2000-01-12January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
12, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins 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 Chief of Planning and Community Development, David W. Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3a. Presentation: Census 2000.
Ms. Sherry Iachetta, Registrar for the City of Charlottesville, thanked the Board for the opportunity
to speak. She referred to information Board members already had in hand about the Census 2000, and
she noted that she would be leaving more information with Ms. Carey, the Clerk. She heads the Complete
Count Committee for the City of Charlottesville, and she was appointed to this position by Mayor Daugherty
and the City Council. She then read a statement which explained that the Committee is a team of
community members appointed by the highest elected official of a jurisdiction for the purpose of developing
and implementing a Census 2000 Awareness Campaign that will influence every member of the jurisdiction
to complete the census questionnaire in a timely and accurate manner. She continued that it is a team of
community members who will function as leaders in the promotion of the Census 2000 Awareness
Campaign from now until November, 2000. It is also a team of community members who are committed to
ensuring that every resident in their community will be counted in the census. The Complete Count
Committee is made up of citizens in the jurisdiction.
Congressman Goode spoke today at the ribbon cutting at the regional office on 10th Street which
covers 16 counties. She said Congressman Goode talked about the importance of the census, because for
every person who is counted, the locality gets $10,000. She pointed out that in 1990, Virginia lost
$90,000,000 for people who were not counted. The City of Charlottesville has realized that the census is
very important so City officials appointed the Complete Count Committee, as well as certain
subcommittees. There is a business subcommittee which has joined with the Chamber of Commerce; a
senior subcommittee which works with JABA; a University Committee; a neighborhood committee; and a
public housing; and religion committee. She emphasized that she is present at this meeting to invite the
County of Albemarle to join the City of Charlottesville in its Complete Count Committee. She has talked
with Mr. Tucker, as well as Ms. Thomas, since Ms. Thomas was at today’s presentation. Ms. Iachetta said
the County Registrar, Jackie Harris, has agreed to work with her, and the subcommittees can be utilized.
She noted that a few subcommittees will be different, since Albemarle has a Hispanic population that needs
to be counted, and there are a lot of rural areas needing attention. She said it is silly for the County and City
not to join force so everybody in the area will be counted.
Mr. Martin indicated that Mr. Tucker had already talked to him about this matter, and as Chairman,
he agreed for the Board that the County would participate.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. Paul Wright stated that he would like to speak about the budget meetings that have been held,
because he has noticed that staff has been preparing a prima facie case to raise taxes. This is quite
disturbing. He recalled a meeting he personally attended regarding the preparation of documents and how
best to present these documents to taxpayers. He said citizens’ input was requested, but the input that was
given at this meeting, in his opinion, was completely and utterly ignored. For example, the staff found it
important, and rightly so, to include the amount of population increase and the number of students in
schools, but for some reason it became necessary to share the amount of traffic violations and the number
of accidents. The budget, itself, was not discussed. He commented that in a discussion about budgets, it
was completely ignored that the budget has increased 140 percent since 1987. The only reason he can
figure the statistics were ignored is because they are not flattering. He has also noticed that the use of
graphs and economic data has been misleading. He stated that taxes on a $150,000 house are shown as
to how they have increased over the last ten years. This is interesting, but he pointed out that the house has
not remained at $150,000, because now it is probably worth $225,000 to $230,000. He remarked that to try
to make the case that taxes are reasonably being raised is ignored again by indicating that a statistic will
remain at a steady rate when it helps the County. He added that other statistics were completely off and
had nothing to do with what had been done by staff. This use of statistics makes a mockery of an input on a
fair and rational reading of taxes and tax increases. He would think there would be a real desire, after
hearing the suggestions in the beginning, to talk about this subject
in a fair manner. He hopes in the future, meetings will be held using reasonable economic assumptions
which do not seem to be used currently.
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Regarding to the compensation study, Mr. Wright commented that the document he saw is
basically unreadable, the economic assumptions don’t make any sense, several counties have been cherry
picked to use, there is no work shown as far as how the figures were developed, and none of these things
made any sense to anybody. He has shown this report to people with PhDs in economics, and they have
indicated they would give the report an “F.” If the County is going to continue to pay such a significant
amount of money for these reports, they should at least prove the facts they are bringing under assumption.
He hopes in the future a firm will be hired that will show the work that has been done and actually produce
something that makes sense.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant - FY99, $24,683 (Form #99050).
The executive summary states the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program was authorized
by the US Omnibus Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Act for the purpose of providing units of local
government with funds to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety. This grant will be
used to fund overtime in the northern/western areas of the County. It is a two-year grant covering the period
October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2001.
This grant was previously approved by the Board on December 1, 1999. The final grant award and
local match has been received from the Department of Justice and are presented on the attached
Appropriation Request.
The federal grant is $22,929.00. The local match is $2,468.00 and will be funded out of current
operations.
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 99050 in the amount of $24,683.00.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00
NUMBER: 99050
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1538 31013 120000 OVERTIME WAGES $22,929.00
1 1538 31013 210000 FICA 1,754.00
TOTAL $24,683.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1538 33000 300001 FEDERAL GRANT $22,215.00
2 1538 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM GEN'L FUND 2,468.00
TOTAL $24,683.00
_______________
Item No. 5.2. Upgrade of Sun Ridge Road (Wakefield Road) in Northfields Subdivision.
The executive summary states that Wakefield Road (recently renamed Sun Ridge Road) is located
in the Northfields Subdivision between Northfield and Huntington Roads. Wakefield Road was platted and
approved by the City and County Planning Commissions in 1960. The plat provides a 50 foot public right-
of-way for construction of Wakefield Road. Stormwater drainage easements were not included with the
plat. To date, the road has not been completed and has not been accepted by VDOT into the state
secondary road system for maintenance. Four homes have been built on Wakefield Road and all of the
residents have requested the County to provide construction improvements required to have
the road accepted for maintenance by VDOT. The County does not hold a subdivision road bond to fund
completion of this work.
Reappropriation of $25,000 in year-end operating funds was approved by the Board on October 6,
1999, for construction improvements required to qualify the road for acceptance by VDOT. A meeting with
the residents was held on October 12, 1999, and all in attendance agreed the work should be completed,
although several residents were concerned about removal of trees and shrubs in the right-of-way and the
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
location of a drainage easement. The owner of lot #17 requested an existing stormwater drainage channel
be relocated from the center of lot #17 to the property line between lots #16 and #17. The owner of lot #17
is unwilling to grant a drainage easement for the existing drainage channel in the existing location. The
owner of lot #16 does not support relocation of the channel and refuses to grant a drainage easement. An
adequate drainage system with appropriate easements is required by VDOT as a condition of road
acceptance.
The road improvements are proposed to be completed in two phases as follows:
Phase I: Pavement and drainage repairs for a 600 foot section of road starting at Northfield Road. These
repairs will complete the road serving the current residents and allow this section of road to be accepted by
VDOT. A construction bid of $22,000 has been received to complete the work.
Phase II: Road and drainage construction for a 300 foot section of road, which was never constructed and
is required to serve three existing lots (7, 8, and 14). Vacate the remaining right-of-way no longer required.
Estimated cost $75,000.
Both phases will require removal of vegetation in the right-of-way and 20 foot wide drainage
easements to be dedicated to the County. The Engineering Department will attempt to develop clearing
and easement alternatives which are satisfactory to all of the residents. If residents are unwilling to grant
easements, condemnation of 20 foot wide drainage easements by the Board will be required to qualify the
road for acceptance by VDOT.
Staff recommends the Board authorize construction of Phase I to complete the section of
Wakefield Road serving current residents. Although Phase I qualifies for the VDoT Rural Additions
Program, the Board has approved that it be completed with General Funds to expedite the process.
Construction of Phase I will begin in the near future after a drainage easement is granted by residents or
condemned by the Board. Staff does not recommend completion of Phase II of this project because it
would serve three vacant lots and does not meet the criteria for the VDoT Rural Additions Program.
By the above shown vote, the Board authorized construction of Phase I to complete the
section of Wakefield Road serving current residents with the use of General Funds to expedite the
process, with construction to begin after a drainage easement is granted by residents or
condemned by the Board.
_______________
Item No. 5.3. Legislation – VDoT Purchase of Parkland.
The attached letter to our legislators requests legislation in the 2000 General Assembly to allow
VDOT to purchase land to replace parkland when it has been taken in a roadway project.
If approved by the Board, the letter will be signed by the Chairman and sent to our legislators for
consideration by the 2000 General Assembly.
The Honorable Emily CouricThe Honorable Paul C. Harris
25th Senatorial DistrictHouse of Delegates - 58th District
P.O. Box 5462P.O. Box 1276
Charlottesville, VA 22905Charlottesville, VA 22902
The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres
House of Delegates - 57th District
223 West Main Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902-5055
Dear Senator Couric, Delegate Van Yahres and Delegate Harris:
As you may know, during Meadow Creek Parkway negotiations between the City and the Virginia
Department of Transportation, VDoT agreed to replace McIntire Park land taken for the roadway with
privately held land in the County alongside the Parkway. However, we have now been told that VDoT
cannot legally purchase land beyond buying right-of-way property.
To address this issue, the County would like to request your help in submitting legislation to the 2000
General Assembly that would allow VDoT, when they determine that it is appropriate, to purchase land to
replace urban park land that has to be taken for a roadway project. This legislation would not bind VDoT,
but it would at least give them the ability and flexibility to offer this land exchange should the appropriate
situation arise. The Metropolitan Planning Organization has also voiced its strong support for this enabling
legislation.
Should you need additional information on this request, please do not hesitate to contact me or County
staff. We look forward to hearing from you on this request and thank you for your continuing interest and
support for local government issues.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
Charles S. Martin
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Chairman”
By the above shown vote, the Board authorized the foregoing letter to be sent to the
legislators.
_______________
Item No. 5.4. Contribution to High Growth Coalition for Lobbyist for 2000 General Assembly
Session.
The following letter was received by Board members:
th
“This letter is to confirm your discussion by consensus on Wednesday, January 5 to provide
funding for a growth coalition lobbyist during the 2000 General Assembly. You agreed to contribute funding
of at least $500 but not exceed $1,000 for lobbying services.
Your approval of this consent agenda item will allow us to prepare an appropriation for this service
once we know the exact amount.”
By the above shown vote, the Board approved this item as recommended by staff.
_______________
Item No. 5.5. October 1999 Financial Report, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 5.6. Copy of notice that the Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved the
major design features for the Airport Road (Route 649) Project: #0649-002-158, C-501, from Route 29 to
Route 606 in Albemarle County, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 5.7. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for December 7, 1999, was received for
information.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-99-01. Pantops Place (Signs #82&83). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to rezone 12.3 acs from R-1, R-6 & R-10 to PRD to allow up to 130 dwelling units in retirement
village. TM78 Ps 55 A-1 & 55 A-5. Located on Rt 250 E, adj to Westminster Canterbury, approx 1.13 mls
from Free Bridge & the Charlottesville City limits. (The density of the development is 10.5 du/ac. The Comp
Plan designates this property as Urban Density, recommended for 6.01-34 du/ac in Urban Neighborhood 3,
Pantops.). Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 27 and January 3, 2000.)
Mr. Benish reported that ZMA-99-01 involves a request to rezone slightly more than 12 acres from
R-1, R-6 and R-10 Residential zoning to Planned Residential Development (PRD). The property is located
on Route 250 East adjacent to the Westminster-Canterbury retirement community. He said it is located
along an entrance corridor, and the proposed development is for eight plus dwelling units per acre. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property for urban density residential use. The proposal is for a
retirement community with a maximum of 100 units in assisted living facilities, as well as independent living
apartments and cottages. He added that the maximum building square footage for the independent and
assisted living apartments is 110,000 square feet. He said proffers have been submitted by the applicant,
and Board members have recently received updated versions under a separate Executive Summary. He
indicated that these proffers address outstanding issues and concerns of the Planning Commission and
staff.
O
n December 7, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposals and recommended unanimous
approval. After the Planning Commission meeting, the developer requested a minor modification to the
proffers.
In proffer number 2, the applicant’s wording was originally as follows:
Residential density limits will be as follows:
Assisted Living CenterMaximum 60,000 gross SF and 72 Beds
Independent Living QuartersMaximum 50,000 gross SF and 40 Apartments
Independent Living CottagesMaximum 30 Units
This proffer is revised to say:
Residential density limits will be as follows:
The building(s) containing the Assisted Living area and the Independent Living units will be no
greater than 110,000 square feet. The total number of assisted living units and independent living units
together shall not exceed 100; however up to twelve of the assisted living units may be two-bedroom units.
Reason for change: The applicant has asked for the ability to have a more flexible combination of
assisted living center rooms and apartments. This change does not affect the total number of residents
anticipated for the facility; rather it affects the mix slightly. The Application Plan shows roughly half of the
main facility as available for Assisted Living and half available for Independent Living. This aspect of the
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
plan would not change. The change in the proffer would leave the exact mix open until time of site planning
to better address market conditions at that time.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the attached proffers. Staff believes that the
changes are not significant enough to require additional review by the Planning Commission.
There were no questions from Board members for Mr. Benish, so Mr. Martin asked if the applicant
would like to speak.
Mr. Richard Carter, representing the applicant, indicated that he had prepared a presentation.
However, since there were so many people present to speak to another issue, he volunteered to waive his
presentation. The applicant is also present, as well as engineers, and they all would be happy to answer
questions.
There were no questions from Board members, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearing on ZMA-
99-01. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin stated that everybody has had ample opportunity and plenty of expert written material on
this issue. This request is located in his district, and he would entertain a motion to approve it.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve ZMA-99-01,
subject to acceptance of the applicant’s proffers. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The proffers are set out in full below:)
January 5, 2000
Ms. Elaine EchoIs, Senior Planner
Department of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Pantops Place
Dear Ms. Echols:
The undersigned applicant makes the following proffers:
1.Development of the site will be in general conformity with the planentitled, “Pantops Place
Preliminary Plan”, dated February 22, 1999 and revised October 18, 1999, herein referred to as the
Application Plan.
2.Residential density limits will be as follows:
The building(s) containing the Assisted Living area and the Independent Living units will be no
greater than 110,000 square feet. The total number of assisted living units and independent living
units together shall not exceed 100; however, up to twelve of the assisted living units may be two-
bedroom units.
Independent Living CottagesMaximum 30 Units
3.A preliminary traffic analysis will beperformed prior to preliminary site plan approval. The
owner shall share in the cost of any comprehensive traffic study deemed necessary
subsequent to the review of the preliminary traffic analysis. The amount of participation
shall be based on a pro-rata share of the traffic volume contributed to the site as determined by the
Albemarle County Engineering Department. At the request of VDOT, the owner will enter into an
agreement among all parties whose property does or will contribute traffic to the Pantops Mountain
Road/Route 250 intersection to make a pro-rata financial contribution toward the installation of
improvements related to the signalization of the intersection.
4.(a)Vehicular access to the site from Route 250 East shall be limited to a single
location, directly opposite the new entrance to the Martha Jefferson office building
development on Pantops Mountain Road, as shown on the Application Plan.
(b)Prior to any development of the property, the applicant shall record an access
easement to serve the adjoining property described as Albemarle County Tax Map
78, Parcel 55A3.
(c)The owner shall provide and maintain an asphalt path of no less than 5 feet to
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
connect to an on-site trail system at Westminster Canterbury, if permission is
granted by Westminster Canterbury for such a connection.
(d)The owner shall provide shuttle service at a minimum of three times a week to
convey assisted living residents to appointments, shopping, and other destinations.
5.During construction of the first phase of the development, the owner shall perform grading in
the r.o.w. for Route 250 or immediately adjacent to this r.o.w. to facilitate the future
installation of a sidewalk which would be part of any reconfiguration of Route 250 to an
“urban cross-section” roadway. If the grading for the sidewalk would result in the sidewalk
being on the Pantops Place property, then the owner will grant the necessary easements
for pedestrian access along this section of his property. The final site development plan
shall reflect the grading to be performed with this proffer.
6.The owner shall provide a 15 foot buffer easement in width upon the property along its entire
common boundary with the Glenorchy subdivision as shown on the Application Plan. The
easement will be provided at construction of improvements. The purpose of this easement will be
to ensure the preservation of an existing mature hedgerow and fieldstone wall along this common
boundary line. No plant removal, other than dead, diseased or noxious vegetation, shall take place
in this area. Only limited grading as shown on the approved site plans, only that which does not
require the removal of trees, shall be permitted. New beneficial plant material may be sensitively
introduced to augment the efficacy of the hedgerow as a screening element. Pedestrian access to
this area shall not be restricted.
7.The owner shall provide supplemental screening, to the satisfaction of the Albemarle County
planning staff, in addition to that required in Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that
the service areas for proposed buildings will be properly screened from the Glenorchy subdivision.
This landscaping shall be shown on the Landscaping Plan to be submitted with the final site
development plan for this section.
8.The owner will show the 25% open space on the preliminary and final site plans and preserve
and/or improve, for recreational and amenity purposes, all of that land which lies east of the
intermittent stream which transects the site. The land will remain in its current state except as
deemed necessary for the potential construction of a pond, walking paths and other recreational
features and installation of landscape treatments as shown on the preliminary site development
plan.
9.A community association will be formed for ownership and maintenance of all areas outside of the
building envelopes. Owners of the development shall be members of this community association.
Virginia Land Trust, Owner
Tax Map 78, Parcel 55-A-5
Dated: 1-5-2000 By: Signed_________ _
Charles W. Hurt, M.D., Trustee
Individual Owners
Tax Map 78, Parcel 55-A-(1)
Dated: 1-5-2000 By: Signed______________
J. Todd Samperton
Dated: 1-5-2000 By: Signed_______________
Novella D. Samperton
By: J. Todd Samperton (Attorney in Fact)
Dated: 1-5-2000 By: Signed_______________
Clive Duvall, III
By: J. Todd Samperton (Attorney in Fact)
Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the Purchase of Development
Rights Committee’s final report titled Acquisition of Conservation Easements’ Program for Albemarle
County dated November 3, 1999, which proposes to establish by ordinance a County funded purchase of
conservation easement program in which the County would purchase conservation easements from willing
landowners to restrict future development on their property. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December
27 and January 3, 2000.)
Mr. Martin referred to Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Chairman of the Acquisition of Conservation Easements
Program (ACE) Committee . He asked her to have the members of the Committee stand when she comes
forward to make her presentation. He also noted the Board’s appreciation for all the work she and
members of the Committee have done.
Ms. Buttrick stated that the ACE Committee has worked hard, and there are many members
present tonight. She then introduced Ed Bain, Vice Chairman of the Committee; Greg Edwards, with the
Nature Conservancy; Wayne Elliott; Babette Thorpe with Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC); Joe
Jones, with the Farm Bureau; Steve McLain and Joe Samuels. She also noted that former members of the
Committee, Tim Lindstrom and David Tice, had given their assistance. She reported that in September,
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
1998, the Committee presented the first phase of its report to this Board on the feasibility of the Purchase of
Conservation Easements Program. An initial outline of the program was presented at that time, and the
Board of Supervisors directed the Committee to continue. In November, 1999, the Committee presented its
final recommendation to the Supervisors after seeking public input, and this hearing continues the process.
She would next briefly touch on the main aspects of the program as outlined and recommended by
the Committee. As the charge from this Board reflected in 1997, the Committee recommends an open
space program rather than the exclusively farmland protection program that is sometimes seen as PDR
programs. Although agriculture and forestry are very important to the Comprehensive Plan, there are also
some broader goals in Albemarle’s plan, and it was the Committee’s charge to reflect these goals.
Therefore, a slight variation has been proposed on the usual farmland protection program in open space
protection. It is also the intent that the program should remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it
evolves in years to come. The Committee has emphasized that the program should always be seen as one
arrow in the quiver of arrows of land use planning tools and not as a substitute for all of the others. She
recommended that the easements resulting from this program should be perpetual, and she proposed a
program with wide eligibility, but with objective and quantifiable criteria for selection. A minimum total score
would be necessary for an applicant’s consideration, but it could come from points received in a number of
different areas. The ranking system allocates points for a number of different kinds of resources. First of
all, open space criteria relates to such things as size of the property and whether or not it is next to other
protected land such as a national park or existing conservation easements. Also to be taken into
consideration is the degree of threat of conversion to non-rural uses, number of usable development rights
and the natural resources reflected in the Comprehensive Plan and the Open Space Plan. She then
mentioned such criteria as the presence of mountain ridge land; road frontage; scenic river frontage; the
location of the watershed, especially on streams flowing into a source of public drinking water; family farm
and forest land; the presence of rare and dangerous species or historic resources; as well as soil quality.
On the financial side, the criteria gives points for modest income, which is to level the playing field,
because presently significant tax benefits exist for wealthier landowners to donate conservation easements.
However, there is not much incentive for those without significant tax liability to give or sell easements.
She also pointed out that there are points for the leveraging of funds. There are state and local programs
available, as well as potentially available, which will allow Albemarle County to leverage its money.
As far as administration of the program, she indicated the need for approximately half a staff
person, who should be knowledgeable about tax benefits of gifts and bargain sales of easements, as well
as agricultural and forestal districts. The Committee recommends that the Planning Department house this
program. She then indicated that the value of the conservation easements that would be paid to the
landowner would be determined by appraisal. She said because of the workload of the assessment
department, it is recommended that this be done on a contract basis. As far as funding is concerned, the
Committee has recommended that the funding level strike a balance between being conservative and
being at a meaningful level to accomplish significant goals. Therefore, $1,000,000 per year is being
recommended. It is necessary to view this program with a long term commitment since the program will not
have any success if it is funded for only one year and then dropped, picked up later and then dropped
again. This would make the program lose its credibility. It is likely it will take time for a program such as
this one to catch on, so for that reason, it is suggested that the program be funded for the first couple of
years at this relatively modest funding level that would not necessitate borrowing money nor incurring debt.
On the state and federal levels, there are several initiatives in the works to allow the money to be leveraged
and the County should continue to support those efforts.
Ms. Buttrick said since the Committee’s November report, the National Resource Conservation
Service has developed a study documenting that the rate of loss of rural land in Virginia has doubled in the
last five years. The need is a pressing one and the importance of this negative trend is wide reaching. She
thanked the Board for the Committee’s opportunity to work on this initiative which has put Albemarle County
in the forefront of this issue among Virginia localities. She and Committee members would be glad to
answer any questions now or at the conclusion of the public hearing.
Mr. Dorrier referred to the proposed PDR Ordinance where there is information regarding the
amount of gross income a person should have before he or she would be allowed to participate in the
program. He wondered if thought has been given to limiting this amount of money to people with a certain
income level or expanding it regardless of income level. Ms. Buttrick answered that there is a range of
options available and, to some extent, it is a political decision. The Committee suggested that there was a
need to at least level the playing field, so one option would be to restrict the applicants altogether or to
minimize the restriction depending on how the Board would like to see the program applied. She reiterated
that the Committee felt some consideration for financial need was an important point.
Mr. Dorrier wondered if a farmer has a cash flow program and wants to put his land into the ACE
Program, would he or she be given consideration over someone who is wealthy. Ms. Buttrick explained that
at the present time, according to the recommendation for the criteria ranking, points would be given simply
for landowners being of modest income. The County median income was used, which is $50,400. She
stated that a few points would be given for people slightly above that range, and more points would be given
to people who are 20 percent or more below the range.
Mr. Martin noted that with the ranking system, a person may gain a point because of one thing, but
the same person may lose a point because of something else. When it is all put together, a final total can
be determined. Ms. Buttrick emphasized that the system does not exclude the wealthy landowners’
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
applications, but it tries to give some weight to lower income people. The Board, depending on its priorities,
may want to weight things more or less than the Committee considered them in the ranking sheet.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the Committee was also interested in preserving the federal and
state tax advantages that accrue to some landowners by dedication of open space in terms of their financial
status with taxes. He said it would not be desirable to be competing against a program where land is
donated in exchange for tax benefits. Ms. Buttrick concurred. She noted that a program should not be
created where the County would have to pay for what it has been getting free through the donation of
conservation easements program. The Committee felt that the financial consideration, as far as whether it
is strong enough as is presently outlined, is an important factor. It is also important that the staff be well
educated in the benefits from a tax standpoint of gifts and bargain sales of conservation easements.
Mr. Martin noted the many people standing in the hall, and suggested that the meeting move to the
Auditorium so everybody could be seated. (The Board then recessed for approximately 20 minutes to allow
time to move to the Auditorium.)
The Chairman then opened the public hearing.
Mr. James Hogan said he lives in Albemarle County and is a resident of Scottsville. Mr. Hogan said
he received a letter from PEC detailing the concept of the ACE program and how it might impact Scottsville.
He is interested in protecting the County’s scenic corridor. As a private citizen he finds this program to be
interesting. He can see where this program can be used hand in hand with the Scottsville Streetscape
project. He supports the idea of this type of program and how it might compliment towns such as
Scottsville. He is seriously thinking about putting his property under a conservation program.
Mr. Bob Moorefield said he is president of Crestar Bank and a resident of the Samuel Miller District.
He is present in his capacity as Chairman of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce. The
purpose of the Chamber is to represent the private sector. In order to take positions on initiatives, the
Chamber does a complete review before a draft position is formulated. After a year long review of this
program, the Chamber decided to add its support with two elements of the program – maintenance of open
space and the County requiring development rights which are voluntarily surrendered by the property
owner. The Chamber is concerned that the cost of the program not affect the General Fund or cause a tax
increase. The Chamber continues to oppose any increase in property taxes. If there is renewed pressure
for property tax increase, the Chamber feels the County must look at such needs as fire, police and schools
before implementing this program.
Mr. Gary Westmoreland said he is a resident of the Scottsville District. He does not think the
citizens of the County should be compelled to support conservation easements. This program entails the
forced transfer of taxpayers money to landowners in favor of preserving develop rights. This program
should be funded by private sources. He suggests as a first step that the County join together with
reputable and informed groups, citizens and the media to outline steps that a landowner can take to
preserve open space.
Mr. Christopher Lee said he is also a resident of the Scottsville District. As a member of the Budget
Subcommittee for the Chamber of Commerce, he is concerned about the impact this program would have
on money in the County’s General Fund. The $1.0 million that is being set aside for the program is taken
from other services and could be put to better use for school construction or teacher salaries. He asked the
Board to really look at the cost of this program. The goal of the program is to purchase development rights.
If the average cost is $2000, the cost of the ACE Program would be $200 million. That means the
program would cost between $8 and $10 million per year. He is also concerned about the impact this
program will have on property tax revenues. If the property value is lowered, the taxes received would then
be lowered. The ACE Program will cost at least 50 percent more than the County’s Land Use Program.
He questioned how much of the County’s budget should be put towards the progam. Mr. Lee urged the
Board to develop the ordinance, put a price tag on the program and determine a source of revenue.
Mr. Dorrier asked how Mr. Lee arrived at the $200 million figure. Mr. Lee responded that he got it
from a variety of sources and confirmed the numbers with Mr. Perkins. The $2000 per acre was based on
numbers taken from Carroll County Maryland.
Mr. David Carr said he owns property in the Samuel Miller District. He has watched the County with
concern as open space has been lost. The County needs to protect its open space and natural
environment. He supports the ACE Program as a first step. Farming alone will not keep land from being
developed. Funding is needed from the County. As a way to avoid future tax increases, the County needs
to be aggressive and pursue state moneys. He does believe that if the need arises to increase taxes, in the
long run it will still be a benefit to the County. Mr. Carr added that the report did not make it clear whether
riparian streams will benefit from the program.
Mr. Mike Foreman said he is a member of the staff of the Virginia Department of Forestry.
Conservation of land of land is the second goal of his agency. He supports the purchase of development
rights initiative in the County and commends the County for its foresight. Mr. Foreman said every year
200,000 acres is lost to nonreusable uses in the Chesapeake watershed. There is value in saving tracts of
land. There are short term benefits of this type program which are hard to measure. Funding will always
be an issue. Federal funding is increasing. Last year the budget was $7 million; this year the budget is $30
million. The Department of Forestry supports the County’s initiatives.
Mr. Nick Evans said he is a landowner in the Rivanna District. He applauded the Board in nurturing
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
this initiative. He supports what the County is trying to do. He views this not in terms of preserving open
space, but in protecting water resources. He did have some concerns with the ranking system. He would
like to see work done on the definition of mountain ridges and visual aspect of ridge crest. Those areas are
figured prominently in ground water recharge. His other concern is with respect to the riparian ranking
system. It appears that consideration is only being given to the Rivanna watershed stream. There are other
streams and rivers such as the Hardware. Again, he applauds what the County is doing.
Mr. Bob Watson said he is Government Affairs Director of the Charlottesville Area Legislative
Action Coalition (CALAC). All the organizations of CALAC support the idea of purchase of development
rights. CALAC does have two concerns. They would like to see the ordinance developed and going
forward, and they are concerned about the funding aspect. There are also a number of issues the County
staff has posed. In fairness to the citizens, unresolved questions and issues need to be addressed before
any vote is taken. He thinks that any votes should be deferred until all public policies have been resolved.
He is concerned about taxpayers money being used to subsidize the program. He does not believe there
are enough funds in the County’s operating budget to have a meaningful program. He asked the Board to
consider putting a referendum on the ballot to fund an ACE Program.
Mr. Tom Olivier presented a statement (copy on file in the Clerk’s office) in support of the purchase
of development rights Program. With our growing population, our cherished natural resources face
escalating threats of damage and destruction. There are some effective protection measures but many
resources need additional, active conservation if they are to survive. A purchase of development rights
(PDR) program can provide direct protection for a wide range of open space resources as well as
compensation for individual landowners who act in the public good. It is crucial that scarce dollars spent on
such a program be directed strategically toward those resources of greatest value and in greatest need of
additional conservation.
Mr. Olivier said for over a year, members of the local biodiversity community have expressed
concerns about the scant treatment of biological resources in drafts of the Albemarle PDR program. Areas
of concern remain in the final draft. As a result, he, Jean Kolb and John Hermsmeier have proposed
rd
revisions to the proposal in the November 3 report.
Their first proposal is a statement of purpose that firmly decrees that the core purpose of the
program is protection of important open space resources, including biodiversity. They also propose that
biodiversity be included among the Comprehensive Plan goals listed on page 5, that the ACE Commission
specify inclusion of a biologist and that biodiversity protection be a goal of forestry management in Appendix
D. Road frontage often is detrimental to wildlife habitat. They ask that road frontage be deleted as a factor
contributing to parcel ranking in Appendix A and that protected native forest stream buffers be added to
parcel rank. Finally, they seek a firm commitment to use of findings of the County biological advisory
committee in future revisions of ranking criteria.
An extensive scientific literature exists on use of stream buffers as a biodiversity and water quality
protection measure. County water resource staff are quite familiar with issues surrounding design of native
forest stream buffers, as are staff at the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District. All of the
rd
proposed changes could be quickly and simply put into the November 3 document.
Mr. Olivier said he also should make it clear that the proposed revisions are in the nature of
"patches" to a document that needs to undergo additional progressive evolution. It is important that this
program be revised and improved when the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is completed
and findings arrive from the biodivesity committee and water resource office. A purchase of development
rights program will make a strong and high value addition to the tools available to our county to protect its
precious open space resources. He urged the Board to put a good, strong program in place.
Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of the White Hall District, mentioned that in last Sunday’s Washington
Post there was an article about how Loudoun County was setting aside $1,000,000 to defend itself from
lawsuits filed by developers during the course of the County’s efforts to stop sprawl. He said by putting
aside money for investment in the PDR program, the County will be preventing the “pay me now or pay me
later” scenario. There are those who will say there are higher priorities such as education, and with a tight
budget, the County should not invest in the PDR Program. He does not see education and the PDR
Program as competing priorities, but as complementary priorities, where the PDR Program will eventually
help support education. If there is any doubt in people’s minds about the relationship between land use and
education, he would urge them to take a field trip to Long Island. If they were to get on the Long Island
Express at 5:00 p.m., they would see what a 100-mile parking lot is like, and if they travel along Route 25,
they will see a 100 mile strip mall. He stated that while they are there, they can stop to see his parents and
ask them about their $10,000 a year tax bill for one acre of property. No one has shown him that any
locality can build enough developments to grow itself to a point where it will not require higher and higher
taxes for more and more schools. It will be efforts such as the PDR Program that can help stop the spiral
of sprawl and ensure that the County can afford the schools needed. To further help this effort, the County
should be using the PDR Program to shore up the growth area boundaries while it is still time to prevent
more sprawl.
Mr. Loach said he was disturbed to hear that the PDR Committee apparently bowed to political
pressure from the Chamber of Commerce and removed any provisions from its agenda for specifically
using the PDR Program to protect the County’s growth area borders. He mentioned that not only is having
a distinct rural edge intrinsic to the model being proposed by the DISC Committee, but the issue of
protecting the County’s rural borders has been brought up by Mr. Martin on more than one occasion at the
DISC Committee meetings. During a presentation by the attorney for the DISC Committee, he mentioned
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
that the PDR Program in Virginia Beach has been successful in maintaining a rural edge. Mr. Sloan went
on to say that not only has that PDR Program been successful, but it has also been cost effective since all
the land adjacent to the border does not have to be purchased, but only those parcels located in strategic
areas to stop further development. He urged the Board to not only approve the PDR Program, but to
include as a very high priority the use of the PDR Program to protect the County’s growth area boundaries.
Mr. David van Roijen, complimented the Board of Supervisors on supporting the PDR Program.
This is the best thing since land use, because land use is a one year at a time program, but the County will
get dividends from the PDR Program forever. If there are any questions as to the economic value of it, the
economic consultant should be asked to project a model to show how much it will save this County. He
encouraged the Board to fund the PDR Program and get it started now.
Ms. Marcia Joseph, a resident of the Rivanna District, commented that she is in support of the PDR
Program, and she will give a different scenario which is directly connected to the schools. One of the things
to take into consideration is that when development is occurring all over the County and not in specific
areas, redistricting has to be done more often, and this affects families significantly. She pointed out that
bus routes have to be expanded and sometimes children are on the buses for an hour at a time. A lot of
times new bus routes have to be added, and when bus routes are added, new buses have to be added.
She noted that buses cost about $45,000 a piece, and there are times when the School Board appropriates
monies for 10 or 15 new buses. The more school bus routes there are, the more school buses will have to
be purchased. She noted that more people will have to be hired to drive them, so the cost could be
$60,000 per bus. By reducing sprawl in the rural area, the need will be reduced for all of this money being
spent. Sometimes people think the County is giving gifts to landowners with the PDR Program. She would
like to think of it more in terms of a gift to the community of more clean air and clean water without so many
school buses running and without so many people running their automobiles here and there. Another thing
to consider is maintaining more wildlife diversity if some of these areas are protected. She also suggested
that maybe it is time to begin recognizing the sacred areas in Albemarle County and take the step to finally
do something about them instead of avoiding the issue. She asked everybody who is in support of the PDR
Program to stand, and she noted that a lot of people (approximately 50) responded. She then thanked the
Planning Commission for denying the Value America request for rezoning.
Ms. Posey Dent, a farmer and property owner, remarked that she lives in the Jack Jouett District.
She applauds the ACE Committee for its work, so far, and she looks forward to the completion of the work
still to be done. She then congratulated everybody involved with this program.
Mr. Dick Carpenter, a member of the Sustainability Council, as well as a member of the Board of
Directors of the Ivy Creek Foundation, stated that he was present at the meeting as a private individual. He
has studied the report and the issue, and he urged the Board members to perfect and implement the PDR
Program as soon as possible.
Ms. Mary Rice informed the Board that she is in support of the conservation easement plan. She
has lived in western Albemarle County for 13 years as a taxpayer and a property owner. She supports the
plan for many reasons already cited, but the main reason is because she believes the rural lands of
Albemarle County are irreplaceable. They are the result of years of agricultural productivity, as well as
geological and climatic conditions. She noted that the lands can be developed, but she asked if there is not
a responsibility to ensure that at least some of the lands be preserved for their incredibly unique nature.
Their public value as working landscapes is very important both to the current generation during their lives,
and it is critical to their children as they grow up in a world where economic pressures will certainly force
rural landowners to develop land that has been in their family for generations. She commented that hard
earned tax money must be spent wisely because just as important as educating the County’s children by
fully funding the schools, is leaving them a legacy that provides them the same opportunities as we have to
grow up with open space that we have worked and enjoyed.
Mr. William Beiswanger stated that he is representing the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation,
which owns and operates Monticello. He pointed out that not only is this a very good program, but it is one
which has been proven elsewhere. The program will be good for Albemarle County, and the Foundation
supports it and hopes the Board will adopt it.
Mr. David Crouch spoke in favor of the purchase of development rights in Albemarle County. He
stated that he is a resident of the County and has been in favor of progressive zoning measures that will
protect the area from the onslaught of sprawl. The PDR Program is a win/win program for the residents of
this County because it can and will protect large areas of land from the threat of development while
preserving people’s property rights. He mentioned a concern with one aspect of the program, though,
which deals with the selection of criteria. After reviewing the list of criteria for the selection of lands to be
considered for the program, he was disappointed not to have seen biodiversity as a major criteria. He
asked how the County can have a progressive PDR Program if biodiversity is excluded from it, and he
urged the Board to include it as one of the criteria for the program. Albemarle County needs a strong PDR
Program in place now and in the future, and the County cannot afford to let this program fail or not be
implemented or wait another year. He asked the Board to study it now and get more input. He only hopes
it is expanded in the future so as much land as possible can be saved from sprawl, and the areas can be
kept truly rural. He commented that the purchase of development rights is a novel conservation measure
that is becoming a reality all around this country, and it is high time this County follows suit. Albemarle
County needs to take stronger conservation measures if it is going to win the war on sprawl, and the
purchase of development rights is certainly one of those steps.
Mr. A. C. (Corky) Shackelford, President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, informed the
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Board that the Bureau’s directors have discussed this issue at length, and they support it wholeheartedly.
He is a farmer, and he has to speak from that perspective. The PDR Program would be a big advantage to
farmers because many farmers have their land as their major and sometimes only real asset on which to
retire. Often their choice when they have to retire is to sell all or part of their land, and it is fairly well known
to what use the sale will go. He assured the Board that the economic pressures are already there and all
they have to do is look around and count the acreage that Albemarle County has in roof tops and black top.
The PDR Program is definitely an advantage to farmers, but in a larger perspective, he thinks it is an
advantage to everybody. He hopes the program is not looked upon as a welfare program for farmers. If
open space, ambiance and biological diversity is desired, this is the way to give it to all citizens. On the
other hand, for the farmers to keep the land even with the advantage of the PDR Program, they have to be
able to make a living on it. He stated that not too many farmers are doing very well in this respect at the
moment. The program is an advantage to the County because it is revenue positive, and no other use of
the land, brings in much more revenue than the services that require production agriculture. When the cost
is considered, he hopes the Board will take the long view, because this program will protect enough open
space so there will be revenue to support the rest of the County. He urged the Board, not to put any more
restrictions on the program than are there already. He noted that farmers are the reason this County has
biodiversity. The land has been farmed for centuries, and one of the good points of the program is that it is
voluntary. He explained that if County officials want people to take advantage of the program and to buy
into it, it will have to be made attractive to them, and he asked that the farmers not be tied down with too
many restrictions on the criteria.
Ms. Wren Dawson Olivier said she lives in the Scottsville District, and she strongly supports
adoption of the PDR Program with the revisions proposed by Jean Kolb, John Hermsmeier and Tom Olivier
in their January 9, 2000 statement relating to the ACE proposal. She added that her father, grandfather
and great grandfathers were all full-time farmers in Albemarle County, and she and her husband own and
farm land that her father and grandfathers worked. She has affection and respect for those who make
farming their principal occupation. However, she believes that the resource value of a parcel of land is not
affected by the percentage of income that an owner receives from farming or forestry. She said, therefore,
that Number Two on Page Two of the Ranking Sheet under the “Natural/Cultural Resource Criteria” section
dealing with the “Working Family Farm” is irrelevant and should be eliminated. In any case, she hopes the
Board will adopt the ACE PDR proposal. (See Proposed Revisions to the 3 November 1999 Albemarle
County ACE Proposal prepared by Tom Olivier, Jean Kolb and John Hermsmeier, dated 1/9/2000.)
Mr. DeForest Mellon, from the White Hall District, applauded the Board of Supervisors for
consideration of the purchase of development rights. His only regret is that it was not started thirty years
ago in this County. He mentioned a concern, though, that the draft document prepared by the ACE
Committee ignores critical factors upon which such protection should be based. He is especially concerned
that the underlying principles protecting the County’s biodiversity, which are of fundamental importance to
the County’s ecosystems, are given no consideration in this document. As he and others have argued on
numerous occasions before the County Planning Commission, the protection of biological diversity in the
County is of great economic importance because of the natural services provided by healthy ecosystems.
He stated that a dollar amount could be attributed to the benefits derived from these services but the real
value lies in a healthy environment provided by clean air, a sustainable and clean water supply and a
diverse and healthy flora, fauna and microfauna which benefit the agricultural enterprises. He
congratulated the Board of Supervisors for appointing the Committee to develop a means for protecting
open space in the County. However, he would like to be assured that the appropriate scientifically and
aesthetically valid reasons for embarking on this important program are adequately detailed in the final
enabling document.
Mr. Carlton Ray, a citizen of White Hall, stated that he is greatly encouraged by the foresight being
shown by Albemarle County officials as far as comprehensive resource planning is concerned. He
reminded Board members that he was a member of the Mountain Protection Committee and while being
disappointed by the Board’s indecision on that matter, it seems obvious progress is being made in
conservation of natural areas, open spaces and scenic areas at least on paper. He added that
inconsistencies are problematic, and he mentioned the nexus among the Comprehensive Plan and the
PDR easements proposals. They are not yet clear as proposed, and there could be a conflict. The existing
criteria for area selection is inconsistent with the goal of a productive County rich in natural resources. For
example, the ACE criteria is currently developed on an assortment of scores that do little for natural
ecosystems. Furthermore, it is a mixed procedure which could produce a County that would appear to be
open and scenic, but would be a patchwork quilt and devoid of natural areas that would support productive
forests, diverse wildlife and an abundant water supply. His concern stems from extensive experience as an
ecologist, and he is speaking from a technical point of view. He has worked with many planning
organizations and government agencies both nationally and internationally for approximately 40 years. He
stated that ranking criteria and other procedures for area selection are the means by which the County’s
goals may be met. He added that many of these sets of criteria exist, and some have been shown to work
but some do not. He does not think this criteria will work, and it clearly needs re-examination so there is
consistency among the various programs to accomplish a County rich in natural areas as major goals. He
strongly urged that County officials consult with a group of professionals on these matters so the
procedures can be improved. If this County continues to grow, and if an attractive and productive
landscape in which to live is desired, everybody is going to have to pay for it.
Ms. Jean Kolb remarked that she lives west of Covesville, and she strongly supports the idea of
Albemarle County having a program in place to purchase development rights. However, she hopes the
Supervisors will amend the ACE final report of November 3, 1999 by including the changes suggested by
Tom Olivier, John Hermsmeier and herself to better protect the County’s biodiversity resources. She then
called attention to Page Two of the ranking sheet under “Natural/Cultural Resource Criteria,” where
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Number Two suggests that farm and forest land are one category. She noted that it gives five points if at
least one family member’s principal occupation income is 51 percent or greater for farm or forest land. She
asked if this means to earn points for PDR, a parcel that is entirely in forest must provide the principal
income for at least one family member. This seems odd, because forest land may not produce any income
for quite a few years. She stated that forests that are simply growing seem to be undervalued here, even
though they contribute to other open space resources such as scenic valleys, natural habitat protection and
watershed protection. She suggested that perhaps the 51 percent of income regulation should not apply to
forest land. She then urged the Board to adopt the ACE Program that includes the aforementioned
protections for biodiversity, which she believes in the long run, will save many more tax dollars than it costs.
(See Remarks concerning PDR Proposal from Jean B. Kolb, dated January 12, 2000.)
Mr. Woody Parrish commented that he supports the use of County funds to buy conservation
easements, but he is worried that this program could be seen as a substitute for responsible zoning. He
thinks it is safe to say that of all the existing development rights Albemarle County may eventually exercise,
this place will be changed beyond recognition. This is by right development currently permitted without a
single zoning map amendment or special use permit. He does not believe there will ever be enough
money in the County coffers to manage even the projected growth of the next few years by acquisition of
conservation easements alone. He wondered, if it becomes necessary to discourage some of this
development by other means, how will it be decided who will be compensated and who will not. He said if
the County gets into the business of buying development rights, County officials will be trying to solve a
political problem with an economic solution. This is literally buying time to put off making the difficult
decisions which may make it more difficult to apply a political remedy in the future. He emphasized that he
hopes this does not happen. If the program can be adopted without foreclosing other options, and without
setting a precedent and without creating the expectation that development rights can never be eliminated
except by purchase, then this initiative is a valuable tool, and he encouraged the Supervisors to adopt it.
However, he is convinced that other tools are going to be needed, because conservation easements alone
are not the whole solution.
Ms. Babette Thorpe read a statement on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC)
supporting the ACE proposal. (See statement to the Board of Supervisors dated January 12, 2000 from the
Piedmont Environmental Council.)
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that PEC just purchased some open space easements, and he asked to
whom it was donated. Ms. Thorpe replied that it was donated to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Mr.
Bowerman next inquired as to the amount of land involved. Ms. Thorpe answered that 105 acres with 14
development rights was involved, and PEC’s conservation easement extinguished all but one building right.
This is PEC’s first land transaction of this nature in Albemarle County, and she hopes there will be more.
The PEC members are proud of the transaction, and she thanked Mr. Bowerman for bringing up the
matter.
Mr. H. Wayne Elliott, a member of the ACE Committee, said he obviously supports the
Committee’s plan. Although, he supported the general idea before the Committee was ever created. He
noted that every argument heard tonight for or against this plan has been made in those jurisdictions
around the country where these plans have been adopted in the past. As far as he knows almost without
exceptions, the plans have worked well, and he thinks it is in the interest of Albemarle County to adopt such
a plan. He said critics sometimes forget that a balance between developed land and open space actually
enhances the value of all the property, it enhances the appearance of the County, and it improves the
quality of the environment. The Committee members know the plan before the Supervisors is not perfect,
but it is a good start, and it represents the collective wisdom of a diverse group of people from around the
County. Approximately two years of effort went into writing the plan. He knows of no county in this country
which has looked back on its history and lamented that it saved too much land from the bulldozer. He said
preservation of open space is not just a luxury, it is a component of managed growth in the County. He
remarked that everything possible should be done in order to manage this growth which means preserving
open space.
Mr. Elliott then referred to Ms. Buttrick’s statement that this is just one more arrow in the quiver.
The main reason he wanted to appear before the Board tonight was to take this opportunity to recognize,
commend and thank Sherry Buttrick for having chaired the committee and for working so hard to keep it
focused and moving forward. He also thanked Ms. Buttrick for all the effort she put into getting this plan
before the Board.
Mr. Walter Mehring commented that he and his family have lived in southern Albemarle County all
of their lives, and he appreciates the opportunity to discuss the PDR program. He knew when the whole
zoning program started that it would not keep suburban sprawl from happening in Albemarle County, and
this seems to be a good opportunity for limiting that type of problem. He added that the voluntary easement
has worked very well in the County, and it seems to have helped somewhat, but his own family members
have worried about limiting the children in their family with this type of situation. This plan looks like an
opportunity to balance the economic value of open space with the economic value of development, and this
balance is needed in order to keep control over development. He mentioned that it would also provide a
mechanism to decide the relative value of various open spaces so there will be some control over parcels
the County would like to keep, be it the buffer zones on pieces of property that have already been
developed or on mountaintops or water resources. This plan really helps these types of things happen. He
remarked that there is also the question of where the tax revenues should come from to take care of the
situation, which is a big issue. He added that one thing he thinks should be explored is the use of tax
revenues from the people who are doing the developing in the County. He said it seems an appropriate
balance would be for these people to share a proportionate burden of this protection against
overdevelopment.
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Greg Edwards said he is an employee of the Nature Conservancy, which is an international
nonprofit organization whose purpose is to preserve biodiversity through a direct action of preserving lands.
He noted that the Virginia office is based in Albemarle County, and the Conservancy is very much a part of
this community. He has been fortunate to serve on the PDR Committee for the last two years, so he has a
bit of a bias, but he applauded County officials for their support and for pushing Committee members in this
effort. The loss of open space and the loss of habitat for plants and animals, as well as the loss of natural
scenic beauty all diminish the quality of life. He added that without a concerted effort the citizens will risk
losing their sense of place and their sense of community in this County. He said one of the challenges
faced by the Committee was how to address the multiple priorities presented by land protection efforts such
as farmland, forests, biodiversity, natural areas and watersheds. Albemarle County is fortunate not to be
left with protecting only one resource, but the issue is how to address them all fairly. He remarked that the
Committee developed a ranking criteria to try to balance those needs. The ACE Program gives weight to
those sites in the County which have been identified as having significant natural and biological resources,
and at the same time the program is flexible enough to adapt as better information about the County’s
biodiversity becomes available. He noted that by protecting a broader landscape, an environment is
created in which biological diversity can thrive, and both approaches protecting specific sites and protecting
a broader landscape must go hand in hand. He commented that the Nature Conservancy believes in this
program and strongly supports it as an effective tool. The Conservancy thanks the County officials for their
support, and he urged them to fund and implement the program at this time.
Mr. Jim Allheim, a County resident, stated that most of what he wanted to say has already been
addressed by other speakers. He thinks this is a good program, and it gives County officials a chance to
protect open space and make it a priority which is something they have discussed frequently. He
commented that three-fourths of the County residents said the same thing a few years ago, and this is a
value to them. There is a small amount of money involved, and it will be a good investment in the future.
Mr. Dave Phillips, Chief Executive Officer of the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors, was
called away and asked that the Chair of the Government Affairs Committee for the Association of Realtors
speak in his behalf. This gentleman stated that Mr. Phillips came to the meeting to reiterate that the
Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors supports the PDR Program. He added that he (the speaker)
has the pleasure of participating in the Virginia Association of Realtors (VAR) Task Force on growth. He is
pleased to report that the VAR also supports PDRs, and its legislative package this year supports an
appropriation of $40,000,000 to be shared with the counties to get PDR Programs up and running.
Mr. Trip Pollard made a statement in support of the ACE Program on behalf of the Southern
Environmental Law Center where he is head of the Center’s Land and Community Project. The Center is
headquartered in Charlottesville, and its employees work in six states to promote smarter growth and to
protect natural areas of resources. He commended the Board for considering this important measure, and
he would especially like to commend all the work and careful thought the Committee members have put
into it. He then urged the Supervisors to implement this proposal as soon as possible and to pursue state
and federal conservation funds to expand the effectiveness of this program. (See Comments on ACE
Proposal to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, from the Southern Environmental Law Center,
dated January 12, 2000.)
Mr. Matt Kayhoe remarked that there have been many things said tonight which he thought were
wonderful and to the point. He is a City resident, but he is present to cheer the County officials on with this
effort to get the program underway. He was disappointed to see that the Mountain Protection Ordinance
failed to pass, but he thinks the ACE Program is a great way to go about making up for that as well as
accomplishing other things. He has not been able to shake a quote that came to mind -- “All that is
necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” He thinks the quote is very appropriate in
this case.
Mr. Dave Bass noted that he supports the program, and he thinks it will be a great asset for
Albemarle County. However, he has some concerns, particularly about the point system. The point system
in three areas deals with either property threatened with a for sale situation, or whether someone is really
working a family farm or financial considerations that deal with income. He stated that everyone knows
easements go with the land, and they are not about people. If easements are going to be acquired for the
benefit of Albemarle County, he does not think the point system should consider income or whether or not a
person is a full-time farmer. He said most people who are farming are not sending their children to college
with the income from it. He thinks this is social engineering, and he does not feel these items have a place
in the point system. He asked the Board members to think about this. The County is going to have to
protect the best pieces of land with a conservation easement, and it doesn’t matter who owns them. These
have got to be special places and very special pieces of land, and he disagrees with the Committee on that
part of the point system. He also thinks the $1,000 an acre is unrealistic, because the parcels of land the
County will want to buy are going to be the more expensive ones, and they are not going to be the easy
pieces to acquire. He added that the pieces of land that will really count are going to cost more than $1,000
an acre.
Mr. George Larie, from the Jack Jouett District, spoke in support of the PDR Program. He moved
here 11 years ago from out of state, and one of the things that really attracted him to this area was its
natural beauty. He used to walk around and wonder how he could be so lucky as to live here, and he thinks
the PDR program is a significant thing to attract people, such as himself. He is a retiree, and he thinks
retirees look for this type of an area. He pointed out that retirees offer some real benefits to the County
because they do not demand very many services. He added that they certainly don’t demand any schools
which is the most expensive budget item. Secondly, he noted that according to the Albemarle County
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Planning Department, buying the development rights on a 220 acre farm would save the County $176,000
over a 20 year period. He does not know how this was calculated, but he wanted to call it to the
Supervisors’ attention, because he thinks it is significant. He asked the Board to adopt the PDR program.
Ms. Julie Jones, a lifelong resident of White Hall, stated that she is a student of planning at the
University of Virginia. She knows how successful a tool a PDR Program can be especially in a place such
as this one with Albemarle County facing such development pressures. She urged the Board to continue to
pursue the implementation of the ACE Program as a positive pro-active way to realize the conservation
goals as stated in the Open Space and Comprehensive Plans. She noted that although she is not a
landowner yet in the County, some day she hopes to inherit her family farm. She said a program such as
the ACE Program may allow the family farm to be passed on to her intact and would give herself and her
sisters a tool to protect it permanently in the face of development pressures.
Mr. Joe Jones noted that Julie Jones, who just spoke, is his daughter. He reiterated that they are
residents of White Hall, and he makes a living producing food and fiber because he is a farmer. He enjoys
that life, and he read a statement he found a year ago by a Chinese person – “Life itself begins with the
land”. He asked the Board to envision what will happen to the County in the next 35 years. What do you
have after sprawl? At first he had reservations about spending taxpayer money on this program, but now he
thinks it would be money well spent and a good investment. He thinks the County needs to ask the City to
support the program as they also enjoy the benefits of open space. The benefits of this program will be
enjoyed by all the residents of the County. It is a voluntary program whereas it is up to the individual to
partnership with the county. It is never to soon to start a program like this, but it can be too late.
Mr. Woody Baker, a resident of the Rivanna District, commented that he manages a farm of 2,000
acres which has been placed in voluntary easement. He supports PDRs, and he challenged the Board to
make a full commitment to this program. He asked that they not just approve it, and then sit back, and wait
to see what happens. He stated that something will happen, but he thinks this program is going to take a lot
of money. He wished the County officials good luck.
Ms. Ann H. Mallek commented that she wished to send a message from the President of the
Earlysville Area Residents’ League (E.A.R.L.) to remind the Board members of the letter in support of
funding the ACE Program from their organization included in their folders. (See letter from E.A.R.L. to
Members of the Board of Supervisors, dated December 27, 1999.) She also told them that the League is
growing to 150 families in the area, and they are all very concerned about the County’s open space. She
then spoke for herself when she stated that she heartily supports the ACE Program for Albemarle County.
(See her letter to Members of the Board of Supervisors, dated January 12, 2000.)
Ms. Babs Huckle thanked the Supervisors for taking up this very important subject. She hopes they
will approve the ACE Program, and she noted that this is a land management tool which is used in 21
states. She added that Maryland has had an active PDR program since 1977, and it has also been proven
to work in other places. She commented that removing development potential from rural land may reduce
real estate taxes, but it prevents them from rising by lowering the demand for more services. She stated
that providing a farmer with capital will make it possible for him to continue to farm, and the re-investment of
PDR funds in farm improvement may also stimulate the sales of products such as trucks, farm machinery,
livestock, feed and supplies. She pointed out that non-farmers also benefit in the continuation of rural land
in many ways, such as food protection, scenic landscapes, open space, protecting watersheds and wildlife
habitat. She added that while there are many ways to manage the impact of development, first the County
must limit the number of acres available. She said once farms have been divided into lots and roads
paved, the damage has been done and cannot be reversed. She added that with the loss of rainfall, there
is already a water shortage, yet certain developments are asking for the extension of water lines. The very
process of development contributes to the water shortage, with too many people pumping water out of the
ground while the cutting of trees, piping upstream, covering the ground with buildings, paving roads and
parking lots prevents the return of rainwater back into the ground. She stated that surface water supplies
are also in trouble, and it is ironic that the burgeoning population is causing the need for more water supply,
but at the same time the water resources are dwindling. If the land taxes increase to provide new services
such as schools and teachers, the rural landowners will be forced to sell out and the vicious circle will
continue. She stated that while some landowners are voluntarily putting their farms under permanent
easements, others may wish to protect their family farms from development but may need money which the
developers offer. She added that this is where the County funded purchase of development rights will
make a big difference. One of the most important assets in this County is the presence of unspoiled, open,
rural land. She remarked that people come here not just to see Monticello, but they want to see the views,
as well, and they move here to get away from the endless sprawl. She noted that anyone who has traveled
to Northern Virginia over the years is shocked by the changes there, and one can get a chilling view of
Albemarle’s impending fate by visiting Loudoun County around Leesburg today. She hopes this will not
happen here. (See statement from Babs Huckle to the Board of Supervisors, dated January 12, 2000.)
Mr. Steve McLean, an ACE Committee member, indicated that he would limit his remarks since
other members of the Committee have spoken. He then requested the Board members to use the ACE
Program as one of many tools to help protect the rivers, open spaces and natural resources of this County.
The program is a win/win situation for all citizens of Albemarle County, and he hopes the Supervisors will
support it financially, not only now, but in the near future with an even greater dollar amount.
Mr. Dan Bieker supported the PDR Program, although he hopes real estate taxes do not rise.
However, if they do, and if the extra funds are used for a program such as this, he cannot think of a better
use for the money. He said what is being bought is in perpetuity, and that is a great value. He also
remarked that this is the best tool available to protect wildlife habitat. There are many tools to protect rural
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
areas, but there probably could not be a better one to protect wildlife habitat than this one. Therefore, he
urged the Board members to reconsider the criteria, especially under Section Three, to weigh more
favorably in the protection of plant and wildlife habitat. He noted that the Board has agreed to set up a
Biodiversity Committee. He hopes this Committee will be allowed to have input in the criteria, as well as on
the deeds of easement, to ensure that the development rights purchased are kept in a state that will
continue to benefit biodiversity in the County.
Ms. Ruth Wadlington, Co-President of the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County, indicated that the League supports the ACE Program and applauds the Board of
Supervisors for its foresight in approving $1,000,000 to launch and support this initiative. She then read a
prepared statement to this effect. (See statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors from the
League of Women Voters, dated January 12, 2000.)
Mr. Scott Peyton indicated that he is a lifelong resident of Albemarle County. He is addressing the
Board at this meeting as President of Scenic 250, which is a broad based citizens’ organization dedicated to
the preservation of Route 250’s scenic, rural and historic character. He stated that with Route 250 being
both a State scenic byway and County entrance corridor, it will undoubtedly figure prominently as one of the
criteria for identifying subject properties. The Scenic 250 members commend this Board for its vision in
both acknowledging these valuable County resources and then taking steps to protect these assets that
enhance the lives of all County residents. He added that they applaud this initiative. This is local
government at its best.
Ms. Nancy McLaughlin informed the Board that she is an attorney in Charlottesville, and she has
helped numerous landowners put conservation easements on their properties. She has also published an
article on the tax benefits associated with the donation of conservation easements, and she is present to
support the ACE Program. She stated that conservation easements have proven to be a tremendously
effective way to preserve and protect land in Albemarle County. She added that the only missing link in the
current scheme is that there are no effective incentives to encourage landowners of modest means to
donate easements. She believes the PDR or ACE Program has the potential to fill this niche provided a
gross income limitation is built into the program. She remarked that landowners whose incomes exceed a
certain level should not be eligible for the program. Currently there is a myriad of tax benefits available with
respect to easement donations. At the federal level, a charitable income tax deduction can be received, as
well as two estate tax benefits, and at the state level there is the state income tax credit. However, these
benefits are useful only to wealthy landowners who have sufficient income to take advantage of the federal
income tax deduction and the state income tax credit and landowners with a taxable estate who can benefit
from the state tax benefits. It is the modest incomes and modest estates category of landowners for whom
the tax benefits are of little use, and for these landowners, the donation of a conservation easement is a
real hardship. She explained that while the easement will decrease the value of their property significantly,
they will receive little or nothing in return because they can’t use the available tax benefits. It is this category
of landowners for whom the ACE Program should be targeted. She said it would be a mistake to
implement a program where instead of making it possible for landowners of modest means to donate
easements, the funds are used instead to pay wealthy landowners for easements they otherwise could
have donated in exchange for federal and state benefits. She recommended that the ACE Program be
used to give those landowners of more modest means, who otherwise could not afford to donate
easements, the opportunity to preserve and protect their lands not only for the benefit of themselves and
their families, but also for the community at large.
Mr. Jack Marshall, a resident of the White Hall District, stated that Albemarle’s growing population,
increasing at the same percentage rate as that of India, imposes relentless pressures on the very fine 750
square miles of land in the County. The reality has to be faced that either work must be done more
effectively to manage this growth, or the price of growth will have to be paid. Among the real unavoidable
costs, is degradation of the environment, including water resources about which he is particularly
concerned; the loss of some of the beauty of this area; and the erosion of other elements in the quality of
citizens’ lives. He commented that there will be costs involved for expanded public services which are
demanded by the expanding numbers of residents. The ACE Program, though modest, is one feasible and
cost effective way to deal with the effects of growth on the County’s natural resources. Fiscal impact
studies show that investments in purchasing development rights today saves taxpayers money over the long
term, and it is the long term and not just the short term about which the County leaders must think. He
remarked that County leaders would be foolish to reject or postpone this ACE Program because it will
require expenditures today, and it might even contribute modestly to the need to raise taxes. He believes a
small increase in taxes today for this program, if necessary, would help avoid larger tax increases in the
future. He asked that the Supervisors be visionary in looking at the County’s future 20, 50 or 100 years
from now and think of the long term benefits. He also asked that the Supervisors not let anyone tell them to
vote against the ACE Program simply because it is not yet known precisely which parcels of land will be
included or because final agreement has not been reached on the selection criteria for parcels. He is sure
thoughtful and fair methods can be worked out for selecting properties, and it can be done with reasonable
speed. He noted that not everybody will be happy, as usual, but in this case, the problem is not in the
details. The problem will rest in delay and inaction that will kill this program and doom some of the forests
and fields to continue to be spoiled by development. He is delighted with the product of the ACE
Committee, so far, and proud of the Board of Supervisors for tentatively allocating $1,000,000 for initial
purchases of development rights. He asked that the County officials not slow down now.
Mr. Martin noted that Mr. Marshall was the last person who had signed up to speak, and he asked if
anyone else would like to speak before the public hearing is closed.
January 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Peter Hallock, from the Rivanna District, called attention to the pamphlet of the University of
Virginia Real Estate Foundation (UREF) where it lists on the back all the region has to offer, which is
“unmatched natural beauty” and “a superb quality of life.” He said reasons for living in the area are listed on
the inside of the pamphlet, and he read the last sentence which stated, “outstanding healthcare facilities,
one of the best school systems in the Commonwealth and an unspoiled countryside.” He stated that
perhaps if donations are desired, UREF would be a good place to start.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing, and thanked everyone
for coming. The Board would be moving forward on the issue, although there would not be a
vote taken at this meeting. He added that the matter would be discussed again at the Board of Supervisors’
February 2 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: September 1 and November 10, 1999.
Mr. Perkins indicated that he had read the November 10, 1999 meeting minutes and found them to
be in order.
Ms. Thomas stated that she had read the minutes of September 1, 1999 and found them to be in
order. She then made a motion to approve the minutes of November 10, 1999 and September 1, 1999.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said the next step regarding the PDR Program is to start developing an ordinance, and
he asked if the Board members would like for the staff to proceed with this matter. He indicated that there
was still some additional work to be done, but the staff members could start putting together a rough draft if
that is the direction the Supervisors want them to go.
Mr. Bowerman noted that there seemed to be general support of the program at this public
hearing. However, most concerns related to biodiversity or the ranking system, and he suggested that
these two things be examined by the Committee or staff.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the Committee members told their reasons for the ranking system.
They dealt with a lot of issues, and she does not think they need to start over.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks that consideration needs to start be given to the makeup of the ACE
Board. The ACE Board will be managing the program.
Next, Ms. Thomas mentioned money coming to each locality from the recordation tax. She said
Albemarle County will be getting $590,000, but she reminded everyone that this is not free money. She
asked the staff to explore the use of these funds to fund the program.
Mr. Martin suggested that the Board discuss the PDR Program at the February 2 Supervisors’
meeting. He also mentioned a previous position of the Board of Supervisors to take this issue to
referendum.
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. At 10:32 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date
Initials