasized enough. Another thing which
has not been emphasized enough is that Albemarle County has the lowest tax rate among all the major
urbanizing counties around Virginia. That needs to be put forward to show that the County has been
conservative in its spending.
(Note: At 12:05 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 12:15 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 14. ZTA-2001-09. Parking. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to repeal Section
4.12, Off-street parking and loading requirements, and all of its sub parts; repeal Section 4.13, Parking and
storage of certain vehicles, and all of its sub parts; add new Section 4.12, Parking, stacking and loading,
including sub parts; add new Section 5.1.41, Parking lots and parking structures; add new Section 32.7.2A,
Parking structures; and amend Section 3.1, Definitions, Section 15.2.2, By special use permit, Section
16.2.2, By special use permit, Section 17.2.2, By special use permit, Section 18.2.2, By special use permit,
Section 19.3.2, By special use permit, Section 20.3.2, By special use permit, Section 20.4.2, By special use
permit, Section 20.5.2, By special use permit, Section 22.2.2, By special use permit, Section 23.2.2, By
special use permit, Section 24.2.2, By special use permit, Section 27.2.2, By special use permit, and
Section 28.2.2, By special use permit; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would establish new parking, stacking and loading regulations applicable to new uses, structures
and parking areas, redeveloped sites, and preexisting and approved parking, stacking and loading areas;
define certain terms used in new Section 4.12; delineate in which zoning districts parking may be a primary
use by special use permit; and would require a site plan for parking lots and parking structures, and
establish site plan requirements for parking structures. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on January 20, January 23 and January 27, 2003.)
Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration, summarized the executive summary which is on
file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board. She said that at its meeting on January 8,
2003, the Board asked staff to work on three specific parts of the proposed Parking Ordinance that received
considerable public comment. Those items were: Section 4.12.5.c, Orientation to buildings (relegated
parking); Section 4.12.4.a, Maximum number of spaces (the cap above the minimum requirements); and,
Section 4.12.6, Parking for shopping centers with less than 25,000 square feet gross leasable area.
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Dorrier asked for a definition of "relegated parking" for the public's information. Ms. Sprinkle
said it is the orientation of the parking lot to the building and the streets and the building faces. The
Neighborhood Model suggests that parking be relegated to the sides or rear of the structure.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is staff's recommendation that this amendment not be included in what is
being adopted today. Ms. Sprinkle said that is correct. Ms. Thomas asked if staff thinks this item needs
further work. Ms. Sprinkle said there are still a lot of issues which are unresolved, so staff recommends that
it be sent back to the Planning Commission so a new committee can be formed to work on just a few
unresolved issues. Ms. Thomas asked if Ms. Sprinkle is referring only to "relegation." Ms. Sprinkle said
"yes." Ms. Thomas asked if staff is recommending that that section be deleted, and then the other changes
be adopted into the ordinance. Ms. Sprinkle said that is correct.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff is recommending that relegated parking not be included at this time, but if
any Board members want to make comments regarding relegated parking and how it has been developed
to this point, staff would like to have those comments.
Mr. Dorrier said relegated parking is a complex issue. He understands staff did not say there
should not be parking in front of stores such as a "Seven-11 ", but is saying it would want the parking to the
side of big developments such as the Fashion Square Mall. He asked if that is right. Ms. Sprinkle said the
ordinance does not distinguish between large and small developments. It says all parking should be
relegated to the rear or the side of the structure unless certain criteria can be met such as (examples)
having to move utilities, where there is existing development, or based on topography. It is not based on
size.
Mr. Davis said staff has struggled with issues such as trying to define the dominant feature
exception. "Dominant feature" is a great term when used in the Comprehensive Plan, but not in a zoning
ordinance. The term needs a better definition so it can be applied in a ministerial ordinance. There are
also planning issues regarding some of the exceptions which would allow parking to occur with walls and
things of that nature. There are questions about whether that accomplishes the Neighborhood Model for
pedestrian-friendly access.
Mr. Dorrier said it is important that the owner of a commercial operation have an indication that the
lay-out of the parking will be sufficient to provide income for his operation. If parking had to be at the rear of
every small store, it might put some people out of business. He thinks the size of the venture is an
important criteria. The smaller the business, the more convenient the parking has to be to get customers to
use that business. A larger business may be able to afford to put parking to the rear and to the side
because they have more of a financial cushion.
Me. Martin said Mr. Davis mentioned that there are issues about parking being the dominant
feature. There are issues about exceptions and how to define those exceptions so they are in the best
interests of the County and the business. It has to be in the best interests of both. He thinks the Board can
move forward with the ordinance, and let staff work on the issue of relegated parking.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the ordinance is well done. He has a problem with what is the "dominant
feature." He suggests that this be sent back to the Planning Commission for further study.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Mr. Neil Williamson said he is the Executive Director of the Free Enterprise Forum. He said they
have researched the relegated parking issue, and although it has been removed by staff from this proposed
amendment, the results of this research may be of interest to the Board. The concept of relegated parking
is a key element in "new urbanism" design theory. It has been successfully implemented in selected high
density developments across the country. It fits well into the Neighborhood Model District. Mandating
relegated parking outside of high density neighborhood model developments is the area of concern. If
mandated relegated parking were in force, it would be anticipated that a number of businesses would
establish the front of their shops as the rear and close all public access from the street side of the building.
Front doors would then start to follow the cars. Small shops may have only enough personnel to monitor
one entrance to the store, and that would usually be the entrance to the parking lot. These issues are not
as significant if the relegated parking is applied only to the Neighborhood Model District. When asked about
relegated parking, one developer said many realtors would work around the restrictions for the right
locations, but certain retailers, especially grocery stores and convenience uses such as banks and dry
cleaners would not be able to thrive without front parking. That essentially would kill any new or
redeveloped retail projects. Concern was also expressed about the safety of people having to park far from
the public view, especially at night. Based on these issues, the Forum is concerned mandated relegated
parking outside the intense residential density of the Neighborhood Model District may not be commercially
viable.
Ms. Valerie Long said she was present on behalf of Martha Jefferson Hospital. She said different
types of medical uses have varying requirements for parking. In particular, the Hospital supports the staff's
recommendation contained in the current draft to provide for the ability to exceed the minimum number of
spaces by up to 20 percent. She has worked with Ms. Sprinkle on their recommendations, and she
indicated that there may need to be a special category established for medical uses. Even being able to
exceed the number of spaces by 20 percent may not for certain medical practices still be enough spaces.
MJH operates several facilities in the County, and theses facilities are designed with parking far in excess of
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
the current regulations, yet parking is not sufficient, and even with the 20 percent overage allowed in the
current draft, there is concern that there will still be insufficient parking. They fear it will be difficult in the
future to modify or expand these facilities. Ms. Long said she will also distribute some comments from local
business people regarding relegated parking. She is doing this for a local business leader who could not
attend this meeting today, Mr. Steven Krohn, President - Charlottesville Sun Trust Bank.
Ms. Jo Higgins said she and Mr. Don Franco spoke at the last meeting because they had concerns
about small shopping centers of from 10,000 to 25,000 square feet. Staff was responsive, and she thinks
the amendment to the previous ordinance is satisfactory. She and Mr. Franco are comfortable with the way
the ordinance is written at this time. As to the relegated parking issue, she has a Design Safer Communities
Manual from the National Crime Prevention Council, and through the whole book it talks about well-lighted,
highly-visible parking lots as being safe for consumers and customers of stores. She suggested having
someone from the Police Department talk about visibility of parking lots for the safety of consumers. She
understands the police patrol roads and look at parking lots, but if the parking lots are not visible from the
main highway or visible from roads, and they are not well-lighted, the screening for aesthetic issues might
decrease the safety of consumers entering the business from either the front or the rear of the building.
Mr. Dorrier asked if what Ms. Higgins referred to is a specialized manual. Ms. Higgins said she
called Ms. Catlin who referred her to another person. She then went to the National Crime Prevention
Council and got this manual. Mr. Dorrier said an excerpt from that manual dealing with parking lots might
be helpful.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said there was a productive work session on the ordinance at the last hearing. He
thinks staff has done an excellent job of taking those comments and working them into the ordinance. He
hopes the relegated parking section can be worked through and be brought back to the Board in an
acceptable form. He then offered motion to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I,
General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by Amending the following sections, Sec. 3.1, Sec. 15.2.2,
Sec. 16.2.2, Sec. 17.2.2, Sec. 18.2.2, Sec. 19.3.2, Sec. 20.3.2, Sec. 20.4.2, Sec. 20.5.2, Sec. 22.2.2, Sec.
23.2.2, Sec. 24.2.2, Sec. 27.2.2 and Sec. 28.2.2; by repealing the following sections, Sec. 4.12, Sec. 4.12.1,
Sec. 4.12.2, Sec. 4.12.3, Sec. 4.12.4, Sec. 4.12.5, Sec. 4.12.6, Sec. 4.12.7, Sec. 4.13, Sec. 4.13.1, Sec.
4.13.2 and Sec. 4.13.3; and, by adding the following sections, Sec. 4.12, Sec. 4.12.1, Sec. 4.12.2, Sec.
4.12.3, Sec. 4.12.4, Sec. 4.12.5, Sec. 4.12.6, Sec. 4.12.7, Sec. 4.12.8, Sec. 4.12.9, Sec.
4.12.10, Sec. 4.12.11, Sec. 4.12.12, Sec. 4.12.13, Sec. 4.12.14, Sec. 4.12.15, Sec. 4.12.16, Sec. 4.12.17,
Sec. 4.12.18, Sec. 4.12.19, Sec. 5.1.41 and Sec. 32.7.2A; with the exception of Sec. 4.12.5(c).
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Ms. Thomas said staff asked for guidance. She, personally, does not want to change the two
pages from the Land Use Plan which were included as part of the staff's report. So, unless the Board
wants to change those pages, she thinks staff is on the right track.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 03-18(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II,
BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and Article
IV, Procedure, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 15.2.2 By special use
Sec. 16.2.2 By special use
Sec. 17.2.2 By special use
Sec. 18.2.2 By special use
Sec. 19.3.2 By special use
Sec. 20.3.2 By special use
Sec. 20.4.2 By special use
Sec. 20.5.2 By special use
Sec. 22.2.2 By special use
Sec. 23.2.2 By special use
)ermit
)ermit
)ermit
)ermit
)ermit
)ermit
)ermit
)ermit
)ermit
)ermit
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Sec. 24.2.2
Sec. 27.2.2
Sec. 28.2.2
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By Repealing:
Sec. 4.12
Sec. 4.12.1
Sec. 4.12.2
Sec. 4.12.3
Sec. 4.12.4
Sec. 4.12.5
Sec. 4.12.6
Sec. 4.12.7
Sec. 4.13
Sec. 4.13.1
Sec. 4.13.2
Sec. 4.13.3
Off-street parking and loading requirements
Purpose
Application
Location of parking
Cooperative parking
Availability of parking
Parking area design
Required off-street loading space
Parking and storage of certain vehicles
Parking, storage, or use of major recreational equipment in residential districts
Limitation on parking/storage of inoperative motor vehicles
Limitations on parking of trucks and certain recreational vehicles in residential districts
By Adding:
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.1
Sec. 4.12.17
Sec. 4.12.18
Sec. 4.12.19
Sec. 5.1.41
Sec. 32.7.2A
2 Parking, stacking and loading
2.1 Purpose and intent
2.2 Applicability
2.3 Prohibited activities
2.4 Parking areas
2.5 Location of parking areas
2.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
2.7 Minimum number of required parking spaces for unscheduled uses
2.8 Alternatives available to provide minimum number of parking spaces
2.9 Street and alley parking
2.10 Shared parking
2.11 Stand alone parking
2.12 Transportation demand management
2.13 Loading areas
2.14 Preexisting or approved parking, stacking and loading areas
2.15 Minimum design requirements and improvements for parking areas
2.16 Minimum design requirements and improvements for parking spaces within parking
areas or parking bays
Minimum design requirements and improvements for vehicle access aisles
Minimum design requirements and improvements for loading areas
Minimum design requirements and improvements for dumpster pads
Parking lots and parking structures
Parking structures
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Assisted living facility: A residential facility licensed by the state department of social services where a level
of service is provided by an adult care residence for adults who may have physical or mental impairments
and require at least moderate assistance with the activities of daily living. Included in this level of service are
individuals who are dependent in behavior pattern (i.e., abusive, aggressive, disruptive) as documented on
the uniform assessment instrument.
Automated teller machine (ATM): A machine that acts as a teller for standard banking transactions such as
cash withdrawals, deposits, and checking account balances, regardless of where it is located.
Congregate care facility: A residential facility for persons who are elderly or of impaired functional ability.
Such facilities are characterized by a variety of elements that include common dining, social and
recreational features, special safety and convenience features designed for the needs of the elderly, such
as emergency call systems, grab bars and handrails, special door hardware, cabinets, appliances,
passageways, and doors designed to accommodate wheelchairs. A congregate care facility must provide
on an appropriate, regular basis at least two of the following to qualify for the parking standard: meal
services, transportation, housekeeping or organized social activities.
Facility vehicle: A van, pickup truck, car or other passenger vehicle licensed for street use, intended for
daily business use by a contractor in the operation of a contracting business, and stored at the contractor's
yard overnight. Loaders, backhoes, bulldozers, dump trucks and similar construction equipment are not
facility vehicles.
Parking structure: A multi-storied structure located wholly or partly above grade and designed for the
purpose of garaging vehicles. A parking structure may be incorporated into one or more structures
containing commercial or residential uses.
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Personal service shop: Shops and offices whose primary business relies on customers coming and going
on a regular basis including, but not limited to, offices for some doctors, chiropractors and massage
therapists, and barber/beauty shops, shoe repair shops, and dry cleaners.
Service industry: A business where multiple employees perform their work primarily through telephones
and computers, in large communal areas or in small cubicles, rather than in individual offices
Shopping center: For purposes of section 4.12, one or more buildings containing a minimum of ten
thousand (10,000) square feet of gross leasable area and eight (8) or more retail stores, personal service
shops or restaurants under the same management or association for the purpose of providing property
management, parking, site coverage, advertising, promotion and other similar benefits. In addition, the
building or buildings shall have one or more of the following characteristics: (1) the stores, personal service
shops or restaurants are connected by party walls, partitions, canopies or similar features; or, (2) some or
all of the stores, personal service shops or restaurants are located in separate buildings that are designed
as a single commercial group sharing common parking areas and vehicular travelways and are connected
by walkways and accessways designed to encourage customer interchange between the buildings and
otherwise present the appearance of a continuous commercial area without regard to ownership. Any site
within a group of uses or separate parcel involving the sale of gasoline shall be excluded from this definition
of shopping center.
Stacking: An area for temporary queuing of vehicles while awaiting entry for service.
Stand alone parking: A parking area, including a parking structure, located on a lot other than the lot on
which the use served by the parking area is located, that is the primary use for that lot.
Student suites: Units with a common living, dining and kitchen area shared by individuals occupying leased
or rented bedrooms having their own private bathrooms, and located in multi-unit residential buildings.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12 Parking, stacking and loading
Sec. 4.12.1 Purpose and intent
These parking, stacking and loading regulations establish minimum standards applicable to new uses,
structures or parking areas, or redeveloped sites, for the purposes of: (1) maximizing the safety and
functionality of parking areas; (2) providing parking and loading facilities in a reasonable proportion to one
or more use's needs; (3) reducing minimum parking requirements to coincide with common usage rather
than peak usage; (4) minimizing the visual and environmental impacts of parking areas on adjacent lands;
and (5) supporting mass transit opportunities. These regulations also encourage the application of
transportation demand management strategies and allow flexibility in design to reduce traffic congestion
and the amount of land that must be devoted to parking for commercial, industrial and public facility uses.
Sec. 4.12.2 Applicability
The regulations of section 4.12 shall apply as follows:
General applicability. Except as provided in section 4.12.3, these parking, stacking and loading
regulations shall apply to: (1) each new use or structure approved after the date of adoption of
these regulations; and (2) each change or intensification of any use that necessitates additional
parking, but only to the extent of the additional parking. Each use or structure to which these
regulations apply shall be subject to the following:
All parking areas having four (4) or more spaces, regardless of whether the number of
spaces exceeds the applicable minimum number required by sections 4.12.6 or 4.12.7,
and all stacking and loading areas, shall satisfy the minimum specifications for parking
area design required in section 4.12.15.
Neither a certificate of occupancy nor a zoning compliance clearance shall be issued until
the zoning administrator determines that the required parking, stacking and loading
improvements have been completed and are operational for the use or structure for which
the improvements are required.
All parking spaces provided in excess of the minimum number of spaces required by
sections 4.12.6 and 4.12.7 shall comply with the requirements of this section 4.12 and
section 32.
Exceptions. These parking, stacking and loading regulations shall not apply to parking, stacking or
loading spaces for uses or structures approved by the county in a valid preliminary or final site plan
or a valid preliminary or final subdivision plat prior to the date of adoption of section 4.12,
regardless of whether those spaces have been constructed or otherwise established.
Modification or waiver. The limitation on the maximum number of parking spaces required by
subsection 4.12.4(a) and the design requirements in sections 4.12.15, 4.12.16, 4.12.17, 4.12.18
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
and 4.12.19 may be modified or waived, and in any commercial or industrial zoning district the
minimum number of parking spaces required by section 4.12.6 may be modified, in an individual
case if the zoning administrator finds that the public health, safety or welfare would be equally or
better served by the modification or waiver and that the modification or waiver would not otherwise
be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter.
For each request to modify the minimum number of parking spaces required by section
4.12.6, the developer shall submit a study prepared by a transportation planner, traffic
consultant, licensed engineer or architect justifying the modification. The study shall
include the following: (i) a calculation of the number of off-street parking spaces required
by section 4.12.6; (ii) the total square footage of all uses within the existing and proposed
development and the square footage devoted to each type of use therein; (iii) trip
generation rates expected for the uses within the existing and proposed development; (iv)
data pertaining to a similar use or uses and the associated parking needs; (v) the
developer's plan to provide alternative solutions to off-street parking on the lot; (vi) the
developer's plan to provide incentives for employees to use transportation modes other
than single-occupancy motor vehicles; and (vii) an amended site plan, or if no site plan
exists, a schematic drawing, demonstrating that the number of off-street parking spaces
required by section 4.12.6 can be established on the lot, and showing which spaces would
not be established if the modification is granted.
The zoning administrator may modify or waive a design requirement in sections 4.12.15,
4.12.16, 4.12.17, 4.12.18 and 4.12.19 only after consultation with the county engineer, who
shall advise the zoning administrator whether the proposed waiver or modification would
equally or better serve the public health, safety or welfare.
In granting a modification or waiver, the zoning administrator may impose such conditions
as deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. In granting a request
to modify the minimum number of parking spaces required by section 4.12.6, the zoning
administrator may also require that the developer reserve an area on the lot equal to the
reduced number of parking spaces for a specified period, and under conditions, imposed
by the zoning administrator.
Review of modification or waiver. The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a
modification or waiver with conditions objectionable to the developer may be considered by the
commission as part of its review of: (1) a plat, as provided in sections 14-220 and 14-225 of the
Code; (2) a site plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.6 and 32.4.3.6; or (3) a special use permit.
The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver only as follows:
The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver with
conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors as
an appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site
plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver
pertains. A modification or waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an
application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of supervisors.
In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the modification or
waiver based upon the finding set forth in subsection (c), amend any condition imposed by
the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in
subsection (c).
Sec. 4.12.3 Prohibited activities in parking, stacking and loading areas
The following activities are prohibited:
a. In any parking, stacking or loading area:
Uses. The sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicle or equipment; the storage of
materials, supplies or merchandise; the storage of refuse, recycling or similar disposal
containers; or other use that would prevent the parking, stacking or loading area, or any
portion thereof, from being used for its intended purpose. This prohibition shall not apply to
single-family dwelling units or to temporary uses or activities approved by the zoning
administrator.
Discontinuation, elimination or reduction of area. The discontinuation, elimination or
reduction of a required parking, stacking or loading area, any part thereof, or any required
parking spaces, including those in garages or provided for residential uses, so long as the
use requiring such area(s) or parking spaces continues, unless an alternative equivalent
area complying with these regulations are established as required by this chapter. For any
use subject to a site plan, the removal of any parking spaces shall require an amendment
to the site plan.
b. On any lot, including any parking, stacking or loading area, except where expressly authorized:
1. Parking, storage or use of major recreational equipment. No major recreational equipment
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
shall be used for living, sleeping or other occupancy when parked or stored on any lot or in
any other location not approved for such use. For purposes of this section, the term "major
recreational equipment" includes, but is not limited to, travel trailers, pickup campers,
motorized dwellings, tent trailers, boats and boat trailers, house-boats, and trailers, cases
or boxes used for transporting such recreational equipment, whether occupied by the
equipment or not.
Trucks with minimum gross vehicle weight or major recreational equipment. No truck with
a gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds or major recreational
equipment shall be parked in any residential district other than the rural areas (RA) zoning
district, except for purposes of making pickups or deliveries, in any location other than an
off-street parking area shown on an approved site plan or subdivision plat.
Parking or storage of inoperable vehicles. No inoperable vehicle shall be parked or stored
on a lot within any agricultural or residential district, including the rural areas (RA) zoning
district, unless the vehicle is within a fully enclosed building or structure, or are otherwise
shielded or screened from view from all public roads and adjoining properties. No more
than two (2) inoperable vehicles may be parked or stored on a lot.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or prohibit parking or storing the
vehicles and equipment described herein on a street or highway.
Sec. 4.12.4 Parking areas
The following requirements shall apply to all parking areas, except as otherwise expressly provided:
Maximum number of spaces. The number of parking spaces in a parking area may not exceed the
number of spaces required by this section by more than twenty (20) percent.
Spaces to satisfy minimum ADA requirements. The number, location, and dimensions of fully
accessible parking spaces, and the provision of access aisles, curb ramps, signage and other
specifications for those spaces shall be as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
current editions of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines and Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code.
Rounding off to determine minimum number of required parking spaces. When the calculation of
the minimum number of required parking spaces results in something other than a whole number,
the minimum required number of parking spaces shall be rounded off to the closest whole number.
Garages. Garage spaces on a lot may be counted towards the minimum number of required
parking spaces.
Sec. 4.12.5 Location of parking areas
The following requirements shall apply to establishing the location of all parking areas, except as otherwise
expressly provided:
Parking areas on same lot as primary use; exception. All parking spaces shall be established on
the same lot with the primary use to which it is appurtenant, except as authorized by section 4.12.8.
Determining minimum yard requirements. For the purpose of determining minimum yard
requirements of the various zoning districts, the term "off-street parking space" consists of the
parking space or stall together with the adjacent aisle and turnaround.
Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Except when alternative parking is approved as provided in section 4.12.8, the following schedule shall
apply to determine the number of required off-street parking spaces to be provided in a particular situation.
If a particular use is not scheduled, then section 4.12.7 shall apply.
Assisted riving facility. One space per three (3) beds.
Automated teller machines (ATMs): Two (2) spaces per each outdoor walk-up type; five (5) stacking
spaces per each drive-up type.
Automobile service station and truck repair shop: One (1) space per each employee plus two (2) spaces
per each service stall. In addition, when accessory activities such as the rental of automobiles, trucks and
trailers of all types exist on the site, there shall be provided suitable area to accommodate the highest
number of rental units expected at any one time.
Barber shop, beauty shop: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area plus one
(1) space per employee.
Boardinghouse: One (1) space per two (2) beds plus one (1) space per employee.
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Campground: One (1) space per campsite; for group campsites, adequate parking space shall be provided
for buses as determined by the zoning administrator.
Church: In the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan, if the area of assembly seats more
than one hundred persons, one (1) space per three (3) fixed seats or per seventy-five (75) square feet of
area of assembly, whichever shall be greater; if the area of assembly seats one hundred persons or fewer,
one (1) space per four (4) fixed seats or per seventy-five (75) square feet of area of assembly, whichever
shall be greater. In the rural areas identified in the comprehensive plan, the number of proposed spaces
shall be shown in a parking study submitted by the church; the number of required spaces shall be
determined by the zoning administrator, who shall consider the recommendations in the parking study,
traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, peak parking demands, and other relevant information. Nothing herein requires the parking
study to be prepared by a transportation engineer.
Club, lodge: One (1) space per three (3) fixed seats or per seventy-five (75) square feet, whichever shall be
greater.
Contractor's (construction office, shop, equipment storage and materials) yard: One (1) space per
employee assigned to work on-site plus one (1) space per facility vehicle.
Day care center, nursery facilities: One (1) space per ten (10) children enrolled in the major class or shift
plus one (1) space per employee. In addition, a pick-up and drop-off area shall be provided on the site.
Dental clinic: One (1) space per one hundred seventy-five (175) square feet of net floor area.
Drive-in restaurant: Eighteen (18) spaces per each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area.
Drive-in lane serving any use: The number of stacking spaces shall be determined by the zoning
administrator using a combination of traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by
Institute of Transportation Engineers. The stacking spaces shall be designed so as not to impede required
parking spaces, pedestrian or vehicular circulation.
Dry cleaning: One (1) space per fifty (50) square feet open to the public plus one (1) space per employee.
Dwellings:
Single family detached (including manufactured homes): Two (2) spaces per unit, except when the
Virginia Department of Transportation requires three (3) spaces to offset the loss of ancillary on-
street parking because a reduced urban street width has been permitted in accordance with the
"VDOT Subdivision Street Requirements."
Multi-family units, including duplexes, single family attached, and townhouses, but excluding
student suites:
Number of
Bedrooms/Unit
Any unit of 500 square feet or less
One (1) bedroom
Two (2) or more bedrooms
Parking
Spaces/Unit
1.25
1.50
2.00
In addition, if parking is provided on individual lots, such as for duplexes and single family
attached townhouses, rather than in lots or bays that are shared by all units in the
development, then one (1) guest space per four (4) units shall be provided.
Student suites: One and one-quarter (1 1/4) spaces per bedroom.
Multi-family dwellings forthe elderly: One and one-quarter (1 1/4) spaces per unit plus one (1)
space per employee on the largest shift; provided that for a congregate care facility, one (1) space
per unit plus one (1) space per employee on the largest shift.
Feed and seed store: One (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of retail sales area.
Financial institution: One (1) space per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of gross floor area. This
requirement may be reduced by twenty-five (25) square feet per drive-in aisle. Each drive-through lane
serving a financial institution shall provide a minimum of five (5) stacking spaces that shall not impede any
required parking or loading spaces or any pedestrian or vehicular circulation aisles.
Food store: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area.
Funeral home: One (1) space per three (3) fixed seats or per seventy-five (75) square feet area of
assembly, whichever shall be greater.
Furniture store and other large sized retail items such as appliances, carpeting, office equipment or specific
building materials: One (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of retail sales area.
Gift, craft, antique shop: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area; provided
that for any area devoted to furniture, parking shall be one (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
such area.
Greenhouse and nursery:
Sales area within a greenhouse that is not in conjunction with any other retail sales: One (1) space
per one hundred (100) square feet for the first one thousand (1,000) square feet and one (1) space
for each five hundred (500) square feet of greenhouse sales area above one thousand (1,000)
square feet.
Exterior nursery sales area: One (1) space per each five thousand (5,000) square feet of exterior
nursery sales area.
Hospital: The number of proposed spaces shall be shown in a parking study submitted by the hospital.
The number of required spaces shall be determined by the zoning administrator. In making the
determination, the zoning administrator shall consider the recommendations in the parking study, traffic
generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
peak parking demands, and other relevant information.
Hotel, motel: One (1) space per unit; additional spaces shall be required for restaurants, assembly rooms,
and other separate uses identified herein.
Industrial use not otherwise identified: One (1) space per employee on the largest shift plus one (1) space
per five hundred (500) square feet open to the public for customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of
two (2) customer parking spaces.
Kennel, commercial: One (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area including runs,
plus one (1) space per employee.
Laundromat: One (1) space per two (2) washing machines.
Manufactured home, modular home, travel trailer sales: One (1) space per three thousand (3,000) square
feet of display area.
Motor vehicle sales, including automobiles, farm equipment and trucks: One (1) space per one thousand
five hundred (1,500) square feet of display area. Spaces for customers shall be clearly delineated on the
ground, signed and maintained for customers only.
Offices, business, administrative and professional (including medical offices but not dental clinics): One (1)
space per two hundred (200) square feet of net office floor area. The term "net office floor area" shall be
deemed to be: (1) eighty ($0) percent of the gross floor area; or (2) at the request of the applicant, the
actual net office floor area as shown on floor plans submitted by the applicant, delineating the actual net
office floor area, which plans shall be binding as to the maximum net floor area used.
Over-the-counter sales: One (1) space per fifty (50) square feet open to the public or one (1) space per
two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area, whichever shall be greater.
Printing and publishing facilities, including newspaper publishing: One (1) space per employee on the
largest shift, plus one (1) space per each five hundred (500) feet of floor area open to the public for
customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces.
Production, processing, testing, repairing, or servicing materials, goods or products: One (1) space per
employee on the largest shift plus one (1) space per each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area open
to the public for customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces.
Public assembly (indoor or outdoor) use not otherwise identified: One (1) space per three (3) fixed seats or
one (1) space per seventy-five (75) square feet of place of assembly, whichever shall be greater. "Fixed
seats," where the seating consists of pews, benches, bleachers and similar forms of seating, shall be
calculated at the rate of one (1) seat per two (2) feet of length. A place of public assembly includes
multipurpose areas that may be used either for assembly or recreation, and dance halls that are not
accessory to a restaurant.
Recreation, commercial and residential:
Recreation Parkin.q spaces required
Baseball field 20 per field
Basketball court2 per basket
Golf course
Horseshoe pits
Soccer field
Skating rink
Swimming pool
Tennis court
4 per hole, plus 1 per employee
2 per pit
24 per field
1 per 200 square feet of rink area
1 per 125 square feet of water surface
2 per court
For each recreation use not specified above, one (1) space per one hundred twenty-five (125)
square feet of useable recreation area.
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
The minimum number of parking spaces required for a residential recreational facility within a
subdivision shall be reduced by the percentage of dwelling units within the subdivision within
one-quarter mile of the facility.
Recreation, public: The number of proposed spaces shall be shown on a parking study. The number of
required spaces shall be determined by the zoning administrator. In making the determination, the zoning
administrator shall consider the recommendations in the parking study, traffic generation figures either
known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, peak parking demands, and
other relevant information.
Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home: One (1) space per four (4) beds. (See also Multi-family
dwellings for the elderly.)
Restaurant: Thirteen (13) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area including areas
for accessory dancing. Drive-through lanes serving restaurants shall provide a minimum of five (5) stacking
spaces that shall not impede any required parking or loading spaces or any pedestrian or vehicular
circulation aisles. The five (5) stacking spaces shall be provided at the order board and additional spaces
may be provided at the payment or pick-up windows.
Retail use not otherwise identified: One (1) space per each one hundred (100) square feet of retail sales
area for the first five thousand (5,000) square feet and one (1) space per each two hundred (200) square
feet of retail sales area above five thousand (5,000) square feet. For purposes of this paragraph, "retail
sales area" shall be deemed to be: (1) eighty (80) percent of the gross floor area; or (2) at the request of
the applicant, the actual retail sales floor area as shown on floor plans submitted by the applicant
delineating the actual retail sales area, which plans shall be binding as to the maximum retail sales area
used.
Schools: The number of proposed spaces shall be shown in a parking study submitted by the school
division (public schools) or the school (private schools). The number of required spaces shall be
determined by the zoning administrator. In making the determination, the zoning administrator shall
consider the recommendations in the parking study, traffic generation figures either known to the industry or
estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, peak parking demands, and other relevant
information.
Service industry: One (1) space per 50 square feet of net office floor area.
Shopping center:
Gross leasable area
in square feet
10,000 to 24,999
25,000 to 50,000
50,001 to 200,000
200,001 to 600,000
600,001 to 750,000
750,001 and larger
Minimum number of spaces required per
one thousand square feet of gross
leasable floor area
5.50
5.00
4.75
4.50
4.75
5.00
Theater, indoors or outdoors: One (1) space per each three (3) seats.
Touristlodging: One (1) space per unit in addition to the parking required for a single family dwelling.
Veterinary clinic: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area exclusive of that
area to house animals.
Wayside stand: One (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet of sales or display area.
Wholesaling or warehousing use not otherwise identified: One (1) space per employee plus one (1) space
per each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area open to the public for customer parking, but in all
cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces.
Wineries, including farm wineries: If open to the public, one (1) space per two and one-half (2.5)
customers for daily use. For special events and festivals, one (1) space per two and one-half (2.5)
customers, plus one (1) space per employee (includes winery staff, caterers, musicians and vendors). The
parking required for special events and festivals may be considered overflow parking and may be provided
in a well-drained, suitably graded area adjacent to required parking area.
Sec. 4.12.7 Minimum number of required parking spaces for unscheduled uses
For uses not specifically identified in section 4.12.6, including mixed uses, or when a conflict exists between
possibly applicable schedule requirements, the zoning administrator shall determine the minimum number
of required parking spaces. In making this determination, the zoning administrator shall consider the
characteristics of the proposed use or uses, anticipated employment, the number of residents and/or
visitors, the minimum parking required for similar uses or mixes and other relevant considerations. The
zoning administrator shall also consider the following:
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Permitted use not otherwise identified. A total number of spaces sufficient to accommodate the
vehicles of all employees of the establishment plus those of all persons who may be expected to
visit the same at any one time.
Concurrent uses. The zoning administrator may require additional parking for concurrent uses on
any site.
Parking study. The zoning administrator may consider the recommendations of any parking study
relevant to the request, whether it is supplied by the applicant or available from any other source,
as well as traffic generation figures, including estimates by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, peak parking demands, and other relevant information.
Sec. 4.12.8 Alternatives available to provide minimum number of parking spaces
The alternatives described herein are intended to promote more creative design, allow higher density in
those zoning districts in the development areas, and reduce impervious area by allowing the parking
requirements of this section to be satisfied, in whole or in part, by street parking, shared parking, and off-site
stand alone parking. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this section, the following
requirements shall apply to the parking alternatives provided in sections 4.12.9, 4.12.10 and 4.12.11:
Types of alternatives. The parking alternatives consist of street parking, as provided in section
4.12.9, shared parking, as provided in section 4.12.10, off-site stand alone parking, as provided in
section 4.12.11, and other reductions resulting from the provision of mass transit or other
transportation demand management tools.
Combination of alternatives. One or more parking alternatives may be used in combination with
one another or with on-site parking to attain the minimum number of required parking spaces.
Provision of means for safe movement. Sidewalks and other means for permitting safe movement
of pedestrians between the parking area or spaces and the use or structure they serve shall be
provided.
Parking not to be separated from use by major roads. No parking area or spaces shall be
separated from the use or structure they serve by a street whose classification is greater than a
major collector, unless safe and convenient access is provided from the parking area or spaces to
the use or structure and is approved by the director of planning and community development.
Instrument assuring continuation of off-site parking. If stand-alone parking or off-site shared
parking is to be provided, the applicant shall submit with the application for a site plan, site plan
waiver or, if a site plan is not required, with an application for a zoning compliance clearance, an
instrument that restricts the use of that part of the land on which parking is provided to that use, and
assures that a minimum number of parking spaces as required by this section shall be established
and maintained for the life of the use. The instrument shall be in a form that is suitable for
recording, shall be subject to review and approval as to form and substance by the county attorney,
and shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county before the site plan
or site plan waiver is approved. As the parking requirements for the use or structure change,
subsequent instruments may be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded that rescind or
modify the prior instrument.
Sec. 4.12.9 Street and alley parking
Street and alley parking may be provided as follows:
Street parking consists of parking spaces located in a public or private right-of way. Each parking
space that is in a public or private right-of-way abutting the lot shall count as a parking space for the
purpose of meeting the minimum parking space requirements in sections 4.12.6 and 4.12.7. Each
parking space shall be on a paved area abutting the travelway, and if the parking space is in a
public right-of-way it shall not be prohibited by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Alley parking consists of parking areas located in the alley right-of-way. A parking space in an alley
may meet the minimum parking space requirements in section 4.12.6 if approved by the county
engineer. In approving alley parking, the county engineer shall consider the width of the travelway,
the widths of the lots abutting the alley, and the setbacks from the alley.
Sec. 4.12.10 Shared parking
Shared parking allows parking spaces to be shared among two (2) or more uses that typically experience
peak parking demands at different times and is located on the same lot or on nearby lots. Because parking
spaces are shared, the total number of parking spaces that would otherwise be required may be reduced.
In addition to all other applicable requirements of this section, the following requirements shall apply to
shared parking:
Authority to reduce aggregate number of parking spaces. The zoning administrator may reduce
the aggregate minimum number of required parking spaces, provided that each use participating in
the shared parking experiences peak parking demands at different times. The zoning administrator
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
shall base this decision on the particular circumstances of the application.
Parking study. Before making the decision to allow shared parking and to reduce the aggregate
number of parking spaces, the zoning administrator may require the applicant to submit a parking
study to determine the peak parking demand periods or other information needed to determine the
viability of shared parking under the particular circumstances of the application.
Effect of reserved parking spaces. Parking spaces reserved for specific individuals or classes of
individuals shall not be counted toward the parking spaces that could be shared, except for those
spaces designated and marked for use only by handicapped persons.
Maximum reduction. The aggregate number of parking spaces required for all uses participating in
the shared parking shall not be reduced by more than thirty-five (35) percent.
Sec. 4.12.11 Stand alone parking
Where authorized by the applicable zoning district regulations, stand alone parking allows parking areas to
be located on a lot other than the lot on which the use served by the parking areas is located. Stand alone
parking is not required to be located on a lot under the same ownership as the lot on which the use served
by the parking is located. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this section, the following
requirements shall apply to stand alone parking:
Site plan required. A site plan for the stand alone parking shall be submitted and approved under
section 32.
Identification of use served. At least one (1) sign shall be posted in the parking area identifying the
off-site use served by the parking area.
Sec. 4.12.12 Transportation demand management
Transportation demand management ("TDM") is a set of tools that provide an alternative to parking spaces
upon a demonstration that the number of vehicle trips upon which the minimum number of parking spaces
required herein will be reduced. TDM tools include, but are not limited to, mass transit, car pooling, and
park and ride lots.
Application. An applicant seeking to reduce the number of required parking spaces through TDM
shall submit to the zoning administrator a parking study demonstrating how the number of required
parking spaces may be reduced through TDM.
Authority to reduce. The zoning administrator may reduce the number of on-site parking spaces
using TDM alternatives if the parking study submitted by the applicant demonstrates that the use of
TDM tools can effectively eliminate the need for some of the required parking spaces.
Sec. 4.12.13 Loading areas
Off-street loading areas shall be provided as follows:
Loading spaces shall be provided on the same lot with the use to which it is appurtenant and shall
be adjacent to the structure it serves.
Loading spaces shall be designed so as not to impede any required parking spaces, or any
pedestrian or vehicular circulation.
Loading spaces shall be provided in addition to and exclusive of any parking requirement on the
basis of: (1) one (1) space for the first eight thousand (8,000) square feet of retail gross leasable
area, plus one (1) space for each additional twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet of retail gross
leasable area; (2) one (1) space for the first eight thousand (8,000) square feet of office space plus
one (1) space for each additional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of office space; or (3) one
(1) space for the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet of industrial floor area plus one (1) space
for each additional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of industrial floor area.
d. Additional loading spaces may be required or requested during review of the site plan.
Each site plan that depicts a commercial or industrial building of four thousand (4,000) gross
square feet or more shall provide a dumpster pad that does not impede any required parking or
loading spaces, nor any pedestrian or vehicular circulation aisles.
The requirements of this subsection may be modified or waived in an individual case if the zoning
administrator, in consultation with the county engineer, finds that the public health, safety or welfare
would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver; that the modification or waiver
would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice; and that the modification or
waiver would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter. In granting a
modification or waiver, the zoning administrator may impose such conditions as deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety or welfare.
The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver with conditions
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
objectionable to the developer may be considered by the commission as part of its review of: (1) a
plat, as provided in sections 14-220 and 14-225 of the Code; (2) a site plan, as provided in sections
32.4.2.6 and 32.4.3.6; or (3) a special use permit.
The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of any requirement of this
subsection only as follows:
The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver with
conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors as
an appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site
plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9. A modification or waiver considered by
the commission in conjunction with an application for a special use permit shall be subject
to review by the board of supervisors.
In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the modification or
waiver based upon the finding set forth in subsection (h), amend any condition imposed by
the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in
subsection (h).
Sec. 4.12.14 Preexisting or approved parking, stacking and loading areas
Each parking, stacking and loading area serving a use or structure lawfully established in accord with a
valid final site plan or subdivision plat prior to the date of adoption of these regulations, or approved in a
valid and vested preliminary site plan or subdivision plat, whose use has not changed or intensified so as to
necessitate additional parking, shall be allowed to continue, subject to the following:
Preexisting or approved parking spaces may be used to satisfy the number of parking spaces
required for a changed or intensified use if the structure to which the parking area is accessory
remains.
If the structure to which the parking area is accessory is demolished, removed, or reconstructed,
then all parking required or otherwise serving a new use or structure must comply with this section.
Pre-existing parking structures authorized by right or by special use permit by the applicable zoning
district regulations that do not comply with the requirements of section 4.12 shall be deemed to be
nonconforming structures subject to section 6 of this chapter.
Preexisting or approved parking, stacking or loading areas that are not parking structures as
described in subsection (c), and that do not comply with the requirements of section 4.12, are
accessory to a primary use and shall not obtain status as a nonconforming use or structure.
However, these areas may continue and be maintained for so long as the primary use exists.
Sec. 4.12.15 Minimum design requirements and improvements for parking areas
The following design requirements and minimum improvements shall be provided for all off-street parking
areas consisting of four (4) or more parking spaces:
Surface materials. All parking areas consisting of four (4) or more spaces shall be surfaced. The
surface materials for parking areas and access aisles shall be subject to review and approval by
the county engineer, based upon the intensity of usage and Virginia Department of Transportation
pavement design guidelines and specifications. The county engineer may approve the use of
alternative surfaces deemed equivalent in regard to strength, durability, sustainability and long term
maintenance for the intensity of the use.
Grading and drainage systems. Parking area grading and drainage systems shall be designed and
constructed to minimize, to the greatest extent practical, the amount of surface runoff exiting or
entering through entrances to public streets.
Maximum grade. The maximum grade for parking spaces, loading spaces, and access aisles
abutting parking or loading spaces shall not exceed five (5) percent in any direction.
Sight distance. Minimum intersection sight distance for internal intersections of access aisles,
intersections of access aisles and pedestrian ways, and access aisles around buildings shall not be
less than one hundred (100) feet. The county engineer may increase this minimum, if the travel
speed is anticipated to exceed ten (10) miles per hour, to a sight distance commensurate with the
anticipated travel speed. If the county engineer anticipates that travel speeds of twenty (20) miles
per hour or greater may be reasonably achieved along a primary travelway serving a development,
he may require that the travelway comply with the private road horizontal and vertical standards
stated in Table A of section 14-514 of the Code for the anticipated traffic volume. Sight distance
shall be measured as provided in Section 602 of the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual.
Accessibility to loading spaces, loading docks and dumpsters. Parking areas shall be designed so
that all loading spaces, loading docks, and dumpsters are accessible by delivery and service
vehicles when all parking spaces are occupied.
f. Protective barriers and design. When deemed necessary and reasonable to assure that safe and
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
convenient access is provided, the county engineer may require: (1) raised traffic islands at the
ends of parking rows to protect parked vehicles and to prohibit parking in unauthorized areas; (2)
traffic islands and other such traffic control devices; and (3) a design that provides no parking along
the accessways providing the principal ingress, egress and circulation on the site.
Curb and gutter in parking areas and along travelways. Curbs shall be established at the edges of
parking areas or access aisles in the following circumstances: (1)in all commercial or institutional
developments requiring eight (8) or more parking spaces; (2) in all multi-family dwelling and
townhouse developments requiring eight (8) or more parking spaces; (3) where necessary to
control or direct stormwater runoff; (4) where a sidewalk is located closer than four (4) feet from
the edge of an access aisle; and (5) where necessary to contain vehicular traffic to protect
pedestrians and/or property. Gutters shall be required where necessary to control or direct
stormwater runoff. The county engineer may waive or modify this requirement if deemed
necessary to accommodate stormwater management/BMP facility design or existing uses located
in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district.
Separation of parking area from public street or private road. Where off-street parking is provided,
parking areas shall be established sufficiently inside the site so as to prevent queuing onto a public
street or private road. The minimum required separation shall be determined by the county
engineer and will be based on the intensity of traffic on the site. In any case, the minimum
separation should not be less than one (1) car length for the most minimal use.
Location of handicapped parking spaces. Parking areas shall be designed so that handicapped
parking spaces are located to provide persons with direct unobstructed access to buildings by the
shortest practical route, and to eliminate the need to cross vehicular access aisles wherever
possible.
Sec. 4.12.16 Minimum design requirements and improvements for parking spaces within parking areas or
parking bays
The following design requirements and minimum improvements shall be provided for all parking spaces
within parking areas or parking bays:
Arrangement of spaces. All parking spaces shall be perpendicular, angled, parallel or curvilinear
to the vehicle access aisle. Angled parking may be provided at sixty (60), forty-five (45) or thirty
(30) degrees from the access aisle.
Design of spaces. All parking spaces shall be designed so that no part of any vehicle will extend
over any lot line, right-of-way line, sidewalk, walkway, and driveway or aisle space.
Minimum parking space size. Parking spaces shall be the minimum sizes, and have the minimum
aisle width, provided below:
Perpendicular parking. For perpendicular parking, the minimum space and aisle widths
shall be:
Width (ft.) Length (ft.) Aisle Width (ft.)
10 18 20
9 18 24
2. Parallelparking. For parallel parking, the minimum space shall be:
Width (ft.) Length (ft.)
9 2O
3. Angled parking. For angled parking, the minimum space and aisle widths shall be:
ANGLED PARKiNG DIMENSIONS - ONE WAY CIRCULATION
ANGLE AISLE STALL
WIDTH LENGTH A B E F G H I
(DEGS.) WIDTH DEPTH
60 16 20.1 9 18 4.5 10.4 35.7 36.1 56.2 87.8 107.9
45 14 19.1 9 18 6.4 12.7 31.8 33.1 52.2 78.9 98
30 12 16.8 9 18 7.8 18 25.8 28.8 45.6 66.6 83.4
ANGLED PARKING DIMENSIONS TWO WAY CIRCULATION
ANGLE AISLE STALL
WIDTH LENGTH A B E F G H I
(DEGS.) WIDTH DEPTH
60 20 20.1 9 18 4.5 10.4 35.7 40.1 60.2 95.8 115.9
45 20 19.1 9 18 6.4 12.7 31.8 39.1 58.2 90.9 110
30 20 16.8 9 18 7.8 18 25.8 36.8 53.6 82.6 99.4
All depths, widths and lengths in the tables above are stated in feet. All angled parking
must have a parking envelope that is nine (9) feet by eighteen (18) feet within each angled
parking space. The dimensions of angled parking (as provided in the above tables in
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
columns A, B, E, F, G, H and I) shall be measured as provided in Section 602.1 (Figure
6-4) of the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual.
Curvilinearparking. For curvilinear parking, the minimum space and aisle widths shall be
the same as for perpendicular parking, except that the width of the parking space shall be
measured at the narrowest point along the length of the space, and provided that a
one-hundred (100) foot sight distance is maintained. The site distance shall be measured
as provided in Section 602.1 (Figure 6-5) of the Albemarle County Design Standards
Manual.
Handicapped parking spaces. For handicapped parking, vehicular access aisle widths
shall be the same as for perpendicular parking. In addition, a handicapped access aisle
shall be provided adjacent to each handicapped parking space, provided that the aisle may
be shared between adjacent handicapped parking spaces. The minimum space and aisle
widths shall be:
Handicap Access Van Access
Width (ft.) Length (ft.) Aisle Width (ft.) Aisle Width (ft.)
8 18 5 8
Minimum length reduction. Perpendicular and curvilinear parking space minimum length
requirements may be reduced by not more than two (2) feet when any of the following
conditions are satisfied: (i) one or more rows of parking are separated by planting islands,
median, or other such features (other than sidewalks) and allow for an unobstructed
overhang, from each row, equivalent to the reduction; or (ii) one or more rows of parking
adjacent to a building are separated from the building by planting islands, or other such
features (other than sidewalks) and allow for an unobstructed overhang, from each row,
equivalent to the reduction.
Delineation of parking spaces. Parking spaces shall be delineated in a manner that identifies and
preserves the required dimensions by paint striping, signage, or by another means approved by the
zoning administrator. The zoning administrator may authorize that bumper blocks or posts be used
to delineate parking spaces on surfaces that are not conducive to paint striping.
Bumper blocks. Bumper blocks shall be provided in parking spaces in the following circumstances,
unless waived by the county engineer: (1) the parking area has no curb or curb and gutter; (2) the
parking has curb or curb and gutter and there is a sidewalk located closer than two (2) feet from
the edge of the parking area, except that bumper blocks shall not be required where a sidewalk
has a minimum width of six (6) feet. Bumper blocks shall be constructed of a durable material
such as concrete or treated timbers. Each bumper block shall be a minimum length of six (6) feet,
a maximum height of five (5) inches, and shall be securely anchored into the pavement in at least
two (2) places.
Sec. 4.12.17 Minimum design requirements and improvements for vehicle access aisles
The following design requirements and minimum improvements shall be provided for all vehicle access
aisles:
Grade for vehicle access aisles not adjacent to parking spaces. Vehicle access aisles that are not
adjacent to parking spaces, shall not exceed a grade of ten (10) percent. The county engineer
may increase the maximum grade, upon a finding that no reasonable design alternative would
reduce or alleviate the need and that the increase in grade would be in the best interest of public
health, safety and welfare. The developer must request the waiver in writing and provide all
information necessary to justify that no reasonable design alternative exists. In no case shall the
grade exceed private road standards set forth in section 14-514 of the Code.
Entrances. Entrances to parking areas from public streets or private roads shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards. An adequate
landing and/or grade transition shall be provided for vehicle access aisles at the intersection with
public streets or private roads to allow for the stopping of vehicles and sight distance, as deemed
necessary by the county engineer to assure public safety. As a guideline, the approach grade
should not exceed four (4) percent for a distance of not less than forty (40) feet measured from the
edge of the street or road being intersected.
Vehicle access aisle standards. Vehicular access aisles that are not adjacent to parking spaces
shall comply with the following:
Two-way access aisles. The minimum travelway width for two-way access aisles shall be
twenty (20) feet.
One-way access aisles. One-way circulation is allowed provided the circulation loop or
pattern is contained within the site or sites. Public streets or private roads shall not be used
as part of the circulation loop or pattern. The minimum travelway width for one-way access
aisles shall be twelve (12) feet, with the following exceptions:
(a) Bypass traffic. A travelway width of up to sixteen (16) feet may be required to
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
allow for bypass traffic, when deemed necessary by the county engineer. In
making this determination, the county engineer shall consider the site specific
factors including, but not limited to, the length of the travelway, nature of the land
use, and internal traffic circulation.
(b)
Bank teller andATM canopy and lanes. The travelway width may be reduced for
bank teller and ATM canopies and lanes if the county engineer determines that a
reduction is necessary to accommodate the specific architectural, structural and
customer service needs of a proposed application, and the reduction will not
reduce public safety.
Turning radii. Turning radii shall be limited by the requirement to maintain one hundred (100) foot
sight distance. Turning movements for delivery vehicles or other expected truck traffic shall be
evaluated by the county engineer using AASHTO single unit truck standards or other AASHTO
standard vehicle as appropriate.
Sec. 4.12.18 Minimum design requirements and improvements for loading areas
The following design requirements and minimum improvements shall be provided for all loading areas:
Size. Loading spaces shall be a minimum of tweive (12) feet in width, fourteen and one-half (14
1/2) feet in clearance height and a length sufficient to accommodate the largest delivery trucks
serving the establishment, but in no case will such length be less than twenty-five (25) feet.
Surface materials. All loading and unloading berths shall be surfaced with a bituminous or other
dust free surface.
Design of loading spaces. Loading spaces shall be designed so that no part of any vehicle will
extend over any lot line, right-of-way line, sidewalk, driveway or aisle space.
Delineation of loading spaces. Loading spaces shall be delineated in a manner that identifies and
preserves the required dimensions with paint striping, signage, or by other means approved by the
zoning administrator. The zoning administrator may authorize that bumper blocks or posts be used
to delineate loading spaces on surfaces that are not conducive to paint striping.
Sec. 4.12.19 Minimum design requirements and improvements for dumpster pads
The following design requirements and minimum improvements shall be satisfied for all vehicle access
aisles:
a. Materials. Dumpster pads shall be concrete.
Design. The pad shall extend beyond the front of each dumpster so that the front wheels of a truck
servicing the dumpster will rest on the concrete, but in no case shall the length of a concrete pad
be less than eight (8) feet beyond the front of the dumpster. The site shall be designed so that
stormwater does not run through, and drains away from, areas where dumpsters are located in
order to minimize the potential for contaminating stormwater runoff due to contact with solid waste.
Screening. Dumpsters shall be screened as required by section 32.7.9 and, where applicable,
section 30.6.
Sec. 5.1.41 Parking lots and parking structures
A site plan shall be required for each parking lot and parking structure, unless the requirement is waived as
provided in section 32.2.2.
Article iii. District Regulations
Sec. 15.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors
pursuant to section 31.2.4:
1. Community center (reference 5.1.4).
Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2).
Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9).
4. Swim, golf, tennis, or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16).
5. Private schools.
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers;
micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances
(reference 5.1.12).
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Sec. 16.2.2
Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6).
Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5).
Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference
5.1.13).
Hospitals.
Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
Churches. (Added 9-2-81)
Cemeteries. (Added 9-2-81)
Mobile home parks (reference 5.3). (Added 3-5-86)
Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors
pursuant to section 31.2.4:
1. Community center (reference 5.1.04).
2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.02).
3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16).
5. Private schools.
6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers;
micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances
(reference 5.1.12).
7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
8. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5).
9. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference
5.1.13).
10. Hospitals.
11. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
12. Churches. (Added 9-2-81)
13. Cemeteries. (Added 9-2-81)
14. Mobile Home Parks (reference 5.3). (Added 3-5-86)
15. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
Sec. 17.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors
pursuant to section 31.2.4:
1. Community center (reference 5.1.04).
2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.02).
3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16).
5. Private schools.
6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers;
micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
(reference 5.1.12).
7.Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
8.Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5).
9. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference
5.1.13).
10. Hospitals.
11. Professional offices.
12. Retail stores and shops on a single floor, compatible with the residential characteristics of
the district, with a gross floor area not exceeding four thousand (4,000) square feet.
13. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
14. Churches. (Added 9-2-81)
15. Cemeteries. (Added 9-2-81)
16. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41). (Added 11-7-84)
17. Mobile home parks (reference 5.3). (Added 3-5-86)
Sec. 18.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors
pursuant to section 31.2.4:
1. Community center (reference 5.1.4).
2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2).
3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9).
4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16).
5. Private schools.
6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers;
micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances
(reference 5.1.12).
7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6).
8. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5).
9. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference
5.1.13).
10. Hospitals.
11. Professional offices.
12. Retail stores and shops on a single floor, compatible with the residential characteristics of
the district, with a gross floor area not exceeding four thousand (4,000) square feet.
13. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
14. Churches. (Added 9-2-81)
15. Cemeteries. (Added 9-2-81)
16. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41). (Added 11-7-84)
17. Mobile home parks (reference 5.3). (Added 3-5-86)
Sec. 19.3.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, provided that no separate application shall
be required for any such use as shall be included in the original PRD rezoning petition:
1. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
2. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.9).
3. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference
5.1.13).
4. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers;
microwave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances
(reference 5.1.12).
5. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
6. Churches. (Added 9-2-81)
7. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
8. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities reference 5.1.16). (Added 9-13-89)
9. Professional offices. (Added 6-8-94)
Sec. 20.3.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, provided that no separate application shall
be required for any such use included in the original PUD rezoning petition:
1. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
2. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
3. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference
5.1.13).
4. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers;
micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances
(reference 5.1.12).
5. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
6. Churches. (Added 9-2-81)
7. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
Sec. 20.4.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, provided that no separate application shall
be required for any such use included in the original PUD rezoning petition:
1. Uses permitted by special use permit in section 22.0, commercial, C-1.
2. Uses permitted by special use permit in section 23.0, commercial office, CO.
3. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
Sec. 20.5.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, provided that no separate application shall
be required for any such use included in the original PUD rezoning petition:
1. Uses permitted by special use permit in section 25.0, planned development - shopping
centers, PD-SC.
2. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
Sec. 22.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors
pursuant to section 31.2.4:
1. Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited to amusement centers,
bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
2. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers;
micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
appurtenances.
3. Hospitals.
4. Fast food restaurant.
5.
6.
Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0,
residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as
may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4.
7. Hotels, motels and inns.
8. Motor vehicle sales and rental in communities and the urban area as designated in the
comprehensive plan. (Added 6-1-83)
9. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
10. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended
9-9-92)
11. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding
four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by
public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes.
(Added 6-14-89)
12. Body shop. (Added 9-9-92)
13. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99).
Sec. 23.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors
pursuant to section 31.2.4:
1. Hospitals.
2. Funeral homes.
3. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers;
micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and
appurtenances.
4. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
5. Commercial uses otherwise permitted having drive-in windows (Added 11-7-84)
6. School of special instruction. (Added 1-1-87)
7. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). (Added 1-1-87)
8. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding
four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by
public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes.
(Added 6-14-89)
9. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0,
residential R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein and such conditions as
may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. (Added 6-19-91)
10. Hotels, motels and inns (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91)
11. Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91)
12. Research and development activities including experimental testing. (Added 6-9-91)
13. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical. (Added 6-10-92)
14. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
Sec. 24.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
pursuant to section 31.2.4:
1. Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers,
bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
2. Septic tank sales and related service.
3. Livestock sales.
4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.08).
6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers,
micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances
(reference 5.1.12).
7. Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13).
8. Contractors' office and equipment storage yard.
9. Auction houses.
10. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0,
residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as
may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4.
11. Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11). (Added 1- 1-83)
12. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
13. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended
9-9-92)
14. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding
four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by
public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes.
(Added 6-14-89)
15. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.2.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91)
16. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99)
Sec. 27.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors
pursuant to section 31.2.4:
1. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
2. Airport, helistop or heliport (reference 5.1.1).
3. Assembly of modular building units.
4. Moving businesses, including storage facilities.
5. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 27.2.1.17. (Amended 12-2-87)
6. Wholesale business not permitted under section 27.2.1.17. (Amended 12-2-87)
7. Truck terminal.
8. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers;
micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and
appurtenances.
9. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations (reference 5.1.27). (Added
7-7-82)
10. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding
four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by
public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes.
(Added 2-13-85)
11. Body shops (reference 5.1.31). (Added 12-7-88)
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Sec. 28.2.2
Towing and storage of motor vehicles (reference 5.1.32). (Added 6-6-90)
Uses listed under section 27.2.1 with subordinate retail sales exceeding fifteen (15) percent
of the floor area of the main use. (Added 2-20-91)
Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91)
Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors
pursuant to section 31.2.4:
1. Abattoirs.
2. Airport, helistop or heliport (reference 5.1.01).
3. Asphalt mixing plants.
4. Cement, lime gypsum manufacture or processing.
5. Chemical, plastics manufacture or processing.
6. Fertilizer manufacture or processing.
7. Food processing plants such as meat, poultry and fish processing and packing and
rendering plants.
8. Junk yards, screened (reference 5.1.10).
9. Kennels for boarding of domestic pets (reference 5.1.11).
10. Petroleum refining, including by-products (reference 5.1.20).
11. Pulp, paper manufacture or processing.
12. Storage yards not elsewhere classified, excluding storage of nuclear products, by-products
or wastes.
13. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers;
micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers; substations and
appurtenances (reference 5.1.12).
14. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding
four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by
public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes.
(Added 2-13-85)
15. Motorcycle and off-road recreation vehicles sale and service. (Added 10-15-86)
16. Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91)
17. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41).
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 32.7.2A Parking structures
In addition to all other requirements, each parking structure shall be subject to the following:
a. The developer shall submit architectural elevations with both the preliminary and final site plans.
The elevations shall be part of the approved final site plan.
b. The developer shall submit drawings, photographs or other visual materials showing the proposed
parking structure and surrounding structures (if any exist) and land uses.
c. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or building shall be screened
from public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community
Development with materials harmonious with the building or they shall be located so as not to be
visible from public view.
d. Air handlers shall be located so that emissions are directed away from any adjoining residential
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
development.
e. The structure shall be designed so that the light from all vehicle headlights and all lighting fixtures
will not routinely shine directly outside the structure.
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:35 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 (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific
legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice relating to a permit for a communication facility; under
Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to zoning
violations; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation
relating to a personnel matter. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session. At 1:52 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Thomas that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to appoint Mr. Michael Gaffney as the joint County/City
appointee to serve as Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority, with said terms to expire on December 31,2004.
Mr. Rooker also offered a motion to reappoint Ms. M. Waltine Eubanks to the Advisory Council on
Aging, with said term to expire on May 31,2005.
The motions were seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motions carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Rooker said this is the County's year to make the recommendation for the appointment of the
Chair of the two Rivanna boards. The press reported this a little differently. He said this Board made this
recommendation to the City some time ago. The City just approved the recommendation a few days ago,
so the Board is affirming today its own recommendation for Mr. Gaffney's appointment.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it is important that the Board thank Mr. Rich Collins for his job as
Chairman this past year. He did an outstanding job. He is a good citizen and a good person in the
community.
Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2002-059. Townwood Mobile Home Park Amendment (Signs #64 & 65).
Public Hearing on a request to amend existing SP-1999-074, which allows expansion of mobile home park,
by changing conditions of approval requiring the relocation of several existing mobile home units & creation
of new lots. This request is in accord w/Sec 17.2.2.17 of the Zoning Ord. TM 61, P 8, contains 12.65 acs.
Loc on Rt 631 (Rio Rd W) at intersec w/Townwood Drive [private]. Znd R-10 & EC. Rio Dist. (Notice of
this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on January 20 and January 27, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office. He said the
request is to amend the existing special use permit which was approved in 1999. Approval of this request
would change conditions that were part of that approval requiring relocation of existing mobile home units
and timing for the creation of new lots. Approval would reduce the number of new lots allowed from 32 to
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
24 and take into account several required improvements which have now been made on the property. At
this point, only six of the recently-approved mobile home units have been installed on new lots within the
park, and only two of the existing units have been relocated. (Note: Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman arrived
at 1:55 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the report covers some things which are related to supplemental regulations.
The Planning Commission approved modifications, but the Board does not have to act on those
modifications to the special use permit. Staff identified the following factors favorable to the request. The
applicant discovered that the original proposal to relocate a majority of the mobile homes throughout the
park could cause significant damage to the existing units, many of which are occupied by owners. Aside
from the realignment of the units, most of the required infrastructure and improvements to the residential
quality of live have been completed. Most of the requirements for improving the negative aesthetic impacts
of this development upon adjacent properties and roadways have been completed. This development is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for providing safe, sanitary and affordable housing. In order
to help facilitate acceptance of Townwood Drive into the VDOT system the applicant provided a drainage
easement from the on-site stormwater management facility. A screening fence that once encroached into
the right-of-way has been replaced. The screening fence adjacent to Townwood Drive will be extended 35
feet into the property to provide additional screening at the opening for the second entrance.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff also identified factors which are unfavorable to the request. This approval
will no longer require the existing mobile home units to be realigned in a more orderly configuration. There
will no longer be a requirement that the existing mobile homes be moved to more conforming distances
from property lines, until they are relocated or replaced voluntarily. Although the dedication process for
Townwood Drive has begun, no specific time frame has been set for complete acceptance of the road by
VDOT. Some adjacent and nearby property owners have expressed concern over the proposed expansion
of the mobile home park.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are other relevant factors to this consideration: this proposal allow fewer
new units than the total number approved with the existing special use permit (24 as opposed to 32). The
Townwood Mobile Home Park and Four Seasons Apartments and Townhomes share common
management. Six of the new units have all ready been placed with the mobile home park.
Mr. Cilimberg said while there are some unfavorable factors, staff reviewed this request for
compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommended
approval with amended conditions to replace those which currently exist for SP-99-74. He said the
Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 14, 2003, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval subject
to conditions.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. George McCallum was present to represent the owner, Mr. Doug Caton. He said when Mr.
Caton acquired this project in the Spring of 1999, there was a special permit that had been obtained by Mr.
Jim Hill on behalf of Dr. Hurt for 13 new mobile home lots to be added to the existing lots. That was not
implemented. Mr. Caton applied for a further amendment of the special use permit which was granted in
June, 2000 to increase the size from 13 new to 32 new. In developing the final site plan which was
approved by the County in August, 2001,30 of the 32 were utilized. In doing all of the infrastructure
improvement, those two mobile home units were moved. One was an existing unit which encroached in the
right-of-way of Townwood Drive. The second was moved to create the area needed for the 10,000 square
foot recreational area within the park. That gave the applicant experience with moving. Each move took
two days because the porches had to be removed, utilities disconnected, and then after the move
reconnected. The cost was about $3500 each and caused damage to the interiors of the units. This was
not a good experience. Looking at the plan for the 30 new lots, there was need to move and realign 66
existing units in order to accommodate 30 new lots. If the new lots were reduced from 33 to 24, then only
seven units would need to be moved, and two of those have been moved, leaving five to be moved. If they
chose not to move three of those units, then the number of new lots drops to 24.
Mr. McCallum said this application is simple in concept but has many details. These amendments
and modifications will allow 66 existing units to remain in place. Also, the building area within a number of
new lots will accommodate longer mobile homes. He said the Commission voted 6:0 to approve the
application with conditions. The applicant is in agreement with all of the modifications and conditions,
except for one. That concerns the issuance of certificates of occupancy for new lots 14 through 24
(Condition No. 4) before the second entrance is accepted into the highway system. The applicant has
graded and graveled that second entrance on his property. Having Townwood Drive taken into the State
Highway System has been on-going for years. He understands the County has forwarded information to
VDOT a second time for its final review. VDOT will not entertain a highway entrance permit until the road is
in the State System.
Mr. McCallum said he has some alternate language to propose. They ask that the Board not put a
restriction on the 14th through the 24th lot, and that Condition No. 4 be modified to require that the owner
make the connection to Townwood Drive within 120 days after the issuance of a highway entrance permit
by VDOT. Condition No. 4 should also require that the owner apply for this within 60 days after he is
notified that Townwood Drive has been accepted into the State Highway System. With the existing and 13
new units, 86 units would be permitted before the second road connection.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. McCallum made this presentation to the Commission. Mr. McCallum
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
said he did, but they rejected the argument.
Mr. Bowerman asked the Commission's reasons for rejecting this argument. Mr. Cilimberg said
they supported the staff's feeling that there are over 50 units now without a second access. They were
concerned about adding more units without that access. Mr. McCallum said the site plan ordinance calls
for a second access if there are more than 50 dwelling units, and there are more than 50. The issue is not
the requirement for it, but the timing or providing that access.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff knows when the road might be accepted into the State system. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff still does not have any word about acceptance, other than VDOT is still reviewing the
request.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is anything the applicant needs to do for that acceptance to take place.
Mr. Cilimberg said the request comes from the private sector through the County, and all possible
information has been provided to VDOT.
Mr. Rooker asked the amount of the investment in improvements other than buying the facility. Mr.
Caton said he has spent over $1.0 million in improvements to the property since he purchased it.
Mr. Rooker said there has been a remarkable improvement in appearance of the facility. It
certainly is a service to the people who live in that area to see that upgrade take place.
Ms. Thomas said she traveled by the site and saw the chain across the road. She asked if that
second entrance is usable. Can the fire department use that entrance? Mr. Caton said the Police and Fire
Department suggested a chain be put up because there is curb and gutter and gravel compacted right up
to the pavement. It would be very easy for people to use that as a second entrance. He is only waiting for
permission from VDOT to connect.
Ms. Thomas wondered if there is any compromise that can be reached. The County would like to
see a second entrance to the property that the fire department can use. Mr. Bowerman said if the fire
department wanted to get in, they would cut the chain.
Mr. Dick Abaden said he works for a sister management company called CMS. He oversaw the
construction. During this long process with The Kessler Group trying to get the right-of-way accepted, they
got to the end of the physical improvements. Then they met with the fire marshal on the site and talked
about graveling the road up to the property line and leaving a ten-foot strip of grass. The fire marshal
suggested putting a chain across the entrance, and giving him a key for emergency access.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said the lack of public comments tonight highlights the work that has been done.
He said the people in the homes on Townwood Drive are evidently no longer as concerned about this
property as they used to be. He said the improvements made to this mobile home park are astounding. He
thinks the Commission did take a good look at the request. If emergency access is needed, the fire
department has access to the site either by key or the use of bolt cutters. He then offered motion to
approve SP-2002-059, subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, but
changing Condition No. 4 to read: "Completion of the second entrance onto Townwood Drive, in the
location shown on the site plan, within 120 days after issuance of a highway entrance permit by VDOT.
Owner shall apply to VDOT for a highway entrance permit for this second entrance within 60 days after
owner is notified that Townwood Drive has been accepted by VDOT into the State Highway System."
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
Pending the satisfaction of all conditions of approval for the special use permit
and Planning Commission modifications of Section 5.3, a maximum of
twenty-four (24) of the new mobile home lots (N1 - N24) shall be allowed in the
mobile home park. Those new lots shall be arranged generally in the areas and
configuration shown on the applicant's revised plan, dated July 12, 2002;
No mobile home units shall be relocated or installed, nor shall any new
construction activity take place until after a major site plan amendment has been
approved for the requested changes. Lots N3, N4, N6, N7, N8, N22, N23 and
N24 on the applicant's revised plan dated July 12, 2002, are exempt from this
condition;
A landscape plan shall be submitted for review with the required major site plan
amendment and shall show the locations of any previously approved landscape
material that will be relocated to coordinate with the revised mobile home
locations;
Completion of the second entrance onto Townwood Drive, in the location shown
on the site plan, within One hundred twenty (120) days after issuance of a
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
highway entrance permit by VDOT. Owner shall apply to VDOT for a highway
entrance permit for this second entrance within sixty (60) days after owner
notified that Townwood Drive has been accepted by VDOT into the state highway
system;
Additional shade tolerant screening trees shall be provided along the south and
west sides of the stormwater detention pond from adjacent residential properties
located within the Townwood Townhomes development. Screening trees shall
be subject to Landscape Planner's approval;
Entrance radii at Route 631 shall be shown on the amended site plan. Vehicle
tracking paths for a mobile home trailer shall be shown on the plan for trailers
turning off of Route 631 into the mobile home park; and
A prepared walkway shall be constructed from the nearest parking spaces to any
lots that do not front on the internal private street.
Agenda Item No. 19. SP-2002-064. Free Union Country School Amendment (Sign #38). Public
Hearing on a request to amend existing SP-1999-020 to allow for increase from 90 to 120 students & staff
in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ord. TM 29, P 15D, contains 4.76 acs. Loc on SW side of Rt 601
(Free Union Rd), approx 800 ft SE from intersec of Rt 601 & Rt 665 (Buck Mountain Rd). Znd RA. White
Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on January 20 and January 27,
2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant is requesting approval to amend SP-1999-020
to allow for an increase in school population (combined students and staff) from 90 people to 125 people.
The applicant is also requesting approval to construct a two-story 3000 square foot activity building with
offices, an 1800 square foot pre-school building and playground, and 12 new parking spaces. Hours of
operation are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., with some activities going until 5 p.m.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff found the following factors favorable to the application: the school has
operated over 18 years without adverse impacts to the surrounding properties or the general public, and,
the school provides a service to families in the Rural Area who want an alternative to public school (there is
no public elementary school in the vicinity of this site). Staff found no significant factors that are unfavorable
to the request. However, continued expansion of the school has allowed it to reach a size that is larger than
most private schools in the Rural Area. Future expansions may call into question the appropriateness of
the scale of this use/school for the Rural Areas. The applicant stated at the Commission meeting that there
is an upper limit that they should not exceed in their operations, and he believes this application brings them
to that number. He does not believe they anticipate any further expansion.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval subject to conditions, and the Planning
Commission, at its meeting on January 21,2003, by a vote of 7:0, also recommended approval subject to
conditions.
With no questions for staff at this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jay Fennell, administrator and teacher at the school, spoke. He said it is clear they are located
in a rural area. That is critical to the school and is an integral part of the curriculum they pursue. He
stressed the importance of these changes to the future of the school. Mr. Cilimberg referred to a baseline
number of students that they need. They were advised by a consultant that around 100 to 105 students is
the minimum base a small private school can have to have a sound financial structure. By adding
improvements and having a student population around 100 to 105 students, they think this will secure the
future of the school.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to approve SP-2002-064 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
If licensure is not required by the State Department of Welfare, this approval
shall constitute a waiver of Section 5.1.6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, set forth
below:
a. No such use shall operate without any required licensure by the Virginia
Department of Welfare as a childcare center. It shall be the
responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning
administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter
and to notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration,
suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to
do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
b. Periodical inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle
County fire official at his/her discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire
official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with
the provisions of this ordinance; and
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be
deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State
Fire Marshall, or any other local, state, or Federal agency;
A site plan shall be required for the proposed buildings shown on the concept
plan, entitled Proposed Site Plan Improvements and Additions to Free Union
Country School, revised date January 7, 2003;
Construction of additional improvements at the site shall require amendment of
the approved site plan; and
Maximum school population (combined students and staff) shall not exceed one
hundred and twenty-five (125) persons or such lesser number as may be
approved by the State Department of Health and/or the Thomas Jefferson
Health District, or as necessary in order to comply with the requirements of
Section 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 20. SP-2002-067. Spring Hill Stream Crossing-Extension (Signs #86 & 88).
Public Hearing on a request to allow extension of the deadline to begin work on approved stream crossing
until April 25, 2005, in accord w/Sec 30.3.05.2.1.2 of the Zoning Ord. TM 58, P 95, contains 442.656 acs.
Loc on Rt 637 (Dick Woods Rd) approx 0.5 mis from intersec of Rt 637 & 1-64. Znd RA. Samuel Miller
Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on January 20 and January 27,
2003.)
Agenda Item No. 21. SP-2002-068. Spring Hill Subdivision Amendment. Public Hearing on a
request to allow amendment of conditions for an approved special use permit (to reduce the width of a
stream buffer required by a condition of the permit and to delete a limitation on land clearing) in accord
w/Sec 10.2.2.30 of the Zoning Ord. TM 58, P 95, contains 442.656 acs. Loc on Rt. 637 (Dick Woods Rd)
approx 0.5 mis from intersec of Rt 637 & 1-64. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing
was published in the Daily Progress on January 20 and January 27, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 22. SP-2002-069. Spring Hill Subdivision Extension. Public Hearing on a
request to allow extension of deadline to begin work on approved subdivision until April 25, 2004, in accord
w/Sec 10.2.2.30 of the Zoning Ord. TM 58, P 95, contains 442.656 acs. Loc on Rt 637 (Dick Woods Rd)
approx 0.5 mis from intersec of Rt 637 & 1-64. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing
was published in the Daily Progress on January 20 and January 27, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg said these requests are summarized in one staff report (on file in the Clerk's Office
with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors). The applicant requested a time extension for SP-
2000-034 (permit was issued for a subdivision of land that required a special use permit). The applicant
also requested to change one condition (reducing a required stream buffer easement along Ivy Creek from
100 to 35 feet, in accordance with the request of the intended holder, the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water
Conservation District. He also requested deletion of another condition regarding the extent of land clearing
for residential uses.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant also applied for a time extension for the subdivision permit
mentioned above. However, since that permit approval included a condition requiring submittal of a rural
division plat within 18 months to avoid expiration, and that plat was submitted well in advance of that date,
SP-2002-034 will not expire. Therefore, SP-2002-069 is not needed and the fee will be refunded.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of both SP-2002-067 and SP-2002-068, as did the
Commission, subject to conditions. Staff noted that for the subdivision request the narrower buffer meets
the standards of the easement holder. Unfavorable factors are: removing the limit on residential clearing
would permit conversion of the land from a wooded state to a state that could reduce groundwater
recharge and increase forest fragmentation and visual impacts, without ensuring that those impacts were
created for the purpose of a priority rural area activity such as agriculture or forestry. Removing the limit on
residential clearing would facilitate the conversion of rural lands to a suburban or "estate lot" residential
character. Conversions to impervious cover created by residential uses tend to be difficult to reverse.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended a substitute condition at the Commission's meeting and it
was accepted (Substitute for No. 6 would read "Land clearing for this residential development site [including
accessory structures such as sheds or pools] shall be limited to no more than two acres [includes 1.05
acres required for the 35,000 square-foot building site and 10,000 square-foot septic site]. This condition is
not intended to limit agriculture, horticulture or forestry on the parcel.") He said that some Commissioners
asked that the Board consider the effect of increasing the permitted distance from the house in Condition 6.
Staff drafted a table showing the acreage that could be converted to residential uses given different
permitted distances (table was mailed to the Board members with the materials for this meeting). He said
that the Commission, at its meeting on January 21,2003, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval subject
to conditions.
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Mr. Rooker asked if the only issue now is between the Commission and the applicant over
Condition No. 6. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes."
With no questions for staff at this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ethan Miller said the land is owned by himself and his wife. This property was originally 795
acres, and was owned by his wife's grandmother. In 1981 the property was subdivided. At that time it was
anticipated that the property would be divided into 80 lots. In 1981, with two special permits, the property
was divided into 33 lots. Under the ordinance in effect in 1981, this property qualified for 41 divisions.
Division was not done by-right because technically a portion of the property was zoned for Village-
Residential. Staff said since the lots were too big for village residential, they asked that the application be
under the special use permit procedure. Of course, the ordinance has changed since then.
Mr. Miller said a few years later his wife's grandmother died and they bought the property to settle
the estate. They actually did no division of the property. A portion of the property to the south was
transferred to an adjoining property (about 34 acres) and with that went one of the division rights. At this
time, there is a 440-acre residue with seven division rights left from the original 41. He showed a map
outlining three different configurations for the 440 acres, areas which are topographically very different one
from the other. Areas "A" and "C" are accessed by external roads, while Area "B" is accessed by the
subdivision road.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the subdivision has been built. Mr. Miller said "yes", all 33 lots are sold and
homes built and have been there for at least 10 years. He said that they have no plans to further develop.
In looking at what to do with the land, they decided to use the seven remaining rights and to create some
large parcels. In 2000, he came with a plan to cut off one lot with one building right for one house on 102
acres with access to Route 677. For this he needed a stream crossing permit. The Planning Commission
and the Board approved it, but Condition No. 6 limited the use of the 102 acres to clearing only two acres
for residential use. He was not happy with that condition, but thought it probably would not matter and he
would wait to see how a buyer might feel. The property was put on the market in July of 2000 and remains
on the market. There have been no offers for the property. Prospective purchasers have been confused
about the conditions. One person asked if their child wanted a pony if that would be considered agricultural
use or residential use since they did not plan to have commercial boarding, the horse would be a "pet." Mr.
Miller said he did not know. Another comment from the same prospective purchase was that his wife would
like to have a flower garden, and asked if that is residential use or horticultural use. He said this condition
has created a chilling effect of uncertainty. This is a large lot and he anticipates it will have an expensive
home. People who are interested in the property will not buy the property first and wait to find out later that
they cannot do what they want to do.
Mr. Miller said he asks today that the condition be deleted. In terms of what was done in 1981,
there was no restriction non any of the other lots as to residential use. Some lots are small (3 to 5 acres)
while others are five to ten acres. This would not be consistent with what the Board meant in 1981 when
the property was divided. He said there is a by-right subdivision just to the south of this property which has
23-acre lots. There is no restriction there on the amount of residential use. He said this is a heavily
developed area in the Ivy area. There are no restrictions like this anywhere else in the Ivy area. He
understands this is more restrictive than what the County would require under the ACE program for
conservation easements. He thinks it would be fair to have no restrictions because there are no restrictions
on other properties in the area.
Mr. Miller said at the Commission's meeting, the Planning staff said their major concern was
protecting the forest canopy. They changed that restriction somewhat, but whether it says the land can't be
cleared, or that there can be no structures, is the same thing. He said there is no protected forest canopy
although that may be a laudable goal. He thinks the way to save this property would be to allow residential
use of same. His final point is that there is a financial incentive, which is land use taxation. Most people
who buy large parcels attempt to preserve land use taxation so they restrict their residential use for that
reason. He asked that the Board delete the restriction in lieu of adopting the alternative the staff
recommended.
Mr. Rooker asked if when this was approved in 2000, that created an extra division right. Mr. Miller
said "no.'
Mr. Rooker said there was some reason why this parcel could not be divided. He was a member of
the Commission and was trying to recall why.
Ms. Thomas said that in the staff's report on page 1, it says "The current number of available
theoretical remaining rights on Parcel 58-95 is seven. However, based on conditions of special use permits
on this property, any further division will require Board approval. That approval must be based on the
proposal's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. There are no inherent development rights that may
be exercised without such an approval." She thinks that was the basis of the Board's action at that time.
This property is shown as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and the Board wanted to keep it as rural
as possible.
Mr. Rooker asked if the seven division rights apply to the adjoining property. Mr. Miller said the
Planning Commission also had some confusion about this question. If this property came to the County
today and had not been divided (795 acres), under the terms of the ordinance, it could be divided by-right
into 41 lots. Back in 1981, that is the way they counted, and he understands staff continues to monitor
those rights over the life of the property. Whether they are theoretical rights or not, that seems to be the
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
number. In fact, there is a provision in the ordinance which says that in figuring future divisions, additional
rights cannot be added under a special use permit that are not allowed by right. He said there could have
been 41 lots by-right if they had not chosen to do so by special use permit. He said the Board said there
could be 33 lots, but if 41 lots were wanted, the applicant would have to return. There was no implication
that the Board would not allow the 41, simply that the applicant had to return. Mr. Bowerman said that is
correct.
Mr. Rooker said today Mr. Miller is showing the property broken into three theoretical pieces. Mr.
Miller showed on the map where the existing 33 lots are located. He said the Zoning Department took the
position that when they transferred the 34 acres to the adjoining property, the transfer took one division right
with it. There are seven rights left in "A', "B' and "C'. He is asking that one of those seven go in parcel "A".
At some point in the future, "C' may be divided into two pieces. That would use three of those rights. He
does not know what they would do with the property which would have the remaining four rights. He said
his plan to continue was stopped when he got the two-acre restriction.
Mr. Rooker asked if after this process Mr. Miller would divide off "A" with one division right, and no
further division. Mr. Miller said that is correct. For the rest of the property, he would have to come back and
make a case for whatever they want to do. He does not think the property is useful with the two-acre
restriction. If the Board is not comfortable with his proposal, he will have to go back "to the drawing board"
to see what can be done with this fairly large parcel. He is asking for one dwelling on the 102-acre parcel,
with the ability for the owner to do with it what he wishes.
Mr. Rooker asked the price of the property while it was on the market. Mr. Miller said the parcel
across the street, Ivy Farm, sold for $9.5 million for 250 acres with several houses. Verulum Farm, on the
other side of the street, sold for $6.5 million for 300+ acres with houses. He said his most recent tax bill
assesses his 440+ acres for $3.0 million. He said land prices have escalated dramatically in this area.
Two-acre lots are selling for about $250,000 and they are getting "snapped up." That is why he was
surprised he had no offers at all. No one is interested in 102 acres with a two-acre use restriction.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. He asked if all three petitions could be
considered together. Mr. Cilimberg said SP-2002-69 was not needed and can be removed from the
agenda. The hearing concerns SP-2002-067 and SP-2002-068.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter ~laced
before the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff is still recommending that Condition 6 exist. She said the Commission's
minutes indicate that the condition should still exist, but that it be expanded. She asked if everybody is still
recommending a limitation. Mr. Cilimberg said that is where it was left by the Commission.
Ms. Thomas said the Board's charge is very different than that of a person trying to sell his
property. She remembers the applicant was very angry at the Board for imposing that condition, but went
ahead in good faith and put up the sale sign, and put in the access road. This is something the Board did
hoping the property could be protected from changing from the rural area. She said it is with some
depression that she will say this is no longer in fact a rural area. But, that seems to fit its neighbors, and
that is what is going on in what used to be a vineyard across from the property. It certainly reflects what is
going on in Ivy. She asked if the other Board members had any feelings about this request.
Mr. Martin said when the request was before the Board a couple of years ago there were actually
two issues. The Board gave in on one and stood ground on this one. He would hate to pay for 102 acres of
land and then be told he could only build a home on two acres of the property. He said there are no such
restrictions anywhere near this property. It is as if this piece of property has been singled out.
Mr. Dorrier said there are steep slopes and other zoning requirements on building which apply to
the parcel. In effect, the County is protected by its other regulations.
Mr. Rooker said he was trying to determine exactly what the condition protects. In a letter, Mr.
Miller had noted that under forestry use, he could cut all the timber on the property.
Ms. Thomas said that is what is wanted in the Rural Area. The Forestry Department has said the
County is letting the Rural Area get so split up that it is no longer viable for timbering. These applicants
have told her what happens when you try to timber land next to a subdivision.
Mr. Rooker said this property is now surrounded by subdivisions. The question is whether this is a
reasonable restriction, a 102-acre piece that cannot be further subdivided. He does not think the restriction
is reasonable.
Ms. Thomas said she will move for approval of both special use permits subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, but removing Condition No. 6 on SP-2002-68. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval for SP-2002-067 are set out in full below.)
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
The applicant shall secure the following approvals before removing vegetation or
beginning work on the stream crossing:
Engineering Department approval of structural computations for the
entrance and stream crossing, include structural design computations
that demonstrate the bridge can safely carry the vehicles that will access
the residence (including all emergency vehicles);
Fire & Rescue Department approval of the entrance design;
Engineering Department approval of computations and plans
documenting changes to the flood plain. Plans must show flood plain
limits and levels before and after construction. Sections 18-30.02.2 and
18-30.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. On the plan sheet, indicate
the FEMA panel and designation (Community-Panel # 510006 0215 B)
and that this section of Ivy Creek is a detailed study area;
Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits
for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands;
If the Engineering Department, after review of the hydraulic
computations, finds that the flood plain will be changed, the applicant
must obtain a map revision from FEMA;
Engineering Department approval of an erosion and sediment control
plan [17-203]. A water protection (E&SC and SWM) bond must be
posted and a pre- construction conference held prior to the issuance of a
grading permit;
Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and
enhancement of the stream buffer [17-322]. Please include planting of
trees to widen the Ivy Creek stream buffer; and
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the entrance design,
including provision of adequate sight distance.
In order to protect downstream habitat of the endangered James Spiny-mussel,
the applicant must adhere to the following conditions recommended by the
Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries:
In-stream work for constructing either entrance shall not occur from May
15 to July 31 of any year;
Any cofferdams used in in-stream work for isolating the bridge
construction area shall be non-erodible;
In-stream construction work shall block no more than fifty (50) percent of
stream flow at any given time;
Excavated material shall be removed from the flood plain to prevent re-
entry of that material into Ivy Creek or its tributaries;
Where they have been altered by construction or vegetation removal, the
original streambed and streambank contours shall be restored; and
Areas where vegetation has been removed for bridge construction shall
be replanted with similar species (except in the area occupied by the
bridge), or must be included in the tree-planting plan required as a
condition of SP-2000-34.
The existing farm entrance shall be gated and locked upon completion of the
new entrance;
The applicant shall grant the County the right to periodically enter the property
for the purpose of inspecting this stream crossing in order to verify no additional
fill has been placed and the stream crossing remains stable; and
The use, activity, or construction authorized by this permit shall commence by
April 25, 2005.
(Note: The conditions of approval for SP-2002-068 are set out in full below.)
No further division of the proposed one hundred and two (102) acre parcel
allowed by this shall be permitted. No further division of the residue of Parcel
58-95 shall be permitted without an amendment to SP-81-01 and SP-81-55;
The one hundred and two (102) acre parcel shall be created through application
for a rural division;
If an application for a rural division of Parcel 58-95 is not filed with the Planning
Department within eighteen (18) months from the Board approval date, this
permit amendment will expire;
Only one (1) dwelling unit shall be permitted on the one hundred and two (102)
acre parcel; and
5. A permanent riparian buffer easement, subject to the approval of the Water
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Resources Manager in consultation with the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water
Conservation District, shall be placed on all streams on the new one hundred
and two (102) acre parcel. The easement shall include provisions protecting
existing vegetation and a tree planting plan to be executed where existing
vegetated buffers are narrower than those called for in the easement. The plat
creating the new parcel shall not be signed until this easement has been
reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Manager. The easement
holder shall be the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District.
Agenda Item No. 23. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Mr. Tucker distributed to the Board members a copy of the schedule of Board meetings in
February, March and April. He said there is the potential for a meeting with City Council during this time
period. Council is meeting next week to look at the overall plans for the Meadow Creek Parkway. The
Board has been invited to a meeting on Wednesday, March 5, at 4 o'clock with the Piedmont College
Board. Since this the date of the Board's regular day meeting, if the Board members do not feel the
meeting will be finished by that time, he needs to let the Piedmont College President know that.
Ms. Thomas said the letter from Piedmont mentions dinner, so maybe the meeting could be
scheduled later.
Mr. Martin said these day meetings "kill him." He would be willing to do it at any other time than
after a day meeting.
Mr. Rooker said VDOT's Pre-allocation Hearing is also taking place on March 5. The Board has
discussed adjourning its meeting and attending that hearing. He wonders if PVCC would consider having
their board meeting in this building so the Supervisors did not have to travel to another location.
Mr. Tucker said the PVCC Board is having a meeting at 4 o'clock followed by dinner. The purpose
of the meeting is to discuss how PVCC can best serve the community.
Mr. Dorrier said when he met with Mayor Maurice Cox they discussed the possibility of having a
joint meeting. He then called Dr. Friedman at PVCC and asked him if that was a possibility and he said he
would check into it. Dr. Friedman called Mr. Dorrier and said there was a day the first week in March when
the Dickerson Building would be available. Dr. Friedman did not say the PVCC Board would be involved in
the meeting.
Mr. Perkins suggested this meeting be postponed until after the budget process is completed.
Mr. Tucker said he will call Dr. Friedman and explain the Board's dilemma.
Mr. Rooker mentioned a letter from City Council asking that the County participate in their
negotiations with Adelphia Cable. He thinks the County is letting an opportunity get by it. Adelphia's
bankruptcy will have nothing to do with its cable operations. Adelphia has an incentive to get an agreement
signed. Mr. Davis suggested he provide some guidance to the Board on how to proceed. He said it is in
staff's work plan. There are components of the City's process that the County can cooperate on, but it will
not work as a joint process.
Mr. Dorrier said he recently met with the Mayor and several topics were proposed for discussion at
a joint meeting of the Board and City Council.
Ms. Thomas said she understands the Mayor asked Mr. Dorrier for his views on the Meadow Creek
Parkway and may be setting up a committee.
Mr. Dorrier said the Mayor was brainstorming. They talked about several issues which the Board
and Council might discuss. The Mayor mentioned that the City will be developing behind the University
Hospital. The City is looking at some type of public transportation between Downtown and the Hospital
area. They are applying for a grant. He asked if the County might want to join in on the grant application.
The bigger issue is that the City is developing economic corridors, and he was interested in the City's
Planning staff explaining those corridors to this Board to see how they would mesh with development
around the City. The third issue brought up was the Meadow Creek Parkway which is moving along in good
order. He suggested that the City and County might want to have a board or some group to oversee that
project.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Meadow Creek Parkway project is going along well, so leave it alone.
He knows that when the City and County formed the second group for the court study, nothing was
supposed to slow down anything, and it has not slowed down anything yet, but they have run into some
things that nobody anticipated. If they had not formed that second group, they would still be moving along
just fine.
Ms. Thomas said the Board's members on the MPO were going to have a meeting with Maurice
Cox. It was canceled because of the weather. She thinks the City is worried that the Board will not
remember there is supposed to be a park plan along the Meadow Creek Parkway. They want the Board to
(February 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
make a very strong commitment, but she does not think the Board should make any commitment until it
finds out how much VDOT is willing to do. She mentioned that a year ago the current Mayor was very
concerned about plans for the northern end at Rio Road. She said the whole thrust of the Jones & Jones
plan was to help make that a well-organized urban area. The third aspect of the Jones & Jones design,
which the County put its money into, is that the County stick to it. She has her own personal concerns and
wants to make sure the Board is well-advised on that so the Board can tell the difference between one and
another on the map. If the Board goes with the Jones & Jones study, there is little for a committee to work
on or to negotiate. The Board has a design, is pleased with it, is convinced it is the best possible parkland
design, so if she is in that meeting at the MPO or elsewhere, that is what she will say.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Cox wants some kind of fixed commitment as to where the parkland will be,
and how much parkland will exist. At some point that decision has to be made. But, the question is when it
is the time to make that decision. If the Board is going to approach VDOT with a request that they buy
parkland, or that they buy enough right-of-way to include some areas for parkland, and there is some
limitation on what they can do, the Board needs to have an idea about the area, and what would be
included in the total. He said the Board needs to have the Planning Department to advise it.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Jones & Jones Report has actually been adopted into the Comprehensive
Plan. It is not down to the parcel, but the map is well-delineated.
Mr. Tucker said when Council talks about this on March 17, they are not only going to discuss their
portion, but the County's portion also regarding the parkland. He said there was a meeting several months
ago with Council members, and it was the Mayor's idea to have the Wetsel property near CATEC included
in the Parkway. That is not part of the County's plan. He thinks Mr. Cox will try to push that thought to the
rest of the Council members.
Ms. Thomas said she assumed the Board had a firm commitment, and she thinks the County is
stronger now for having reasserted that commitment.
Mr. Rooker said there was a Design Advisory Committee of City/County people who looked at the
designs all through the process. That input was factored into the Jones & Jones Report which the Board
adopted. Maybe the best approach is to just say the County has its plan, and the Board does not
understand at this point what there is to discuss.
Mr. Martin said the only thing to discuss would be a change in what the Board is all ready doing.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board wants to meet with Council.
Mr. Tucker said for the property behind the Hospital, it is a "light rail" grant they are considering. He
does not know the implications of the County joining them in that request. He said for the City's Community
Development Block Grant, they get revenues because of the County's urban area. Maybe that should be
the County's contribution toward that grant. That might be discussed at some point, but he does not know
that there is any urgency.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to meet with Council until after the end of March if there is
nothing pressing to discuss.
After a short discussion, it was the consensus not to meet with City Council at this time due to
Board's heavy meeting schedule.
Ms. Thomas said the High Growth Coalition and Albemarle County had two small things go right at
the General Assembly. The resolution that stated it was the sense of the General Assembly that there shall
be a bypass around Charlottesville was changed to one that supports looking at alternative means of
keeping the traffic moving.
Ms. Thomas said the proposal to take away the County's ability to use the transient occupancy tax
for the ACE Program was defeated 51:48 on the House floor. There is still a small chance it could get
attached to someone else's bill, so David Blount and others are keeping an eye out for it. She said the
County was actually saved from two damaging things.
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 3:18 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 06/04/2003
Initials: GAK