2003-04-02April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 2,
2003, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 9:07 a.m.), Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles
S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 2:00 p.m.), 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. Mr. Dorrier asked that the people present remember the
American servicemen in Iraq.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.8a, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda for
information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman.
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: January 15 (A), and February 12, 2003.
Mr. Dorrier said he had read the minutes of February 12, 2003, and found them to be in order.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes of February 12 were approved as
presented. The other minutes will go forward to the next meeting for approval.
Item 5.2. Proclamation recognizing April, 2003 as Child Abuse Prevention Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved:
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
WHEREAS, the month of April is recognized as Child Abuse Prevention Month in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and across the United States; and
WHEREAS,
during Fiscal Year 2001-2002, 366 qualifying reports of suspected child
abuse and/or neglect were investigated or assessed in the County of
Albemarle; and
WHEREAS,
physical abuse and neglect, sexual abuse, medical neglect, and emotional
abuse and neglect, lead to long-term outcomes for children such as
developmental delay, mental and emotional disorders, antisocial and
criminal behavior, childhood pregnancy, truancy and academic failure,
alcohol and drug abuse, and suicide; and
WHEREAS,
the County of Albemarle faces a continuing need to support innovative
programs to prevent child abuse and to assist family members when child
abuse occurs; and
WHEREAS,
in Albemarle there are dedicated individuals and organizations who work
daily to counter the problem of child abuse and neglect and to provide
parents with the assistance they need; and
WHEREAS, all children deserve freedom from verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical
abuse and neglect, and emotional abuse and neglect; and
WHEREAS,
children deserve to have BLUE RIBBON DAYS, including loving hugs, warm
homes, tender care, parents and adults who listen and who promote
self-esteem, give quality time, provide necessary food, shelter, clothing, and
medical attention; and
WHEREAS, it is vital that we join forces to reach out to parents and children to prevent
recurrence of child abuse and neglect; and
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, it is indeed appropriate and fitting to focus attention upon the problem of
child abuse and neglect in the Commonwealth of Virginia and in the County
of Albemarle;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2003, as CHILD
ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH in the County of Albemarle, and do call
upon our citizens to observe the month with appropriate programs, blue
ribbons and other activities.
(Discussion: Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation into the record and then presented same to Ms.
Judy Randall from the Albemarle Social Services Department.)
Item 5.3. Proclamation recognizing April, 2003 as Fair Housing Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the proclamation was approved.
Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation into the record and then presented same to Mr. Ron White,
Housing Director. Mr. White said the County is fortunate to work with its non-profit partners, and its for-profit
partners in the real estate industry. He said their office does not get a lot of fair housing complaints. (Note:
Mr. Bowerman arrived at 9:07 a.m.) Fair housing month is used to educate people on fair housing issues.
He said this area is fortunate not to have some of the discriminatory practices and issues seen in other parts
of the country.)
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS,
April, 2003, marks the thirty-fifth anniversary of the passage of the Fair
Housing Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing
opportunities and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans;
and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the
exclusive province of the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not
more so, than Federal efforts; and
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle,
diminish the rights of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in the pursuit of the shared goal and
responsibility of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and
women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2003
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private,
in Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing
law.
Item 5.4. Proclamation recognizing May 3, 2003, as Albemarle County Farm Tour Day.
By the recorded vote set out above, the proclamation was approved.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM TOUR DAY
MAY 3, 2003
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan gives highest priority to agriculture and forestry as a
land use in the Rural Area; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Albemarle County in the 2002 Albemarle County Planning
Survey rated "preserving natural resources and open space" and "preserving
farmland and forested land" as the sixth and seventh most important goals
out of a series of twenty goals for the strategic plan; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is among the top 26 counties in Virginia for the market
value of agricultural products sold; and
WHEREAS, it is the land resource which provides the true value of agriculture and
forestry to this community, with related benefits of open space for cleaner air,
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
watershed protection, and wildlife habitat, scenic, rural and historic
landscapes which encourage tourism; and quality of life for all residents; and
WHEREAS, maintaining agriculture and forestry also enables the County to grow at a
measured and deliberate pace, and to better plan for services; and
WHEREAS, the loss of the agricultural and forestal resource base would permanently
damage the County's economic base and natural environment; and
WHEREAS, the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee recommended
that educational programs be developed for the public, such as:
* improving both the County officials' and the general public's
understanding of agriculture;
* promoting appreciation of the rural area by the community, and
emphasizing the importance of agricultural and forestal lands to them;
* supporting agricultural education in the classroom, and implementing a
farm day for school children; and
* implementing an educational tour of County farms for the general public,
County officials and decision-making staff; and
WHEREAS, the future of agriculture and forestry in Albemarle County depends on the
actions of the farm and forest owners, but also on the support of elected
officials and other citizens;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of
the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
May 3, 2003
as
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM TOUR DAY
and commend the Albemarle Farm Bureau and the Piedmont Environmental
Council for helping to educate the citizens about the importance of farming
to our community.
(Discussion: Mr. Dorrier read from the proclamation and presented same to Ms. Marcia Joseph.
Ms. Joseph accepted the proclamation on behalf of Albemarle County and the Piedmont Environmental
Council. She reminded the Board that the County's rural area lands are more than dormant lands just
waiting to sprout subdivisions. She noted that two farm operations would be open to the public: Mount Air
Farm and White Hall Vineyards. She then read some statistics concerning farming in the County.)
Item 5.5. Proclamation recognizing May 10 through May 16, 2003, as National Police Memorial
Week. No one was present to accept the proclamation so Mr. Dorrier suggested holding it until May.
Item 5.6. Authorize County Executive to execute Service Agreement with Scottsville Volunteer
Rescue Squad, Inc.
It was noted in the staff's report that Albemarle County has a revolving fund used by the ten
volunteer fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at two million dollars,
provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed firefighting and rescue squad equipment
and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from their annual County appropriation.
Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and approved by Albemarle County Fire Rescue
Advisory Board (ACFRAB).
The current amount available in the revolving fund is $227,551.33. Scottsville Volunteer Rescue
Squad has requested, through ACFRAB, an advance of $63,228.40 to be used to replace the chassis of
Ambulance 705. Scottsville Rescue has executed the standard service agreement approved by the
County Attorney's office. The Board can disburse this advance upon approval of this agreement.
Repayment of the allocation will be over an eight-year period starting in FY 03-04.
Staff recommended authorizing the County Executive to execute the attached Service Agreement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to execute a
Service Agreement with the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc., as follows:
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this __ day of __, 2003, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, (the "County"), and
the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
"Rescue Squad").
WHEREAS, the Rescue Squad agrees to continue to provide valuable rescue
squad services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the
Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Communications Center ("Service
Area"); and
WHEREAS, the Rescue Squad desires the County to contribute Sixty-three
Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-eight and 40/100 Dollars ($63,228.40) to replace the
chassis of Ambulance 705 necessary to provide rescue squad services.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the
County and Rescue Squad agree, as follows:
The County shall contribute to the Rescue Squad Sixty-three Thousand Two
Hundred Twenty-eight and 40/100 Dollars ($63,228.40) to be used to replace the
chassis of Ambulance 705. The funds shall be allocated from the County's Fire
Fund ("Fund") and shall be made available upon execution of this agreement.
The Rescue Squad agrees that the County will withhold Seven Thousand Nine
Hundred Three and 55/100 Dollars ($7,903.55) from the County's annual
appropriation to the Rescue Squad's operating budget beginning July, 2003
through July, 2010. Thus at the end of eight (8) years, which is the term of this
Agreement, a total of $63,228.40 shall be withheld. This withholding may be
used by the County to replenish the Fund for so long as the County, at its
discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding is in addition to the withholding
for all prior advances under the prior service agreements with the Rescue Squad
dated August 24, 2000, November 16, 1998, and May 15, 1996 (and its
Addendum dated August 14, 1996). The Rescue Squad agrees that any amount
of this repayment that may exceed the County's annual appropriation will be
remitted to the County no later than July 31 of each repayment year.
The Rescue Squad agrees that the Sixty-three Thousand Two Hundred
Twenty-eight and 40/100 Dollars ($63,228.40) contribution shall be used only for
the purchase of a new chassis for Ambulance 705 to be used to provide rescue
squad services in Albemarle County. The Rescue Squad further agrees that it
shall not convey Ambulance 705 or any interest therein to any party other than
the County without the County's prior written consent during the useful life of the
ambulance or the term of this Service Agreement, whichever is longer. For
purposes of this Agreement, the useful life of the ambulance shall be ten years
from the date it is placed into service after the chassis has been replaced. In
addition, the Rescue Squad agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a
claim related to any damage to the ambulance after the chassis has been
replaced shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the
ambulance unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for
such funds.
The Rescue Squad agrees that at such time as it no longer provides volunteer
rescue squad services in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction
of the County that it shall convey all of its interest in Ambulance 705 to the
County at no additional cost to the County upon the County's request.
The County and Rescue Squad agree that the covenants set forth in their prior
agreements dated August 24, 2000, November 16, 1998, and May 15, 1996 (and
its Addendum dated August 14, 1996), to the extent they are not in conflict with
this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations
by the County to the Rescue Squad, at the discretion of the County Board of
Supervisors, to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the
Rescue Squad.
Item 5.7. Request to set a public hearing to amend the service area of the Albemarle County
Service Authority (ACSA) for water and sewer service to Tax Map 56, Parcel 87 (Mass Enterprises, Inc.).
It was noted in the staff's report that the applicant is requesting ACSA jurisdictional area designation
for water and sewer service to a 3.93-acre lot located on the south side of Three Notch'd Road (Route
240), approximately 600 feet west of the entrance to Western Ridge. The property is located within the
designated Crozet Development Area, in the White Hall Magisterial District. Parcel 87 is currently the site
of a trucking business consisting of three buildings and has a zoning designation of Light Industrial, L-I. The
current ACSA designation is for water to existing structures only. The adjacent parcels to the west and east
of this site are both designated for public water and sewer service.
There was a preliminary site plan (SDP-2002-098, Crozet Mini Storage) submitted in September
2002 requesting approval to construct 17,475 square feet of self-storage buildings on the site. The
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
preliminary site plan was deferred indefinitely to address several issues, one of them being ACSA
jurisdictional area approval for water and sewer service.
As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be reserved to support
development of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with public utility policy of the
Comprehensive Plan. Since this property is located within a designated Development Area, the provision of
both water and sewer service to the property would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan public utility
policy. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board proceed to public hearing to consider providing public
water and sewer service to Tax Map 56, Parcel 87.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board ordered a public hearing advertised for May
7, 2003, on this request.
Item 5.8. Mountainside Senior Assisted-Living Center - funding request for operational support.
It was noted in the staff's report that Mountainside Senior Assisted Living Center, formally known as
Windham, is an assisted-living facility in Crozet. Mountainside provides assisted-living housing to 102
residents, including 28 Region Ten clients.
In 2002, Windham changed hands, and Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) began to manage
the facility as a limited partner. In January 2002, the County of Albemarle provided a grant of $177,617 to
assist Mountainside during their transition phase as they worked to become self-supporting. Funding
requested by JABA at that time was to subsidize 30 County Auxiliary Grant recipients who lived at the facility
until the private-pay residents began to offset the costs. At that time, the thought was that a one-time grant
of $177,617 would net out to be a $17,600 subsidy over a ten-year period. Prior to its closing in 1998, the
County supported elderly housing at the District Home in Waynesboro for County residents by providing an
annual subsidy of $30,000 to $40,000 per year.
Due to unanticipated expenses that were not disclosed by the previous owner, as well as a delay in
having the facility ready to accept private-pay clients, Mr. Gordon Walker, the Executive Director of JABA,
submitted a letter to all Albemarle County Board members and the City of Charlottesville on March 24,
requesting additional funding for the Mountainside Center. Mr. Walker indicated that until the Center
achieves an appropriate ratio of auxiliary grant residents and private-pay residents, they would need to find
additional funding to operate the Center. JABA has lost over $100,000 in state funds, and their Federal
funding is flat. To keep Mountainside's financial condition viable, JABA has set a short-term fund-raising
goal of $225,000 for Mountainside to be raised or pledged by April 21. To date, JABA has received a
$75,000 challenge grant to be matched with other funds. To meet the challenge grant, JABA is requesting
$12,500 from the County of Albemarle and from the City of Charlottesville for each of the fiscal years 2004,
2005 and 2006 for a total of $37,500 from the County and $37,500 from the City.
Mr. Walker states that the center provides private-pay rates considerably below market, thus
providing affordable assisted-living to persons of moderate income who cannot afford market place prices.
JABA has encouraged the Board to tour the facility and learn more about the improvements that have taken
place and will be completed in the future. The City of Charlottesville's City Council will also be considering
JABA's request.
Should the Board wish to support funding for the Mountainside project, staff will add $12,500 as a
new initiative in the Board's FY '04 proposed budget using some of the Board=s remaining contingency
funds.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board supported funding for the Mountainside
project, adding $12,500 as a new initiative in the Board's FY '04 proposed budget using some of the
remaining Board Contingency Funds.
Item 5.8a. West Leigh Drive - VDOT Rural Addition Project Waterline Relocation.
It was noted on February 13, 1997, that CSX notified the West Leigh Homeowners that the West
Leigh private railroad crossing would be closed unless it was signalized and licensed with either all
costs/annual fees paid by the neighborhood, or the road taken into the public highway system. The Board
of Supervisors recognized the importance and the need to preserve this vital transportation link. In
response, on October 6, 1999, the Board requested that VDOT accept and improve a 0.4-mile portion of
West Leigh Drive (from Route 250 to Leigh Way) through the "Rural Additions Program." The
Commonwealth Transportation Board accepted this street on December 6, 1999.
VDOT awarded a contract on March 3, 2003, for the road improvements including the replacement
of an existing and badly deteriorated 72-inch metal culvert pipe at Little Ivy Creek. Prior to commencing
construction, the contractor informed VDOT that an existing 12-inch diameter waterline would need to be
relocated before the culvert could be replaced. VDoT's "Rural Addition" policy specifically excludes the use
of "Rural Addition" funds for waterline and other utility relocations. Therefore, VDOT notified the
Department of Engineering & Public Works that the waterline relocation would need to be funded and
contracted separately by the County and/or Albemarle County Service Authority.
Recent flooding of Little Ivy Creek collapsed the deteriorated culvert and washed out the stream
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
crossing. This portion of West Leigh Drive, a vital transportation link for the community, is now closed to
traffic until the waterline is relocated and the new stream crossing is constructed.
The Contractor's $48,000 waterline relocation estimate differs from the ACSA estimate of $36,000.
The difference is the result of the Contractor changing the location of the temporary stream diversion that
is necessary to install the new stream crossing. The portion of this cost attributable to the waterline (if any)
will need to be negotiated with the Contractor. The Department of Engineering & Public Works has
reviewed the Capital Improvements budget and identified that funds may be transferred from the "Ivy
Landfill" CIP account and appropriated to this project to cover the waterline relocation cost. Mr. Bill Brent
(ACSA) has agreed, in principle, to reimburse the County 50 percent of the waterline relocation cost.
However, this will require ACSA Board authorization.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the transfer and emergency appropriation of $45,000
from the referenced account for this project.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the transfer and appropriation of
$45,000 from Account #1-9010-41000-700006 for this project.
Item 5.9. Update on Neighborhood Model Implementation.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Board originally reviewed the status of the implementation
activities at its August 7, 2002, meeting. Since the Board reviewed this project's status in October, work has
progressed on a number of tasks necessary to implement the Neighborhood Model. Other tasks have
been reassessed and adjusted based on other project workload responsibilities and activities necessary to
accomplish the tasks.
Review of overall facility and individual service objectives is underway with the Planning
Commission. The Commission's expected completion has been delayed by approximately three weeks,
primarily due to weather conditions that necessitated postponing a Commission work session and some
internal agency meetings.
As to Volume 2 Subdivision Ordinance changes, staff development should be completed by the
end of the month. This was delayed by about two weeks to allow for staff/county attorney work in finalizing
code changes.
The Board adopted the Neighborhood Model Zoning District on Wednesday, March 19. There was
a delay of one month due to Board decisions to have DISC II review the ordinance proposals and
comments from outside groups. While this, in turn, caused delay for staff working on Volume 2 Zoning
Ordinance Changes, it did yield significant agreement on Neighborhood Model Zoning District ordinance
modifications.
For Volume 2 Zoning Ordinance changes, staff development and overall completion was delayed
by about eight weeks due to staff involvement in additional work with the Neighborhood Model District and
the parking ordinance changes, additional County Attorney work, more complicated considerations that
arose as a result of detailed review of the existing ordinance provisions and the illness and death in the
family experienced by a key staff member.
Work continues with VDOT on local application of subdivision street standards more consistent with
the Neighborhood Model. Of particular significance, Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Engineering and Public
Works, has been appointed to a statewide committee reviewing these standards.
For the Crozet Master Plan, weather delayed the community design day by several weeks, but the
overall schedule is still on track.
Parks and Recreation Facilities. At the recommendation of Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and
Recreation, the schedule was changed to take advantage of the consultant hired initially to evaluate the
need for an urban gym and to do a more general review of parks and recreation needs and standards.
Since the urban gym is being delayed in the CIP, and given the importance of this issue to Neighborhood
Model implementation, the contract with the consultant will be modified to focus more on addressing new
standards for park/recreation facilities and methods for developing them consistent with the Neighborhood
Model principles. Overall delay in completion is approximately ten months.
Affordable Housing. The Affordable Housing Policy Comprehensive Plan amendment was delayed
by about two months, as the Housing Committee was not prepared to vote in January and decided to delay
any decision until February. There was not a quorum at the February meeting and those attending used
that time as a work session to do some final revisions. The Housing Committee approved the final draft of
the proposal on March 12.
Rural Areas Review. The review of the Comprehensive Plan Rural Areas section was previously
adjusted by two months to allow for the Board's reconsideration of the Mountain Overlay District.
Completion was projected to be in November 2003 instead of September 2003 based on an anticipated
Board decision on the Mountain Overlay District in April 2003. Since then, public meetings associated with
the Rural Area review were delayed by weather and the joint Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors'
meeting was not held until March. The Board previously adjusted the overall schedule to allow for the
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mountain Overlay District review so it was not affected. However, recent decisions by the Board to consider
further work on the Mountain Overlay District with the assistance of a committee could have some
additional impact on the Rural Area review schedule. This will need to be evaluated as part of the Board's
final decisions regarding the forthcoming Mountain Overlay District work.
This report was provided for the Board's information.
Item 5.10. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for March 4, 2003, was received for
information.
Item 5.11. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, April 2003, was removed from the
agenda.
Item 5.12. Copy of resolution adopted by the Greene County Board of Supervisors, re: Route 29
Corridor. The resolution requested that the Albemarle Board of Supervisors address the serious need for
traffic improvements related to the Route 29 corridor prior to their approval of any large-scale development
utilizing this corridor.
This resolution was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5a. Presentation: Housing Resolutions.
Mr. Dorrier read the CAAR resolution into the record and then presented same to Ms. Carol Clarke,
President of the Virginia Association of Realtors.
The resolution read:
On behalf of the citizens and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
we would like to recognize those individuals that support fair and affordable
housing for all. It is our pleasure to recognize the
Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors (CAAR)
The 800-plus members of CAAR have set high standards for themselves by adopting
and adhering to a strong Code of Ethics. The leadership and membership of CAAR is
committed to coalition building to improve the quality of life in the area through the
provision of affordable "Housing for Everyone." CAAR provides homeownership
education to prepare families for home purchase and increase the success of those
families in maintaining their homes.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is please to recognize and honor the
members of CAAR for their efforts in promoting opportunities for fair and affordable
housing and for taking a leadership role at the state and national levels.
Ms. Clarke said it has been a privilege for her to represent the realtors and work for affordable
housing. She thanked the Board for its present and future help in this regard.
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tom Loach said he was not able to find the $9.0+ million cost of the land use program in the
proposed budget. He thinks it was probably buried so no one would see it. It was also not included as part
of the budget discussion. In the C'ville Weekly this week, Richard Wood, Deputy County Assessor, said that
almost all people getting the tax break have other sources of income and either farm part-time or
recreationally. The article said Mr. Wood defended the program even though it gives a tax break to people
who don't need it.
Mr. Loach said he, personally, does not want to continue to subsidize the wealthy. He challenges
any member of the administration or the Board to provide the taxpayers with documentation specific to the
land use program that shows a positive return on investment from the land use program. He thinks that
most land sold in the rural area in the last year was in the land use program for more than five years. That
means the land was lost to development when sold, and also cost the taxpayers a significant amount of
money. He said that for those in the growth areas, particularly in Crozet where the master plan is being
finalized and comes with a significant price tag, if the County has enough money to give significant tax
breaks to the wealthy, it certainly must have the funds to meet the needs of the average citizen. To not
fund the necessary infrastructure would indicate that the Board is willing to subsidize the part-time and
recreational farmers at the financial expense of growth area residents, and is also willing to do it at the
quality of life of growth area residents
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Six-Year Secondary Road Plan, Work Session
continued from March 5, 2003.
Mr. Benish said the Board held a work session on the proposed Six-Year Secondary Road Priority
List on March 5, 2003. A major focus of the discussion was on the unpaved road portion of the list, which
had been reprioritized with an emphasis on giving roads eligible for the Rural Rustic Road program higher
priority. The Board discussed whether or not rural rustic road eligibility should be a high priority because it
may conflict with the County's Rural Areas objectives and because it significantly changed the priority of
projects from the previously approved plan. Also of concern was the significant change to project priorities
that were committed to in previously adopted plans. One item to note is that the Rustic Road process does
not require full dedication of right-of-way from adjacent property owners. Full right-of-way dedication has
been used as a way to insure citizen acceptance of a proposed project.
Mr. Benish said the Board requested staff to consider requests from the Schools as a criterion
when ranking road projects. Staff has had in place a standard process of requesting a list of projects from
Fire/Rescue agencies, the Town of Scottsville, and the School's Transportation Division each year to
consider during the Six-Year Secondary Road discussion with the public, Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors. Although staff gives projects from the Schools special attention when ranking projects, they
are not included as a specific criterion in the rating system used by staff.
Mr. Benish said staff revised its recommendation for the unpaved roads portion of the Priority List.
Those priorities are now based on the Priority List adopted by the Board last year. It does not give any
priority to projects eligible for rural rustic roads. It adds new projects to the list and prioritizes those projects
based on the Board's current criteria. This new priority list includes several unpaved roads (Gilbert Station
Road, Heards Mountain Road, Beam Road, Woods Edge Road and Doctors Crossing Road) that are
already in the six-year funding cycle and meet rural rustic road criteria. This will give the County an
opportunity to implement a few rural rustic road projects and monitor the program before making a
significant commitment to it in the planning process.
Mr. Benish said the Board had asked for a comparative listing of priorities, specifically for unpaved
roads. Staff did it for the entire Six-Year Plan so the Board could see all the projects, the ranking of
projects in the previous plan, and how they compared in this year's plan.
Mr. Benish said the Southern Parkway has been moved up in the Plan to Priority No. 13. He thinks
that reflects the Board's intent to go forward with that project. Mr. Rooker asked how close the project is to
starting. Mr. Benish said Mr. Bryan, the VDOT Resident Engineer, has said the Residency will take the lead
in trying to get that clarified with their Central Office. He thinks that ultimately the project will be eligible for
funding, but at this time, they have only determined that it is eligible for revenue-sharing funds.
Mr. Chuck Proctor, Assistant Resident Engineer, said there is only one issue to be worked out.
That has to do with the private road standards that the County allows, the mountainous terrain standards as
opposed to the rolling terrain standards. That is the key issue to be worked out with the Central Office.
Mr. Rooker said with the growth in that area, the location of the new County Office Building, the new
fire station, and the schools, etc., it is a very important connector. Mr. Proctor said it would be a good
project, and it does meet all other criteria.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a homeowners group in that area which is very concerned about the road.
He wants to be sure they are kept apprised of the plans for this road. Mr. Proctor said he has heard about
the issues they have raised about the traffic that might be created through their subdivision. These people
can be brought into the public hearing process later.
Mr. Juan Wade said he has spoken at neighborhood association meetings several times. They
understand the County's position on this road, but they do not agree. Staff will try to work with them to get a
road with bike lanes and sidewalks. They do not want the road because they fear the through traffic. There
were not a lot of members present at the meeting, basically just their elected officials.
Mr. Dorrier said he believes they are expressing the sentiments of the neighborhood, but he thinks
there are ways of working with that group which will minimize their concerns.
Mr. Benish said Hillsdale Drive has been moved up on the priority list by one place, and he
understands that any construction in the County related to a project of this size will be funded through the
Urban System. It is in this priority position to show the County's desire to show the project's priority relative
to other projects.
Ms. Thomas said for years the County's portion of the project has been in the County's CIP. Has
that changed? Mr. Benish said $30,000+ is still shown in the CIP. But, staff thinks funding would be
focused on ancillary type of improvements, such as protected areas for senior citizens in the median strip
and enhancements to the system, not hard construction. He said when the project emerges through the
City process with their consultant; staff will know better the scope of the project.
Mr. Martin said it was stated earlier that there were two concerns by Board members at last month's
meeting. One had to do with not accelerating the Rural Rustic Road Program for any roads in the rural
area. Second, was a concern about rearranging priorities. He wants to make it clear that from his
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
perspective, he would like to see more paved roads because that is one of the biggest complaints he
receives from his constituents. He said it is one of the issues that really upset people, and he just wanted to
clear the record.
Mr. Benish said what staff took from the conversation was not to jump rapidly into the Program
without seeing what the project looked like for this first year. He said the Rio Road project at Penn Park
Lane was moved up on the list from No. 28 to No. 21. Staff has tried to more accurately depict the
Morgantown Road project. Ms. Thomas said the project is worded better on last year's list. Mr. Benish said
the Barracks Road project is new, but is outside of the priorities of the Six-Year Plan.
Mr. Wade said staff visited Augusta County and viewed some of their roads. Their resident
engineer said several times that these rural rustic roads are essentially just a form of dust control. The
local resident engineer, Mr. Bryan, has mentioned the same thing on several occasions. When Augusta
County implemented this program, they first adopted a resolution identifying the roads that were eligible for
the program. Then they sent letters to residents along the road saying the road would be reconstructed
using rural rustic road standards. If a citizen had concerns about the road being on the list, they were
instructed to contact their member of the board of supervisors. If they had a question about specific
improvements, they were directed to their resident engineer.
Mr. Wade then gave a slide presentation showing roads that had been reconstructed using the
rural rustic roads program, and explained each project. He said these projects do not take as long to
complete. In Augusta County, they hired one contractor to do five or more roads. Most of the contracts
took only a week to eight days to complete. If this were done in Albemarle, he would expect there to be
only one contractor hired to do several roads.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the ADT is below 400 vtpd, how long will the prime and double seal surface
last? Mr. Wade said usually on any unpaved road there is regular maintenance, so this seal would
probably last three to five years, and then the road would be put on a regular maintenance schedule. He
said this program is so new that the resident engineer indicated that still has to be determined. It takes two
or three years of the freeze/thaw cycle after surfacing an unpaved road to find out where there are drainage
issues.
Mr. Wade said prime and double seal is normally what is done for the unpaved roads in the County.
For rural rustic roads, a lot of money is not spent on improving drainage and shoulders. In terms of the
success of the program, VDOT surveyed 60 residents along the roads after the project was completed, and
they had a 98 percent acceptance rate. It seems that the people are happy with the projects that have
been completed. A few people did call the board of supervisors and expressed their objections to the road.
For most of the people their main concern was dust and rocks, but they would rather have those conditions
than have a wide road that could have taken down the trees or fences.
Mr. Dorrier said having road projects that require less money, more satisfaction and better results
sounds like a winning combination. Mr. Wade said this would allow more roads to be reconstructed in less
time. Staff has already identified the roads that are eligible to use these standards. He said that during the
year, he gets half a dozen requests to have roads paved and when the Board starts work on the Six-Year
Plan next year, those roads will already be identified. At this point, the roads will be integrated in to the list
without giving those eligible for rural rustic road policy a priority. The list presented today is not prioritized
using that policy. There are several projects on the list that have been on the list for many years that are
not eligible for the rural rustic roads policy.
Mr. Martin noted that for the first two unpaved roads listed, the necessary right-of-way is not
available. He said they are not eligible for the rural rustic roads policy, so they will simply be skipped over.
Mr. Wade said staff is indicating that those roads will be taken as they come up on the list.
Mr. Martin said the first roads on the list (Route 790) and Secretary's Road have already been
skipped over. Mr. Benish said staff will work toward those roads, but the right-of-way is not available so the
project cannot be done under the current policy. The next project on the list that is doable is a rural rustic
road.
Mr. Martin asked what would happen if the County notified people about the project and 80 percent
preferred to have a regular paved road. Mr. Benish said the Board would need to adopt a separate
resolution for each rural rustic road project. Staffwill need to be sure the public is agreeable with the type
of project to be completed.
Mr. Martin asked what will happen if someone objects to the rural rustic road policy being used. Mr.
Tucker said that is something staff needs to think about. He said a majority of the public does not know
about the policy. They need to be educated. If the public knows they do not have to lose the alignment and
trees along the existing road, he thinks most will accept the new policy.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it is necessary for the Board to schedule a public hearing on the County's
priority list. Mr. Tucker said "yes".
Ms. Thomas said there is a separate category for how to decide on bridge improvements. She
asked if there should be a separate category in the Six-Year list for bridges. Mr. Wade said that at one time
VDOT, each September, gave staff a list of bridges with a Iow sufficiency rating. Starting in 2003, VDOT
will start doing that again. They will let staff know the importance of bridge projects.
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Ms. Thomas said she thinks any bridge project in the growth area should supersede projects that
are not in the growth areas. This should be Number 3 in the criteria. Also, as to railroad crossings, if the
railroad has threatened to close the road, that should move a project to the top of the list.
Mr. Benish said the criteria-based rating system is not the end process by which projects are
ranked. It is just a starting point in the process. Each category is woven into one list. Stafftakes into
consideration unique circumstances. It is a fairly simple system, and staff tries to be objective by looking at
the same things every year. But, staff cannot anticipate every unique circumstance.
Mr. Wade mentioned the question about school priorities. He asked if the Board agreed with staff's
recommendation of placing those projects on Attachment C. Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Tucker said the County is behind in this process because of the delay in answering questions
about rural rustic roads. VDOT is waiting for the Board's recommendations. The earliest that a public
hearing can be held is May 7.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to advertise for a public hearing
on the County's Secondary Six-Year Road plan for May 7, 2003.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Teresa Butler, Assistant Resident Engineer, said VDOT has been busy patching potholes,
cleaning out from heavy rains, opening drains and focusing on gravel roads and shoulders. She offered to
answer questions.
Mr. Rooker asked about installation of "child-at-play" signs in Colthurst Subdivision. Mr. Juan
Wade said these are installed at the request of the neighborhood association or upon consensus of the
residents.
Mr. Martin again mentioned the intersection at Route 20 and Route 250 East. He had previously
asked that VDOT look at having two left-hand turning lanes at the intersection. He asked if VDOT has
looked at the request. Ms. Butler said she believes the traffic engineers have said there would need to be
adjustments made to the median. She will check.
Ms. Thomas said when the road washed out in front of her house and her husband dialed 9-1-1,
VDOT was there before the rescue squad. She said the people in West Leigh are looking forward to having
that repaired. They now have to take the long way out of the subdivision that requires going over six speed
bumps, and takes ten minutes longer. Ms. Butler said VDOT hopes to have the work completed in the next
30 days.
Mr. Bowerman said that last Saturday and Sunday was the first time the soccer fields have been
open this year. There was a lot of traffic that wanted to go southbound on Route 29. The turn light is so
brief that only two or three cars could get through on each light. There was a huge backup in traffic, and it
took someone about 45 minutes to get out. He asked whether that light might be made demand-sensitive
so that when it is tripped the light can remain on longer. He mentioned to the other Board members that
there is not much parking for those soccer fields, and people are parking on Polo Grounds Road. He does
not know how to go about contacting the SOCA people. Mr. Tucker said staff has contract with SOCA. Mr.
Bowerman asked that staff look into the problem of parking during those matches.
Mr. Martin asked if there were something special that happened last Saturday, or was it just a
typical Saturday. Ms. Butler said VDOT had received a call about this, and it has been submitted for a study
by traffic engineering.
Ms. Butler said the Hatton Ferry would be open for operations April 12. She thanked the County for
its assistance in mowing and grounds maintenance. It will operate 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., two days a week,
Saturday and Sunday. Volunteers of VDOT will man it. It was more economically feasible to do in-house,
than to contract for the service.
Mr. Dorrier said the public is probably not aware of the hours of operation, so it should be
publicized. Ms. Butler said there is a sign posted at the site giving the hours of operation. She said they
would place an ad in the local newspapers. Ms. Thomas suggested that VDOT contact the Visitors Center
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
to be sure it is on their web-site, and on their Heritage Tourism Map.
Ms. Butler said VDOT looked at the logbooks from previous years and found that there were at
times 75 walkers visiting the Ferry on a weekend.
Agenda Item No. 7. Request from Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center for use of Darden Towe
Park, Katherine Slaughter.
Ms. Slaughter was present with Mr. Rob Jackson and Mr. Fran Lawrence, Center Board members,
along with Ms. Susie Landencamp, the new part-time coordinator for the Center. Ms. Thomas said she and
Mr. Dorrier are also involved in this project.
Ms. Slaughter said she is president of the Center. They are here today to ask that the Board set a
public hearing in May to consider leasing a portion of Darden Towe Park for the use of the Lewis & Clark
Exploratory Center of Virginia. A year ago the Center Board voted to seek permission to locate the Center
along the Rivanna River on property on the northern portion of the Darden Towe Park property, continuing
across one private property owner's land and using property that was originally the park property at Buena
Vista. Since that time, the adjacent property owner has granted an easement across her property. The
Center Board is in the final stages of negotiating for about ten acres of property that will be donated on the
Clark site. They met with County planners, and have a preliminary site analysis by two firms. If they obtain
approval for use of the site, they will engage Warren Byrd, the original designer of Towe Park, and his
partner, Sue Nelson, along with McDonough and Partners to do the site analysis and center concept
leading to final site development and building.
Ms. Slaughter said that for two years they have been on-site at Towe Park using the barn building
for construction of a keelboat. They are committed to hands-on-learning of this type in a center that
showcases the self-reliance and cooperation of the original explorers. They intend to have a strong outdoor
program emphasizing the natural world, as well as a year-round inside program. The keelboat project
illustrates this commitment to hands-on-learning in providing opportunities for the entire community,
especially young people. On May 10, at the Lewis & Clark Festival in Lee Park, they will build a pirogue, a
two-ended, and flat-bottom boat, like one used by Lewis & Clark.
Ms. Slaughter said they have worked with the County and the City on development of the Lewis &
Clark video that is being expanded by the local PBS station. The Center will not only commemorate the
Lewis & Clark expedition, but will also provide an important link to the community through the greenways
along the River. They are working with the City/County/University on the idea of constructing a pedestrian
bridge across the river. They hope their presence will be a stimulus for in-fill development in the City across
the river.
Ms. Slaughter said that earlier this year they met with the Towe Park Committee. They then
decided to move forward with the proposed lease. Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Jackson of the Center's Board
worked on the lease with the County and City attorneys. They incorporated many suggestions from staff.
Included is a requirement to create a new access point; parking to be made available for overflow of
Darden Towe Park recreational activities; inclusion of the Rivanna River watershed activities in the Center's
programs; provision of a greenways trail; incorporation of the new pedestrian bridge; the design to be
responsive to any regional transportation plans that may involve a road or roadways in the portion of the
land leased to the Center which is owned by the City or the County; the lease is to be no more than 40
years; the Center will take responsibility for a portion of the park upon execution of the lease; no projects
will be undertaken without expressed approval of the City and the County; there would be bonding for all
aspects of the project; and, the property is to be developed in a manner which is respectful of the
environment and the river.
Ms. Slaughter said the project has been the subject of a UVA architectural workshop. They are
beginning to work on putting the program concepts on paper with McDonough Partners. They think the
project will have enormous benefit to the community and look forward to a partnership with the County to
enhance Darden Towe Park. She offered to answer questions.
Mr. Martin said the Committee looked at this request and was supportive. Its only concern was that
the Center be financially stable in case something got started and was not completed. It seems that all of
that has been worked out in the stipulations Ms. Slaughter read.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to set the question of a lease for the Exploratory Center on the
Board's agenda for May 7. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 8. Family Support Program, Presentation of.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. John Freeman is the Assistant Director of Albemarle Social Services and will
make the presentation.
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Freeman said his responsibility in the department has to do with children and family services
and benefits programs. He said they began in 1996 with one social worker, and now has ten. The program
provides intervention and prevention services in the elementary schools to assist children in modifying
behaviors that get in the way of their achieving success in school, to assist families in providing support to
their children, to assist school personnel in working with those families, and to help with broader social
goals such as reducing the incidents of child abuse and neglect, thus reducing the need for foster care.
Ms. Charity Haines made a presentation of the program using overhead slides (a copy of the slides
is on file in the Clerk's office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.)
Mr. Dorrier asked how many family support workers there are in Albemarle. Ms. Haines said there
are 10 workers serving 16 schools.
Mr. Martin said he noticed that the outcomes from the schools were taken from teacher surveys.
He asked if they had looked at specifics like attendance, or grades, or things that can be measured. Ms.
Haines said that was looked at last year as part of the evaluation process.
Mr. Freeman said Family Support has been funded by Title IV-E Federal funds that reimbursed
expenses for eligible children. Those are children who meet the potential for out-of-home placement.
During the past two years, the Virginia General Assembly has compromised the department's ability to
access those funds by replacing General Fund dollars with Federal TANF dollars. Federal dollars cannot
be used to match and pull down other Federal dollars. That has diminished the pool of dollars that could
be used to match those dollars. In the midst of this current fiscal year, the reviewers who are charged with
determining eligibility of cases began to apply stricter criteria, and did so back to the beginning of the fiscal
year. In the middle of the fiscal year, the department experienced an unexpected shortfall in funds to
provide services. However, they got support from the School Board and some other funds for the program.
Mr. Freeman said they were able to make up that shortfall in the current fiscal year. However,
looking forward into the year beginning in July, if those eligibility criteria remain as strict as they are, and if
the access rate does not change, there could be a shortfall of as much as $265,000 in the next fiscal year.
This would result in a cut-back in staffing and services. They have asked the reviewers to come back and
look again. Yesterday, he heard that some number of cases that were determined to be ineligible the first
time is now considered eligible. There is clearly some uncertainty at the state level as to how to apply these
criteria. Staff is looking for other dollars to maintain full services at all of the elementary schools.
Mr. Martin said he thinks this Board should do whatever it can to help make the match. He asked if
the Family Support Program goes through the County's normal review process. Mr. Tucker said it is
reviewed, as part of the budgeting process, but there is no program review because it is not a joint program.
He asked Ms. Ralston how far the expected revenues would get the program into the next fiscal year
assuming the reductions cannot be replaced.
Ms. Kathy Ralston said if funds cannot be identified to offset the reduction for next year, the
department would probably be sending lay-off notices to staff as of July 1. She does not know how many
staff members would be affected.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board is interested in looking at this to see what it can do to help draw-down
funds, the Board needs to be "brought up to speed" on some of the issues. Ms. Ralston said her
department is actually meeting with some State people later today to look at other sources of funding.
They are looking at some funding through Medicaid.
Mr. Dorrier said if this conversation does not prove to be fruitful, the Board might put this subject
back on the agenda in May or June to discuss other possibilities.
Agenda Item No. 9. Board-to-Board Presentation - School Board Chairman.
Ms. Diantha McKeel, Chairman of the School Board, said the School Board recently voted to give
the Family Support Program $37,000 to help get the program through this fiscal year.
Ms. McKeel said Human Resources has begun recruitment efforts to fill administrative vacancies
for the 2003-04 school year. She said there has been an extremely large reduction in the number of
applications. For the position of principal at Monticello High School, they received only 14+ applications
even though they advertised nationally, regionally and locally.
Ms. McKeel said in an effort to continue with commonality between the School Board and the
Board of Supervisors, their School Attendance Areas Policy was amended March 13.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board decided at its March 6 meeting that spring break would not be
used for inclement make-up days, and the school year would not extend beyond June 13. They will be
discussing the proposed calendar for the 2003-04 school year at its' meeting on April 3. The Albemarle
School Division and the Charlottesville City Schools have been working together to create a joint calendar
that correlates holidays, Spring break and staff development days.
Ms. McKeel said at the February 13 meeting, the Superintendent was directed to form a committee
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
of citizens, students, teachers, staff and health professionals to review the issue of vending machine
nutrition.
Ms. McKeel said a joint meeting was held on March 20 with the City School Board. They discussed
the creation of an educational foundation and programs/instructional areas where cooperation between the
County and the City would be beneficial. There is the possibility of creating a shared program for newly
identified students with Limited English Proficiency and English as a Second or Other Language.
Ms. McKeel said they received a presentation from Dr. Kevin Hughes about the Fall 2002 Stanford
9 test results for grades 4, 6 and 9. Albemarle County students' average scores topped the averages for
both Virginia and the nation, placing the Albemarle School Division among the top ten percent of the 134
school divisions in Virginia. However, the state just announced that they will no longer fund these tests.
The cost of $11,000 will have to be picked up by the Division next year.
Ms. McKeel said the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2003-04 through 2007-08 was presented to
the School Board on March 27. They plan to take action on the recommendations at their April 3 meeting.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks all the Board members are getting e-mails from people regarding the
Monticello High School gym versus an auditorium. Ms. McKeel said the auditorium has been moved from
FY 06-07 to FY 09-10 in the CIP. It costs approximately $5.0 million.
Dr. Kevin Castner said the auditorium is not a part of the CIP. When the school was built, it was
built with another plan. The expansion of Monticello to 1500 students was always scheduled and the
gymnasium was always scheduled. Since last fall, the amount of money in the CIP program has gotten
smaller and there was not enough money to do the $5.0 million project, but there was enough money to do
the $2.0 gymnasium along with the addition to the school.
Ms. Thomas said she has said to everybody that this is a School Board issue.
Ms. McKeel said the gymnasium is important because of the changes in the Virginia High School
League rules that move girls' basketball from a fall sport to a winter sport. The School Board has also
discussed the fact that if something is not done to provide enough basketball court space for girls at the
same time as boys, the division will be out of compliance with that group. It was discussed as being another
"mandatory opportunity."
Ms. McKeel said the Rivanna District seat on the Long-Range Planning Committee is vacant.
Applications are being taken through April 4 for that position. The Committee presented a report at the
School Board meeting on March 27, and it was charged to present options and recommendations for
possible straight feeder patterns within the County.
Dr. Castner said the Stanford 9 test results are something to show pride in. When the SOLs came
into Virginia, there was concern that they would take the place of the Stanford 9 test. He said that normally
there is not much change in those test results from year-to-year, but there has been a steady rise in those
scores for the past three years. This year those results were beyond what they thought they would be. He
thinks that shows a lot of quality work by the system, when at one time people were being critical of
everything "moving down the center." What has happened has been an all time high of AP participation,
and an all time high of SATs. He will say there is not all good news. There are certain groups of the
population that are not as successful. There is still work to be done.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the teachers teach to the Stanford 9. Dr. Castner said the teachers teach to the
SOL curriculum.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned the article in the newspaper today about a situation at Jack Jouett Middle
School. Ms. McKeel said that by the time the renovation is completed this summer, there would be a
restroom that can be accessed from the playing fields. Right now there are porta-potties on site.
Ms. McKeel said the Virginia Department of Health awarded grants to two teachers in Albemarle
schools to purchase bicycles and helmets in an effort to promote healthy lifestyles to students. At an earlier
meeting, Ms. Thomas had asked if any school was participating in the walk-to-school program. None of the
County schools are participating in that program, instead two of the schools (Baker-Butler and Greer) chose
to look at bicycle safety for children, and received a grant.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff is working with school staff on long-range planning so they are aware of
the financial implications of something like a straight feeder pattern. Mr. Tucker said Planning Department
staff members are member of the Long-Range Planning Committee. Likewise, Mr. Al Reaser is also a
member of the CIP Technical Committee. Dr. Castner said the Committee was given the charge to see
what a straight feeder pattern would look like. They did write both pros and cons. They did write about
some of the fiscal implications. The School Board now has some information to consider which they did not
have before.
(Note: At 11:00 a.m., the Board took a recess and reconvened at 11:14 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Public hearing on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service only to TM 32A, Sec 3B, Ps 18 & 19 for Thomas P.
Haught. Loc at 3147 Profflt Rd on N side of Proffit Rd (Route 649) approx 400 ft W of Pritchett Lane.
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on March 17 and March 24,
2003.)
Mr. David Benish said the applicant is requesting ACSA jurisdictional area designation for sewer
service to two half-acre lots located on the north side of Proffit Road (Route 649) approximately 400 feet
west of Pritchett Lane. The property is located within the designated Development Areas in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. The subject property is located within the Designated Development Area in the
Comprehensive Plan. Jurisdictional area policy provides that public water and sewer should serve all areas
designated as development areas.
Mr. Benish said the report notes that these two parcels are part of a larger quadrant that is actually
within the Development Area. It includes the North Pointe rezoning that is currently being reviewed. These
two lots are surrounded by a quadrant surrounded by Pritchett Lane, Profflt Road, Route 29 and the North
Fork Rivanna River. Staff recommends that as a matter consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, in the
future that area should also be added. Therefore, this site is consistent with that policy and staff
recommends that the Board approve this request for public sewer service to Tax Map 32A, Section 3B,
Parcels 18 and 19.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin to approve the request for public sewer service to
Tax Map 32A, Section 3B, Parcels 18 and 19. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 11. Proposed FY 2003 Budget Amendment. (Public Hearing advertised on
March 23, 2003)
Ms. Roxanne White summarized the staff's report. She said the Code of Virginia '15.2-2507
stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during
the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which
exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of
$500,000, whichever is less, must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a
public hearing before amending the budget. This proposed FY 2003 budget amendment totals
$555,035.68.
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund
General Government Programs/Grants
School Fund
School Programs/Grants
Total Estimated Expenditures- All Funds
$ 1,000.00
104,131.79
405,309.30
44,594.59
$ 555,035.68
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
Fund Balances
Total Estimated Revenues- All Funds
$ 29,467.00
25,430.00
109,131.79
391,006.89
$ 555,035.68
Ms. White said this budget amendment is comprised of ten new appropriations as follows: two
appropriations are for school programs in the amount of $246,663.89; one appropriation requests
reappropriation of funds in the School Division in the amount of $203,240.00; three appropriations are
grants for County Police Department programs totaling $14,186.51; one appropriation is for grant funds for
Offender Aid & Restoration totaling $26,366.00; one appropriation is for a contribution to the Housing Office
totaling $1,000.00; and, one appropriation of $63,579.28 is an Emergency Preparedness grant for both the
County Police and Fire/Rescue Departments.
Ms. White said staff recommends approval, after the public hearing, of the FY 2003 Budget
amendment in the amount of $555,035.68, and then approval of Appropriations #2003-039, #2003-040,
#2003-041, #2003-042, #2003-043, #2003-044, #2003-045, #2003-046, #2003-047 and #2003-048 to
provide funds for various General Government and School programs. She offered to answer questions.
Appropriation #2003-039, $8,073.30. Baker Butler Elementary School received a donation in the
amount of $4,440.00 from the Baker Butler PTO. This donation will be used to purchase materials for a TV
studio for the students at the school.
Murray Elementary School received donations in the amount of $1,725.00. Dr. David Hamer
donated $1,000.00 and Martin Art & Design donated $25.00 to be used for arts and cultural enrichment
programs for the school. Wylie Cooke, III, donated $100.00 and Dr. Jeffrey Barth donated $600.00 to be
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
used to help finance the Lap Tops for Teachers Project.
Western Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from the
Frederick S. Upton Foundation. This donation will be used to support the Fine Arts Program at the school.
Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $908.30 from the Broadus
Wood PTO. This donation will be used to pay the salary of the Spanish teacher at Broadus Wood
Elementary School.
Appropriation #2003-040, $26,366.00. Offender Aid & Restoration (OAR) and Jefferson Area
Community Corrections provide services to adult offenders while incarcerated and provides services to
those released into the jurisdictions served by OAR. The Department of Criminal Justice Services has
awarded OAR a grant in the amount of $26,366.00. The awarded grant moneys will partially fund salaries,
benefits, travel and other operating expenses for Employment Case Managers, Volunteer
Coordinator/Employment Case Manager, and Assistant Director/Project Director. Local match moneys in
the amount of $8,789.00 will be provided from the current contributions made to OAR by the County, City of
Charlottesville and United Way.
Appropriation #2003-041, $3,750.00. The Albemarle County Police Department gets 10 to 15
requests a month to target the same specific "problem areas" in the County. The Division of Motor Vehicles
has awarded $3,750.00 to the Police Department to purchase a traffic monitoring and data collection
device (TMD). This device will be used to study the traffic activity in specific areas and collect data
necessary to properly handle citizen/community complaints. Any excess moneys associated with this
project will be handled through the department budget.
Appropriation #2003-042, $5,936.51. The Bureau of Justice has awarded funding in the amount of
$5,936.51 to the Albemarle County Police Department for the purchase of bulletproof vests. The award
funds cannot exceed 50 percent of the total cost. All excess monies associated with this project will be
handled through the department budget.
Appropriation #2003-043, $4,500.00. The busiest times for major shopping in the County occur
during the Thanksgiving to New Years' holiday season. December tends to have the highest frequency of
traffic accidents, shopping thefts, partying and socializing. DUI's are also at their highest level during this
season. The Division of Motor Vehicles has awarded the Police Department a $4,500.00 grant to support
150 hours of traffic safety overtime activities as part of the larger efforts of Operation Safe Holiday. There is
no local match.
Appropriation #2003-044, $44,594.59. Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant from the
State Department of Education in the amount of $24,430.00 for the Individualized Student Alternative
Education Program. The ISAEP provides counseling, academic and occupational services to address a
growing population of students at risk of dropping out of school, not meeting attendance requirements,
and/or academically not meeting the requirements for a standard high school diploma. This program will
supplement existing GED services by developing specialized occupational training and employment
necessary for students to become productive and contributing citizens. The Charlottesville/Albemarle
Technical Education Center (CATEC) will administer the ISAEP program for Albemarle County Public
Schools.
Stony Point Elementary School has been selected by the University of Virginia to receive funding in
the amount of $11,568.70 for Project BUILD (Bridges of Understanding to Inclusive Literacy Development
Program). This project will help identify patterns in thinking, communication and actions that will improve
teaching and learning and identify contexts wherein these efforts can be created and sustained over time.
The Jefferson Region Destination Imagination (DI) will provide a regional DI competition for County
students and surrounding school districts. Of the 70 teams that participate, about 25 will be from Albemarle
County. Team registration fees, R-shirt sales and contributions in the amount of $7,200.00 and a fund
balance of $1,395.89 will help cover expenses incurred. Albemarle County will continue as fiscal agent for
the region.
Appropriation #2003-045, $63,579.28. Albemarle County will be receiving grant funds in the
amount of $63,579.28 to assist in the preparation of response to incidents involving mass destruction
weapons. These funds will be split 50/50 between Fire/Rescue and the Police Department. The
equipment purchased under these grants must come only from the commodity areas targeted by the
Federal government. A portion of these monies, $3,777.72, must be used by March 23, 2003, leaving
$59,801.56 to be used by July 31,2004. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2003-046, $1,000.00. The Virginia Housing Development Authority has provided
$1,000.00 in funding to cover staff's attendance at a housing conference in Washington, D.C.
Appropriation #2003-047, $203,240.00. Reappropriation of $184,796.00 of school carry-over funds
and $18,444.00 of building rental funds. School Board Policy DB-E allows schools to carry forward up to
10 percent of their operational budgets from year to year. Policy KG-R allows 40 percent of the base fees
collected for building rental to be returned to each school.
Appropriation #2003-048, $193,996.00. Baker Butler Elementary School received a donation in the
amount of $600.00 from the Baker Butler PTO. This donation will be used to purchase a set of scales for
the school and to help pay for an artist to design and build a sculpture for the school.
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Nancy Letteri. This
donation will be used to help support cultural enrichment and technology replacement. Murray Elementary
School also received a donation in the amount of $400.00 from Teresa and George Hashisaki and a
donation in the amount of $25.00 form David and Joan Gilrain. These donations will be used to help
support the purchase of wireless laptop computers for staff and students.
Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $1,500.00 from State Farm. This
donation will be used to purchase instructional materials and athletic materials for the school.
Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant award in the amount of $5,000.00 from the
Virginia Department of Health's Center for Disease Control. The Bicycle Education Grant funds will give
students an opportunity to increase school and community bike safety awareness and promote lifetime
fitness with the purchase of bicycles and safety equipment.
Currently Albemarle County Schools is paying $295,925.00 in budgeted recurring funds to service
the debt associated with a VRS early retirement program that was offered about 8.5 years ago. This
payment is based upon a 10-year payback at eight percent interest, compounded quarterly. Full payments
have been made on this debt each July 1 in order to reduce the overall interest paid. For the FY 2003-04
budget, it is planned to make a $295,925.00 payment on this debt. During the current budget process,
there was discussion of appropriate use of one-time funds to meet FY 03-04 budget needs. This VRS early
retirement debt could be fully paid in the current fiscal year, which would reduce the FY 03-04 expenses by
$295,925.00. Full payoff of this debt would require a payment of $379,129.00 to be made no later than
mid-April 2003 (interest of two percent would be assessed if payment were made later than this timeframe).
A payment of this amount would constitute an appropriate use of one-time funds to reduce expenses for
FY 03-04 and to reduce overall interest paid by $14,262.00.
Mr. Martin said in a couple of months he would like to have a report on how the preparedness
response money is being used.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to know what emergency preparedness is costing the County. As
a governmental agency, the County is being asked to pick up whole categories of expenditures it has not
had in the past.
Mr. Rooker said there has been a lot of discussion about funding first responders, but there has
been little money from the Federal government to do that.
Mr. Dorrier said the City's mayor is complaining vigorously about it.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to comment about the School System paying almost $300,000 to
further the debt payment. That sounds like a very smart use of their one-time moneys.
Mr. Martin asked about the appropriation for OAR. He asked if this will help them to get through
this fiscal year, or is it something they were already counting on. Ms. White said this money would help
replace some of the moneys that were cut. The State did bear the State share of the PAPIS funds that had
been cut.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve the budget amendment in the amount of
$555,035.68, and to adopt the following Resolutions of Appropriation. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2003-039
EXPLANATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND DONATED FUNDS
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2217 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 4,440.00
1 2215 61101800700 ADP Equipment J 1 1,200.00
1 2215 61411 580000 Misc Expenses J 1 525.00
1 2302 61411 580000 Misc Expenses J 1 1,000.00
1 2201 61101 132100 P/TWages-Teacher J 1 838.85
1 2201 61101 132100 FICA J 1 69.45
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 8,073.30
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J 8,073.30
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION J 8,073.30
TOTAL 16,146.60 8,073.30 8,073.30
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2003-040
EXPLANATION: GRANT FUNDS FOR OAR PAPIS GRAN
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1520 29406 566121 PAPIS GRANT J 1 26,366.00
2 1520 33000 330409 PAPIS GRANT J 2 26,366.00
1520 0501 EST REVENUE J 26,366.00
1520 0701 APPROPRIATION J 26,366.00
TOTAL 52,732.00 26,366.00 26,366.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2003-041
EXPLANATION: DMV-TMD SAFETY PROJECT GRANT
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1534 31146 800700 TMD SAFETY PROJECT J 1
2 1534 33000 330011 FEDERAL DMV GRANT J 2
1534 0501 EST REVENUE J
1534 0701 APPROPRIATION J
3,750.00
3,750.00
3,750.00
31750.00
TOTAL 7,500.00 3,750.00 3,750.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2003-042
EXPLANATION: BULLETPROOF VEST GRANT
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1241 31013 601000 POLICE SUPPLIES J 1 5,936.51
2 1241 33000 330001 FEDERAL GRANT J 2 5,936.51
1241 0501 EST REVENUE J
1241 0701 APPROPRIATION J
5,936.51
51936.51
TOTAL 11,873.02 5,936.51 5,936.51
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2003-043
EXPLANATION: OPERATION SAFE HOLIDAYS GRANT
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1535 31013 120000 OVERTIME J 1 4,180.00
1 1535 31013 210000 FICA J 1 320.00
2 1535 33000 330011FEDERAL DMV GRANT J 2 4,500.00
1535 0501 EST REVENUE J
1535 0701 APPROPRIATION J
4,500.00
4,500.00
TOTAL
9,000.00 4,500.00 4,500.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2003-044
EXPLANATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL GRANTS AND PROGRAMS
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3142 60410312700 ProfServ-Consultants J 1 24,430.00
2 3142 24000 240360 Donation-ISAEP Grant J 2 24,430.00
3142 0501 EST REVENUE J 24,430.00
3142 0701 APPROPRIATION J 24,430.00
1 3148 61311 152100 Sub-Wages-Teacher J 1 7,164.90
1 3148 61311 160300 Stipends-Staff/Curr J 1 2,850.00
1 3148 61311 210000 FICA J 1 766.14
1 3148 61311 221000 VRS J 1 373.44
1 3148 61311 231000 Health Ins J 1 399.36
1 3148 61311 232000 Dental Ins J 1 14.86
2 3148 18000181260 Project BUILD J 2 11,568.70
3148 0501 EST REVENUE J 11,568.70
3148 0701 APPROPRIATION J 11,568.70
1 3129 61104520100 Postage J 1 169.32
1 3129 61104 580000 Misc. Expenses J 1 4,838.00
1 3129 61104601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 3,588.57
2 3129 16000 161260 Jefferson DI Fees J 2 2,500.00
2 3129 18100 181109 Contributions J 2 200.00
2 3129 18000 189918 Proceeds-Sales J 2 4,500.00
2 3129 51000 510100 Approp-Fund Balance J 2 1,395.89
3129 0501 EST REVENUE J 8,595.89
3129 0701 APPROPRIATION J 8,595.89
TOTAL
89,189.18 44,594.59 44,594.59
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2003-045
EXPLANATION: DEPT OF JUSTICE GRANT FOR MASS DESTRUCTION INCIDENTS
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1528 31091 800100 MACHINERY & EQUIP J 1
1 1528 31092 800100 MACHINERY & EQUIP J 1
2 1528 33000 330416 DEPT OF JUSTICE GRANT J 2
31,789.64
31,789.64
63,579.28
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
1528 0501 EST REVENUE J 63,579.28
1528 0701 APPROPRIATION J 631579.28
TOTAL 127,158.56 63,579.28 63,579.28
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2003-046
EXPLANATION: VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CONTRIBUTION
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 81030 570806 HOMEBUYERS CLUB J 1 1,000.00
2 1000 24000 240805 VA HOUS IND DEV'L AUTH J 2 1,000.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE J 1,000.00
1000 0701 APPROPRIATION J
11000.00
TOTAL 2,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2003-047
EXPLANATION: ALLOCATION OF SCHOOL CARRYOVER FUNDS TO OPERATIONAL BUDGETS
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2201 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 13,271.00
1 2202 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 5,888.00
1 2203 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 72.00
1 2204 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 12,153.00
1 2205 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 4,158.00
1 2206 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 6,257.00
1 2207 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,854.00
1 2209 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,537.00
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 3,645.00
1 2211 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 1,320.00
1 2212 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 12,729.00
1 2213 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 4,076.00
1 2214 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 5,488.00
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 2,519.00
1 2216 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 8,005.00
1 2217 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 2,834.00
1 2251 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,120.00
1 2252 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,869.00
1 2253 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 15,990.00
1 2254 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 16,318.00
1 2255 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 19,018.00
1 2301 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 982.00
1 2302 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 9,671.00
1 2303 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 5,758.00
1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies J 1 42,708.00
2 2000 51000 510100 Approp Fund Bal J 2 203,240.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION
TOTAL
203,240.00
203,240.00
406,480.00 203,240.00 203,240.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION NUMBER: 2003-048
EXPLANATION: SCHOOL DONATIONS AND PROGRAMS
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2217 61101 301210 Contract Services J 1 500.00
1 2217 62220 600400 Medical Supplies J 1 100.00
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 50.00
1 2215 61101800700 ADP Equipment J 1 475.00
1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 500.00
1 2304 61105 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,000.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 2,625.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION J
1 315361311800100Equipment J 1 5,000.00
2 3153 33000 300001 Bicycle Ed Grant J 2 5,000.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION J
1 2420 93010 930003 Debt Svc Fund-VRS J 1 379,129.00
1 2410 60100 999981 Sch Bd Reserve J 1 (192,758.00)
2 2000 51000 510100Approp-Fund Bal J 2 186,371.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION J
2,625.00
5,000.00
186,371.00
2,625.00
5,000.00
186,371.00
TOTAL 387,992.00 193,996.00 193,996.00
Agenda Item No. 12. Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Committee Composition, Discussion of.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on March 19, 2003, the Board proposed the establishment of a committee
to review the MOD ordinance with the expectation that, through a committee representing varied interests
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
and concerns, a consensus would be achieved on a draft ordinance acceptable to the public. If the Board
decides to appoint a committee, it is probable that the appointments would not be made until May based on
typical appointment procedures. That considered, staff recommends that work with the committee not start
until the first of July after completion of staff's work on the draft of the Rural Area Plan for the Planning
Commission's review. Planning staff would be more capable of providing support at that time, and the rural
area review work would be completed. The intervening period could be used by committee members to
review background materials and complete basic organizational issues (meeting time/location, chair, etc.).
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Historic Preservation Committee is still functioning in a useful way. How
many people on that committee are owners of historic properties? Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it is important that some of the mountain landowners are involved in
helping to shape the final ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had suggested two such people be members
of the committee.
Ms. Thomas asked if there will be advertisements for these members, and then the Board go
through the normal procedure before making appointments. Mr. Tucker said that is what staff would
suggest be done.
Ms. Thomas said the Board asked them to come up an acceptable ordinance, but she would like
for it to be "acceptable" and "effective."
Mr. Bowerman said that is just taken for granted. He said there is a group in place now from which
the Board might be able to draw some members. He would not want to lose anything they might contribute
to the process. The only reason the Board is not particularly happy with that group is because the Board
did not make the appointments. Mr. Rooker said the group was not put together for this purpose.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is not sure the makeup of the group includes all disparate parties. It
was put together to study the rural areas and the mountaintops are part of the rural area.
Mr. Rooker said there is a Rural Areas Focus Group and several of those people own mountain
property or have agricultural interests.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to know what staff means when it says "It is desired to keep the
membership manageable." Mr. Cilimberg said that seven is a manageable number. Staff has given the
Board a list of possibilities for representatives. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board members wanted to add
anything to the list presented by staff.
Mr. Martin said he does not feel strongly about whether or not to turn this over to the Rural Areas
Group. There is some sense to that, but if the appointments are to be advertised, he thinks that some of
the groups would want to pick their own representative. Mr. Tucker said for those organizations, staff would
contact them and ask for a recommendation.
Mr. Rooker said the Board could hash out the size of the Committee at another time.
Mr. Martin said he thinks that larger groups, even if they are not as manageable, a lot of the times
stumble their way through to a better compromise than smaller groups.
Mr. Dorrier said the Blue Ridge Home Builders' are not listed as one of the groups. Mr. Tucker said
they would be represented through the Free Enterprise Forum. Mr. Dorrier said he is not familiar with that
group. Mr. Tucker said it used to be CALAC (Legislative Action Committee).
Mr. Bowerman suggested moving forward.
Ms. Thomas said everybody thinks "effective" is one of the things that go without saying, but she
would like to have it mentioned.
Mr. Rooker agreed. He then offered motion to adopt the recommendation of staff that includes the
timing, the potential groups to look at for members, and also advertising to the public.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board wanted to add any potential groups to the list. Mr. Rooker said
he did not think this was intended to be preclusive of others.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Historic Preservation Committee should have a representative on this
group.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that group is still working. Mr. Tucker said they are. The County will be
hiring a Historic Preservation Planner in the near future.
Ms. Thomas said the Board made a mistake by having too many members on that committee.
Mr. Bowerman gave second to the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion of an Annual Real Estate Reassessment.
Mr. Bruce Woodzell, County Assessor, summarized the staff's report. He said that on February 5
staff presented to the Board information about the reassessment. At that time, the Board requested
information about an annual reassessment process, rather than the current biennial review.
Mr. Woodzell explained the current biennial process and gave a short history. The County consists
of approximately 740 square miles. It currently contains 36,611 real estate parcels. The parcels are
assessed on a biennial basis. The department's staff consists of 14 employees: a County Assessor, a
Deputy County Assessor, seven appraisers, a tax supervisor and four clerical staff. The County has used
the current assessment process since 1977. It takes approximately one and one-half years to complete the
fieldwork. Each appraiser is assigned a geographical area to assess and is responsible for assigning value
to approximately 5000 parcels. During this 18-month process, all parcels are visited and reviewed by an
appraiser. In addition, values are assigned for new construction that may have occurred; if applicable, the
land use status is reviewed; and values are assigned to parcels that have been newly created by subdivision
of property.
Mr. Woodzell said that in 1999, the assessment process changed from a completely manual
process to a computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) process. With this system, every cost schedule
associated with CAMA is updated to accurately reflect current market conditions and costs prior to the start
of the reassessment process.
Mr. Woodzell said that annual assessments are currently conducted in ten counties and 15 cities in
the Commonwealth. Of the remaining counties and cities, 20 conduct their assessments on a biennial
basis with the remaining performing their assessments every three to six years. An annual assessment
process would take approximately nine to ten months to complete. This limited time frame would require a
reduction of the appeal period to the County Assessor from 60 days to 30 days and to the Equalization
Board from 30 days to 15 days. These appeal periods would be in line with the condensed time frame
required for the annual assessment program due to the physical fact of the workload on the office.
Mr. Woodzell said he feels there are some benefits to the annual assessment process. Since the
County is becoming more urban, annual assessments would give be a more accurate reflection of current
fair market value, especially in a rapidly increasing or declining market. Annual appraisals would probably
result in less dramatic changes in the assessment notices sent to taxpayers on the two-year basis. He said
that on the last notice mailed, the average median increase rate was 18.79 percent, and that was a big
jump compared to the previous reassessment. In 2001, it was 12 percent. Prior to that it was between
eight and nine percent.
Mr. Woodzell said there are also disadvantages. Market trends and sales ratio analyses, rather
than a physical inspection of the property, would most likely be used to assess the majority of parcels. The
appraisers would then become less familiar with individual parcels. Parcels currently under the Land Use
Taxation Program might not be subject to a physical inspection every two years, therefore, those parcels
might not be immediately recognized should they fail to meet or maintain the requirements of the program.
If that was a concern, there is a State statute called revalidation that allows the County to ask each
landowner in the Program to revalidate on an annual basis what they are doing with their property. He said
that every six years the County could charge a fee. That would generate about $75,000 in revenues.
Mr. Woodzell said if the County went to annual assessments, several items would need to be
addressed. First, the County would need to amend County Code Section 15-1000, Biennial assessment of
real estate, and Section 15-1002, Time limits for appeals of real estate assessments. The assessment
software currently being used for the computer mass appraisal system (CAMA), SMDA 2000 is capable of
supporting the annual reassessment process without any significant software or programming changes.
However, the software vendor has advised that support for SMDA 2000 is gradually being phased out and
replaced by Proval Plus software. Staff would recommend that the migration from SMDA 2000 to Proval
Plus be completed before any change in the reassessment process took place thus lessening the learning
curve associated with both the change in assessment process and new computer software. This software
change would cost from $25,000 to $30,000 and would not be available until mid- to late May.
Mr. Woodzell said the CAMA System would only need some minor modifications for an annual
assessment. At this time staff believes the change could be accomplished without additional staff.
However, with an annual growth of approximately 725 parcels, additional staff may be required in the next
three to four years. Due to the issues identified relating to staffing, programming change and impact on the
work flow processes, staff believes immediate implementation is unrealistic. If the Board desires to begin
annual assessments, staff would recommend implementation in 2005 effective for the 2006 tax year.
Mr. Woodzell said he had attached a chart comparing Albemarle to ten cities, and 20 counties. He
said it shows a five-year average for the sales ratio study and the COD (Co-efficient of Dispersion), and
Albemarle County exceeds all the cities and counties shown. He said that due to the physical restraints of
time, most jurisdictions do not visit properties as Albemarle does. They visit one-third on one
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
reassessment, another one-third on the next reassessment, and then the final one-third on the next
reassessment. Some only work off of properties that are subject to new construction, properties that have
sold, or properties that have asked for a review. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier said he noticed that most of counties listed are much bigger than Albemarle.
Ms. Thomas said she noticed that the listing shows more parcels in agricultural than all of the other
counties. She thinks there is value in having the visits, particularly with the land use program.
Mr. Woodzell said he did not mean to mislead the Board. The appraisers would drive through
neighborhoods, but it is not physically possible to visit each parcel on a nine-month schedule. He is not
sure how many parcels the appraisers could review.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Woodzell had talked to any jurisdictions that had changed to an annual
assessment recently. Mr. Woodzell said he had talked with people in Hanover County, and they did not
make any changes in their office. He talked with people in Roanoke County and they had added two staff
members when they made the change several years ago.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the current system is working well. Mr. Woodzell said it is. Mr. Dorrier said
there is not then any real pressure to make a change at this time.
Mr. Rooker said that from a personal budgeting standpoint, an increase is easier if it occurs
gradually. The recommendation is not to implement this for several years. He thinks this is something the
Board could discuss at its strategic planning session in the fall.
Mr. Bowerman said the City conducts an annual assessment, so that makes it confusing for the
average local citizen. He is leaning toward going to an annual assessment.
Ms. Thomas said she is leaning away from doing that because she thinks the County does a good
job now. She knows it is a big jump in the average budget when it happens every two years. It is also the
conventional wisdom that the tax rate is not raised in a reassessment year, and that thinking will need to
change.
Mr. Dorrier said this idea has some merit. Mr. Tucker said if any of the Board members have
issues with this idea, they should be brought to staff. Mr. Woodzell said the first year this is done is when
there will be issues with the public.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it should be on the agenda for the strategic planning session. He was
interested in the remark that this would cause a recertification of the land use parcels. Also, it might be a
way to recapture some of the fee that would offset some of the criticism of the program.
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-02-074. Arlin D. Martin (Signs #33 & 34). Public hearing on a request to
allow church in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 55, P 19C, contains 2.851 acs. Loc at end
of Twinkling Springs Lane, approx .25 mis from intersec of Twinkling Springs Lane & Rt 250 (Rockfish Gap
Turnpike). Znd RA. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on
March 17 and (Not in file)?)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report that 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 allow a church in an
existing building that is currently approved for a country store. The proposed church would initially have
approximately 30 members with anticipated growth reaching 60 members. The applicant is requesting to
maintain an one-bedroom apartment that would accommodate no more than two people. The surrounding
area consists of scattered residential lots intermixed with wooded areas and open field. This site is located
approximately 400 feet to the south of 1-64.
Mr. Cilimberg said this was at one time a country store approved by special use permit in 1972. It
has been used intermittently since that time. Building Code & Zoning Services has requested that all
special use permits related to the country store be abandoned if the special use permit for a church is
approved. The County Attorney's Office advised that abandoning the 1972 special use permit would
require a separate legislative act. However, a condition has been recommended that would effectively
prevent the country store use while the church use exists.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has some updated conditions to give the Board. These conditions will
reflect all clarifications based on the Planning Commission's actions. The church has a small
congregation. Service is on Sunday mornings only. Staff believes the proposed use would not be a
substantial detriment to the adjacent property owners. The church does not propose to make any changes
to the existing building. Although the building is not currently being used as a country store, the Church
traffic would be less than the country store use. He said the Health Department has stated that the septic
system would not support more than 50 church members, in addition to the one-bedroom apartment.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission, at its meeting on March 4, 2002, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of this petition with the expectation that VDOT and the County's Department of
Engineering would reevaluate their initial findings regarding improvements to the transportation system in
that area. Although the trip generation figures do not support the VDOT requirement for a right-turn taper,
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
VDOT cites the issue of two right-bound lanes on Route 250 merging into one-lane approximately 300 feet
east of the entrance to the road serving Twinkling Springs Lane. The applicant has agreed to VDoT's
requirements. The Department of Engineering has furnished a reevaluation of its initial review based on
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Although the Subdivision Ordinance is not applicable because
this is not a subdivision, the Engineering Department believes its recommendations are in the interest of
public safety. Those include: The last curve on Twinkling Springs Lane requires clearing and easements
for sight distance; a guardrail may be required on the east side of Twinkling Springs Lane if clear distance,
shoulder and slope requirements are not met per the VDOT requirements; and, entrance improvements as
identified by VDOT.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant does not agree to two conditions recommended by Engineering,
one regarding the clearing and easements for sight distance at the last curve, and the potential requirement
for guardrail. He said that in the report there is some mention of a waiver of standards, but that is not
applicable. He said staff has recommended approval subject to nine conditions. He then handed to the
Board members a list of revised conditions that reflect the two recommendations from the Department of
Engineering. He said the applicant made one other request. They would like to have the number
increased to 93 for assembly. Staff did not evaluate that request, but if the Board feels that is appropriate,
there is another condition offered for replacement of Condition No. 1 on the list he just distributed.
Mr. Rooker asked if in Conditions 8 and 9, they refer to on-site or off-site improvements, and how
close are they to the property. Mr. Cilimberg said they are along Twinkling Springs Lane, so they are
off-site.
Mr. Rooker asked how far from the church entrance the proposed guardrail would be. Mr.
Cilimberg said there are two locations.
Ms. Thomas asked if there are any nearby residences. Mr. Cilimberg said some lots have been
created along the road.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Cliff Fox said he represents Mr. Arlin Martin. Mr. Martin was not able to attend this meeting
because the date was changed after the Planning Commission hearing, and he is out of the country with a
mission construction team helping to build a church in Trinidad. Mr. Fox then read a letter from Mr. Martin
into the record, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's Office. Mr. Martin has asked for a site plan waiver for
any roadway, parking lot or storm management requirements except entrance improvements per VDOT,
and additional seating if septic capacity is permitted by the Health Department.
Mr. Fox said he does not know if Conditions 8 and 9 can be required. The average weekly trips to
this site will be well below the threshold of 350. A maximum number of average weekly trips would be 171.
He said they are looking at a boundary lot adjustment with the adjoining landowner, Maxine Pleasants, who
joined this request by signing this petition.
Mr. Rooker asked about the requirement for off-site improvements. Mr. Davis said it has
consistently been the County Attorney's opinion that unless the use substantially generates the need for the
off-site improvement in a special use permit situation, the County cannot require off-site improvements.
The option for the Board under this special use permit is not to require either No. 8 or No. 9, but to
determine whether approving the use constitutes a safety danger. The Board can deny the special use
permit, but he does not believe the Board can make this requirement.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant made it clear in his letter that he would prefer that the petition be
denied if No. 8 and No. 9 are imposed. Mr. Davis said the question is whether to approve the use without
No. 8 and No. 9 as requirements. The applicant could volunteer to do those improvements, but that does
not seem to be what they want to do. The underlying use has a similar impact.
Mr. Fox said he checked the sight distance going into the final curve, and it is about 220 to 250 feet.
There is a 50-foot right-of-way there, and the applicant is willing to clear the area within the right-of-way to
increase the sight distance. He thinks it can be increased to about 240 feet in that direction. They did not
want to strap themselves into having to go out and acquire sight easements.
Mr. Rooker suggested that Condition No. 8 be reworded to say the applicant will clear to improve
the sight distance within the existing right-of-way. Mr. Davis said if the applicant is agreeable to doing that,
that would be acceptable.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jonathan Quesenberry said he is the pastor of the Cornerstone Church of Albemarle. They
have been meeting in western Albemarle since 2001. The group has grown from 18 to about 25 adults at
this time, and they have not been able to find a good place to meet. In the past this building had been used
as a country store. They find it a wonderful place to meet and it would be of benefit to people in the
surrounding area. A number of people signed a petition in favor of their use of the building, mostly church
members. He requested approval of this permit.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Ms. Thomas said she would suggest that Condition No. 1 be replaced with a condition reading as
suggested by Mr. Biel: "The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 93-seat sanctuary or the
maximum allowable to meet Health Department and Zoning Ordinance regulations, whichever is the lesser
number." New Condition No. 8 would say: "Prior to issuance of a zoning clearance, the area within the
existing right-of-way will be cleared to improve sight distance." Since the County cannot require a guardrail,
she thinks the Board should be silent on that so Condition No. 9 would be eliminated. However, the
applicant should recognize that they might be setting themselves up for an unsafe situation. She offered
motion to approve SP-2002-074 with the conditions as stated above, plus the other seven conditions
recommended by the Commission.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum ninety-three (93)-seat sanctuary or
the maximum allowable to meet Health Department and Zoning Ordinance regulations,
whichever is the lesser number;
There shall be no daycare center or private school on the site without approval of a
separate special use permit;
Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning
Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or residentially zoned
properties (including RA zoned property);
Prior to zoning clearance, construct a right-turn taper or radius per VDOT regulations;
Subject to site plan approval;
Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems;
While the church use authorized by this special use permit exists, no uses authorized by
previously approved special use permits for a country store shall exist; and
Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance, the area within the existing right-of-way will be
cleared to improve sight distance on Twinkling Springs Lane (immediately south of
proposed church parking area as shown on the sketch plan in Attachment F).
Agenda Item No. 15. Appeal: ARB-(Sign)-2003-06, proposed by Hightech Signs for Freestyle
Store, 475 Westfield Road.
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Planner, said there are two signs involved. The proposal included a
new sign to be installed on the building and a new face for the existing freestanding sign. The proposed
wall sign consisted of internally illuminated channel letters reading "FREESTANDING" and an internally
illuminated logo box depicting a mountain/wave graphic. The ARB determined that the size and scale of
the graphic in relation to the letters would make internal illumination of the graphic inappropriate. One ARB
member did suggest that reducing the size of the graphic so it is more in line with the channel letter size
might be acceptable. The applicant did not want to reduce the size of the graphic so that concept was not
pursued any further.
Ms. Maliszewski said the ARB approved the wall sign with the condition that the graphic not be
illuminated. The freestanding sign was proposed to say "FREESTYLE, Your Source For Adrenaline
Sports!" all on a white background, with all portions of the face of the sign to be illuminated. She said the
ARB typically requires that the backgrounds of internally illuminated signs be opaque so that at night when
the sign is lit, only the message portion of the sign is visible. In keeping with that, the ARB approved the
new face for the sign with the condition that only the word FREESTYLE be illuminated. The ARB did not
say the graphic could not be displayed. They limited the amount of internal illumination. The ARB pointed
out that external illumination is always an option.
Ms. Maliszewski said the ARB is aware of the need for more specific guidelines on issues like this.
They have been working on revisions to the guidelines, and have set a tentative schedule for completion of
that work. Revisions will include more specific guidelines on illumination and general use of graphics. She
said the ARB looks at many different things when they review any proposal before them. While they are
working to outline more specific sign guidelines, they also look at the context of each site, and the
particulars of each building. What may work for one site, or one building, may not work for every request.
Mr. Bowerman said they are inferring that on this site that internal illumination will not work except
for the message part of the sign. He asked if the building sign is illuminated. Ms. Maliszewski said "yes."
Mr. Rooker asked if this has been consistently applied. Ms. Maliszewski said it is consistently
applied as much as possible because of the difference in buildings and their relationship to the different
corridors.
Mr. Dorrier said this is not a public hearing. Mr. Davis said typically the Board has allowed the
applicant to address the Board.
Mr. Frazier Salisbury, Attorney, was present as a participating attorney with the Rutherford Institute,
also represented by Stephen Aden, Chief Litigation Counsel. He said they represent the applicant, Mr. Ben
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Foster, who is also present, as is the owner of Freestyle, Mr. Seth Kober. They have concerns about
specific conditions placed on these signs by the ARB. They have concerns about the guidelines that the
ARB allegedly operates under, and the process by which the ARB operates.
Mr. Salisbury said the ARB approved these signs saying the graphic on the building portion of the
sign may not be internally illuminated. There was also some concern expressed about size relationship
between the logo and the name of the store. On the freestanding illuminated cabinet sign, the ARB said
that anything other than the word FREESTYLE is background. Typically they insist that background be
blacked out at night when the sign is illuminated. He said both signs are absolutely consistent as to the use
of the logo, the use of the color scheme and the text fonts.
Mr. Salisbury said they are appealing the conditions because they feel the conditions are in
themselves unconstitutional, and the process used by the ARB is unconstitutional. They believe the method
by which the ARB operates and utilizes its guidelines is unconstitutional. That is because the conditions
placed upon this sign impose a subjective unwritten standard prohibiting Iogos or text other than the name
of the store. No where is there any guideline that prohibits the illumination of Iogos or the illumination of text
graphics. During staff's presentation, the term "typically the ARB has only permitted the message portion of
a sign to be illuminated" was heard. They believe the message portion of the freestanding cabinet sign is
all of the words and the logo combined. They feel there is inconsistency in how the ARB arrives at that
ruling. That is an unwritten subjective standard without any rational basis. They believe it displays an abuse
of discretion granted to the ARB by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board allows the applicant to speak for five minutes, so he did not want Mr.
Salisbury to get bogged down in constitutional issues.
Mr. Salisbury said he thinks it is important to identify those issues for the Board. They feel the
process is unconstitutional. He said there is no question that commercial signs have a protected status.
But, if the County is going to restrict them, as the County can and does, the restrictions have to advance a
substantial governmental interest, and they can be no more extensive than is necessary to meet that
substantial governmental interest. They contend that these restrictions are not tied to any specific
governmental interest. They are merely tied to what members of the ARB have determined is aesthetically
pleasing and is appropriate to their standards of taste without any guidelines to address them. He said any
permitted regulation of private speech requires clear and objective standards. He said the ARB has
standards and guidelines. He is responding to those that bear a draft date of June 19, 2002. Looking at
those guidelines, there are 11 general guidelines for signs within the entrance corridors. Of those 11, none
of them apply to this case, except, arguably, the first three that are: the sign is to complement the building,
the sign is to avoid glare, and the third disfavors internal illumination.
Mr. Salisbury said those guidelines are so vague that they leave complete and unfettered discretion
to the ARB, such that a citizen business owner has no way of knowing in advance what they can do with
their building. That was important to Mr. Kober when making his decision to relocate his business to this
location. The ARB has specific guidelines for illuminated cabinet signs. One of those guidelines is for a
non-illuminated background. What they see as the constitutional deficiency is the interpretation. The ARB
said that when you look at the proposed sign, everything is background except the word FREESTYLE. That
does meet dictionary definitions, or common understanding of the word "background." They believe
"background" is the white space. Their guideline has been extended to include "non-illuminated
background", but in their interpretation "background" includes Iogos and any text other than the name of the
store.
Mr. Salisbury said they think the unconstitutional approach to this is reflected in the report from the
ARB. They talk about the wall logo portion. They say internal illumination of that logo is inappropriate
unless it is smaller. What is the rational basis for that? They are basically saying they don't like the looks of
the sign. They interpret "background" to include everything. The ARB acknowledges that their guidelines
do not apply to everything in the entrance corridor. There are exceptions for developments that have had a
comprehensive review of their development, such as shopping centers where the lessors have sign
requirements. They think there is an equal protection problem, as well. There are many businesses within
sight of this business with fully illuminated cabinet signs. This business is lost among all of those other
signs. This business fronts on Westfleld Road and its sign limitations are based on frontage on Westfleld
Road. It is set a considerable distance back from Route 29. The effect of these matters of
taste by the ARB without appropriate guidance has the effect of limiting the development of this business,
and other businesses, in a manner inconsistent with what has happened in that area previously.
Mr. Rooker asked if those other signs were put up before or after the guidelines went into effect.
Mr. Bowerman said the Penske Truck Rental Sign was there when that location was a Texaco
station.
Mr. Dorrier said there were comments that this is not tied to governmental interest and restrictions.
He asked if these restrictions are not tied in governmental interest. Mr. Davis said they are. From a land
use context, this ordinance is not unconstitutional. It has very defined purposes to protect the historical
character of Albemarle County. It has been consistently applied. The constitutional issues are important
issues, but are not the issues on which this Board should focus today. The issue is whether or not the
treatment of the logo is consistent with the guidelines for the corridor, the guidelines adopted by either this
Board or the ARB for implementing those guidelines. The other issue is whether or not that is a reasonable
requirement under the circumstances taking into account the specific character of this building in
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
relationship to the corridor. He thinks the issue has been boiled down to whether the logo is backlighted or
not on both signs. The Board needs to look at that and decide whether it agrees with the ARB as to
whether that is a reasonable requirement.
Mr. Martin asked about setting up a committee to look at the sign ordinance. Mr. Tucker said
initially there were three areas to look at in the sign ordinance based on the issues raised by Mr. Slonaker.
A review of the entire sign ordinance would follow that. It may be a month to six weeks before that
committee can be formed.
Mr. Davis said there is a process already under review, and that is the ARB guidelines for signs.
ARB staff is working with the ARB and proposing more specific guidelines to deal with some of these
issues. That will come to this Board in the near future.
Mr. Martin said the Board talked about this a month ago, and he thought formation of a committee
was moving forward. It has been many years since the sign ordinance was enacted. As a lay person he
does not know that if the logo is background or whether the white is background.
Mr. Bowerman said until the speaker's presentation this morning, he thought the logo was part of
the company's name. On the other hand, he looked at the background of the proposed signs as being
contrary to that, and that is a little inconsistent.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board should be looking at the guidelines and deciding if they have been
appropriately applied.
Mr. Bowerman said in terms of the sign on the building, it looks too big and leaves him questioning
what standards were applied. He does not know if it is too big or not.
Ms. Thomas said that was just one person's comment. The decision of the ARB was that it not be
illuminated.
Mr. Rooker said if one reads the minutes of the ARB, it appears they think they have consistently
applied the standard. He does not think this Board can judge constitutional law. But, this was not a divided
decision by the ARB, and they make these decisions in a consistent manner on a day-by-day basis. He
does not think they diverted from the consistency of their interpretation. If some judge ultimately rules that
the interpretation is unconstitutional, then so be it. He is convinced that they have attempted to apply those
standards in a consistent manner.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees that "consistent manner" definitely applies to freestanding signs. Is it
clear from the ARB minutes that not allowing the sign to be internally illuminated was not based on size, but
was based on the same standards that are used for the freestanding signs?
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board is using the same standard unless it wants to get into the
standards the ARB operates under. If you review the ARB minutes, it appears that they have been
operating consistently. Without going back and looking at every approval and then comparing all approvals
to this one, this Board has to rely on the facts before it.
Mr. Bowerman said this is the same as the Fuji sign. Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas agreed. She said
the Board is certainly consistent for the last six months if it says that the background consists of everything
except the letters, particularly on the freestanding sign.
Mr. Martin said he thinks there needs to be a committee to look at the bigger picture. Is that
consistency wrong? He is not thinking about it being constitutionally wrong. Is the County just talking about
aesthetics or is the County benefiting from having evolved into having that standard? Is there a benefit to
the County, and if not, why are we doing it? That is not the issue before the Board today. Today, if the
Board stayed consistent, it would do the same thing it did the last time. That is why he thinks it is important
to get that committee working. This is the same situation as with cell towers. When the Board finally got to
the point where it wanted to be, it started looking at other things leading to over-regulation.
Mr. Rooker said the greatest changes in the aesthetics in this community have resulted from the
ARB doing its work. Look at the changes that have occurred at Pantops. The entire entry to the community
coming in that direction is much better than it was.
Mr. Martin said he agrees. He asked if that is because only the freestanding signs can be
illuminated? Is that wise?
Ms. Thomas said she thinks so. When driving around at night, she thinks that because of the
consistency, even with such things as having landscaping throughout the corridor, it is making an impressive
difference in the entrance corridors. Not having the freestanding sign back lit except for the channel letters,
as you go up and down Route 29, is making the same kind of amazing improvement. In fact, they catch the
eye because you are looking for the words instead of all the different Iogos. The driver is paying more
attention to those words. She thinks that every business is profiting from the fact that the County is not
letting any one business go with a striking logo that overshadows the words. She feels confident in that part
of it. But, the County needs to be sure their guidelines are clear to applicants.
Mr. Rooker said in this case, given the decision the Board rendered on the Sushi sign, and other
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
signs, the applicant had to know how that standard was going to be applied to this sign. He finds it hard to
believe this applicant did not know this sign would be rejected in the same manner as past signs that have
come forward with this same kind of approach.
Mr. Davis said it is important to point out a couple of things factually. This is a content neutral
regulation. The message is not what is at issue here; it is the visual impacts of that relationship to the
entrance corridor. Secondly, the Board is only dealing with an internal illumination issue. The ARB has
clearly indicated that they ware willing to approve a sign that is lighted externally which would display the
logo at night, but not in a way that would be as visually distractive to the historical corridor. It is not content
based; it is something that is based on a consistent desire to have a uniform look for the historic corridor
that is in keeping with the historic corridor. He said the only issue before this Board is whether or not that
logo part of the sign can be illuminated. The background is not at issue; it will not be illuminated. Whether
or not the part of the message that is a logo should be illuminated is not consistent with the guidelines in the
application. Clearly, this Board has addressed in the past that Iogos can be regulated in the land use
context. They are not required to be presented on signs in the way, and in the colors, that they feel is their
trademark logo. That is not the issue before the Board today. The issue is whether or not lighting this logo
is consistent with the application that the ARB has been using to regulate the historic corridor.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it is true that the logo is part of the name. Maybe the way these are
treated verbally is important because both together make up an impression of what the company is. Even
though a logo is not letters, it does represent the image of the business.
Mr. Martin said he remembers when cars used to have the name across the side and across the
back. Now, all one sees is a logo.
Mr. Rooker said the logo on the freestanding sign is clearly half of the sign. It is much larger than
the lettering.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes it is meant to convey that the business deals with mountains as well
as with oceans.
Mr. Dorrier asked the pleasure of the Board.
At this time, Mr. Rooker moved that the Board uphold the decision of the ARB on ARB-2003-06,
Freestyle sign. He said there would be a committee looking at the Sign Ordinance soon. Mr. Tucker said
the ARB guidelines would get to the Board quicker.
Mr. Martin said he thinks there should be some people with more expertise than he has looking at
the guidelines. If he reads the guidelines and they talk about something only being "X" amount of inches,
he can't visualize that. Mr. Tucker said people who are knowledgeable about signs have developed the
guidelines. Those guidelines will come to the Board some time this summer for review.
Ms. Maliszewski said when the ARB has finished with its draft, it will be sent out to all the sign
companies the County regularly deals with.
Mr. Martin asked if that is for a public hearing. Ms. Maliszewski said this would be a session for the
ARB to hear comments and incorporate whatever changes are needed.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were a second to the motion to uphold the ARB's decision on this sign.
Second was made by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Tucker said a group the Board will appoint would deal with the three sections of the Sign
Ordinance brought up by Mr. Slonaker immediately. It is hoped that will take only a couple of months. After
that is done, then there will be a committee appointed to look at the entire Sign Ordinance. That will take a
lot of time. June is when the ARB guidelines should be back to the Board.
Agenda Item No. 16. Strategic Plan Progress Report
Mr. Tucker said in the spring of 2002, the Board initiated the County's strategic planning process.
As a result of staff's ongoing strategic plan implementation efforts, it recommends combining the two
separate customer service objectives into one for clarity and focus. Attachment 1 of the staff's report is a
copy of the ten priorities of the strategic plan, including the Board's recommended changes from its January
work session and this additional modification for customer service. Attachment 2 gives information
regarding the County's 2002 overall progress in relation to the strategic plan.
Mr. Tucker said staff would try to complete the County's strategic plan document in June and
present it to the Board for approval after June 30. Today, staff requests additional guidance based on what
the Board has seen. Plans will be made soon for the Strategic Planning Retreat in the fall of 2003 to
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
review the County's long-range forecasts, annual progress and to make any needed adjustments to the
County's strategic direction.
Mr. Rooker said when talking about "future action", he thinks that is to select the next area for a
master plan, and to develop a schedule for implementing the master plan. He mentioned that on Page 7 of
the Quarterly Progress Report, Priority Objectives, under "Highlights" it says "Hired a consultant to conduct
sample facility evaluations to be used in the development of a specific environmental management system
for Albemarle County." He asked the name of that consultant.
Mr. Tucker said it is through the County Attorney's Office.
Mr. Davis said he would send this information to the Board members.
Ms. Thomas said on Page 6, under "Future Actions" it says, "Establish public forums for sharing of
concerns to be addressed with the plan." She wants to be sure the County is participating in the forum that
is being put together by the Rivanna Authority and others so it is not duplicated.
Mr. Rooker mentioned Page 9, where it reads: "Received enabling legislation for flexibility in
developing an affordable dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance." He asked what plans there are for creating an
ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the Housing Committee is working on that ordinance.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be ready soon. Mr. Cilimberg
that is the first step. There is a meeting next week where that will be discussed.
Ms. Thomas mentioned Page 10 and said she wants to be sure that the Albemarle Neighborhood
Association is one of the external customers mentioned.
Mr. Rooker said on Page 12 it speaks to "effective and efficient service to the public". He said
legislative efforts for a more equitable tax system needs to be addressed here.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that the Board and the School Board meet with the local legislators early this
year. Maybe there could be a series of meetings and some concrete proposals formulated.
Mr. Martin said he thinks it is important to bring the School's constituency in on that effort. Just this
Board and the School Board meeting with these people will not have the same impact.
Mr. Dorrier said he would work with the School Board Chairperson to set up a meeting.
Agenda Item No. 18. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 1:05 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to 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 an agreement between the County and other political
entities; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal advice
relating to pending litigation concerning the Police Department.
vote:
Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Closed Session.
At 2:05 p.m. the Board reconvened into open session in Room 235 (Note: Mr. Perkins was present
at this time.)
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman 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.
vote:
Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Perkins.
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Agenda Item No. 21. Call to Order. The meeting was called back to order at 2:06 p.m. by Mr.
Dorrier. Several Planning Commission members were present: Mr. William B. Craddock (arrived at 2:59
p.m.), Mr. William W. Finley, Mr. William D. Rieley (arrived at 2:21 p.m.) and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
Agenda Item No. 22. Rural Areas Section of Comprehensive Plan, Discussion continued from
March 5, 2003.
Mr. Benish said that on March 5 there was a joint work session to go over major topics on which a
consensus was needed by the Planning Commission and the Board. The work session today is to provide
the Board and Commission with a summary of staff's findings. Also, staff has provided information on
family divisions that was requested by both bodies, and a copy of the guiding principles established by the
Commission.
Ms. Lee Catlin said the first topic is a final review of the Rural Area material.
Ms. Thomas said she left the last meeting despondent, and this morning put into words a few of the
things that she feels are lacking in what is being done. She referred to a paper called "What We Should Be
Looking At" which she distributed today. She said the Board has a commitment to preserve the Rivanna
Reservoir and needs to do a much more serious job than what has been done to keep development in that
watershed to a minimum. She said Virginia has a commitment to protect the Chesapeake Bay. Unless the
County gets more serious about development in the entire County that lies in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, the County will not be doing its part. A disperse pattern of development will overwork the road
system. She referred to the report of the Eastern Planning Initiative that showed that a billion dollars can be
spent on needed roads or people will spend 44 percent of their travel time in congested conditions. She
said there are limited tax revenues to spend on infrastructure anywhere. If they are put in the rural area
they won't go in the urban area just because they are limited in the amount that can be put anywhere. The
more that is done, the more it will exacerbate sprawl and the urban area won't be as desirable of a place to
live (Note: See letter that is on file in the Clerk's Office.)
Ms. Catlin asked if any Board members had comments about Attachment A.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it reflects what was discussed at the last meeting.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the members of the Planning Commission are going to attend this session.
There are only two members here and that is unacceptable to him.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any information included on the Rural Rustic Roads Program. Ms.
Catlin said "no."
Ms. Thomas said she had two concerns. One has to do with use of a central water system. She
said the directions given to Peacock Hill when they developed their central water system were that they
were to have one gallon of water per minute per house. They ran a 48-hour pump-out. She thinks the
County still asks the same thing today for a central water system, and the Peacock Hill system failed. It
failed more because of management than because of geology. It is a good example of a good system, so
the County should learn from that about central systems.
Mr. Rooker said at the last meeting, he raised this issue. He thought the direction of the Board was
not to spend a lot of staff time looking into central systems. That did not seem to be the majority view of
that meeting.
Mr. Finley said central systems work if they are properly maintained.
Mr. Rooker said Ms. Thomas gave an example, but there are probably ten to twelve such examples
in the County where the system started out fine and then failed and the County had to come in and bail out
the system.
Mr. Martin said at that meeting, Mr. Bill Edgerton, as an engineer, stated the same thing that Mr.
Finley just stated. It was his position that just because something did not work 50 years ago does not mean
it will not work now, and the concept should be explored.
Mr. Bowerman said regardless of whether or not a central water system can work, the development
policy it might promulgate might not be something the Board is willing to undertake because it allows for
dispersion of population throughout the rural area.
Mr. Martin said it was proposed by staff that if the County went to PUDs or any clustering options,
that might be what is needed. Also, two engineers said it was possible, so he went along with the inspiration
of it.
Ms. Catlin said the thrust of the Board's direction was focused on technology exploration.
Mr. Rooker said the directions to staff clearly state, "it is not the intent that central systems would be
a mechanism for encouraging development or that they would create additional development that couldn't
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
otherwise occur with private systems or individual systems."
Mr. Finley said his remark related more to waste disposal systems that can work if they are
maintained. As for groundwater, no one knows much about groundwater.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it would be better to have one central system than 20 different wells at 20
different houses.
Ms. Thomas said she has a problem with a central system because when that one well fails there
are 20 houses without water. Then, they want public assistance.
Ms. Catlin asked if the wording of this direction concerning center water and sewer systems
captures enough of what the Board wants to allow staff to move forward with its work.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks this is where the conversation ended at the last meeting.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the RPD development will make it easier to develop the rural area,
and is sensible if there is to be development anyway. If there is to be any change in the directions given to
staff, that would be to hasten the design standards for the RPD because state law is changing, and RPD's
will become by-right if allowed at all in the County. The County will only be able to control them by the
standards developed in advance of that change in state law, and not for each individual project.
Ms. Catlin asked if that gives the County greater control. Ms. Thomas said neighborhoods will have
no say, the Planning Commission will have no say, and everything will be by standards. That means the
County needs to be very skillful in the standards developed.
Mr. Rooker said RPD's would be by-right if the County allows them at all. When they become
by-right, they are subjected to a series of subjective requirements.
Ms. Catlin asked if a note of urgency should be added to the development standards for the RPD
section. Ms. Thomas said "yes." (Note: Mr. Rieley arrived at 2:21 p.m.)
Mr. Finley said he had a question last time, but the following wording is still a part of the Rural
Preservation Developments section: "Establish a percentage for the preservation tract in relation to the
overall acreage of the development (i.e., at least 75 percent of the parcel being developed must be in the
preservation tract)." He said 75 percent sounds like a large number.
Ms. Catlin said that was used as an example, but was not intended to reflect a hard number at this
time. The percentage recommendation will emerge from the work that will be done. She suggested
moving on to discuss "family divisions," Attachment B to the staff's report for this meeting. Staff suggested
that the County consider the following strategies:
Staff will research family divisions to determine their compliance with ordinance
standards.
Staff will evaluate family divisions in conjunction with other methods of
subdivision during the review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Evaluating the qualifications for family divisions, including extending the length of
time required for family ownership, will be included in a review of family divisions.
Mr. Dorrier asked how Albemarle County established a two-year time limit for holding a family
division before the property can be sold to a non-family member. Mr. Cilimberg said it was actually
one-year until the last review of this section in 1998.
Ms. Thomas said there was a particular developer who set an egregious example of subdividing
land in as many ways as possible and still call it a family division. There was no way his children could have
used as many lots as he had assigned to them, so changes were made in the process.
Mr. Rooker said there is currently a provision that says "the agent shall be satisfied that the family
divisions are not sought for the purpose of circumventing the requirements of the subdivision ordinance."
He would suggest that provision has never been invoked. He does not think the agent will ever make that
determination. He referred to the list attached to the staff's report that shows other localities, and what their
holding periods are, and said the longest holding period is five years.
Mr. Martin said he would have no problem raising the limit. He thinks it is important for families to
be able to buy the property so that children and grandchildren can have lots. On the other hand, he is
talking about people who will make their home there and live there the rest of their life. The holding period
is not that important to him as long as the County emphasizes the importance and need for those family
division rights.
Ms. Catlin asked if the Board wanted staff to look at the holding period.
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Dorrier said he mentioned it only because he wondered where the "two" came from. He thinks
two is a good number.
Mr. Rooker said he would prefer that the holding period be increased. It basically exempts a large
amount of land from subdivision requirements for a particular social purpose. He thinks that is fine as long
as the purpose is achieved. He thinks it is reasonable to do a family division to set aside lots for children
and a five-year holding period by the person doing it should contemplate that there is some permanence to
what they are doing.
Ms. Catlin said there seems to be consensus on that bullet. She asked if anyone had another
suggestion.
Mr. Rodney Thomas asked if it was a family division and they wanted the child to have the property
instantly, would they apply for a waiver? Ms. Sally Thomas said that the child could have the lot
immediately they just cannot sell it.
Mr. Finley said people die, people go into the military, etc., and to have their rights to sell tied up for
five years is a long time. A family division assumes a person will live there the rest of their lives, but people
do die, and maybe a wife needs to dispose of the property.
Ms. Catlin said there is no need to decide on a time limit now, but she assumes the Board
members think that is something that should be looked at. She then suggested that the bodies look at
Attachment C, Guiding Principles for the Rural Area. As the Planning Commission uses these as a basis
for their work, is there anything that needs to be discussed?
Ms. Thomas referred to No. 7, which says: "Provide levels of service delivery in accord with the
Facilities Planning goals of the Land Use Plan." She said those goals make it very explicit that in the rural
areas, they cannot expect the same level of service as would be expected in the urban area. Mr. Rieley
said it is very explicit.
Ms. Thomas said the wording is so technical that the meaning gets lost. She asked if on No. 4
"Address the needs of existing rural residents without fostering growth and further suburban of the Rural
Areas" could be changed to say "Address the needs of existing rural residents" period, and then have a
separate point that the Board does not want to foster growth and further suburbanization of the Rural
Areas. Ms. Catlin said that would strengthen the second part of the sentence. Ms. Thomas said that is her
suggestion.
Mr. Rieley said that is a good suggestion.
Ms. Catlin asked if everyone agreed to that change.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are already 60,000 subdivisions in the County. Mr. Rooker said "no";
there is the potential for 60,000 lots.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that is what this whole exercise is about, answering that question. How
does the County not foster growth and encourage suburbanization of the rural areas. Everything in these
principles is in positive terms, and she thinks that is the way it should be.
Mr. Rooker said all have operated under a Comprehensive Plan that says that growth is to be
encouraged in the Development Areas, and discouraged in the Rural Areas. This is not a new idea.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there should be a provision that talks about vineyards, grapes, and the wine
industry. Should they be specifically encouraged? Ms. Catlin asked if it should be more explicit than lA
about Agriculture.
Mr. Perkins said if only one such activity is mentioned, it will leave someone else out. The horse
industry is probably the biggest agriculture activity in the County.
Ms. Catlin said it seems to be the feeling that to mention just one industry might unbalance the
general nature of what is being done. Mr. Rooker said he agrees with that statement.
Mr. Martin mentioned No. 5 "Develop tools to direct residential development into designated Growth
Areas...." He asked if the word "encourage" should be used. Based on the conversation today, he thinks
the Board is trying to encourage development in the growth areas, not tell people they have to live in
designated growth areas. He does not want it to seem as if the wealthy are living on their estates in the
rural areas, and "the rest of us" are forced to live in the designed growth areas crowded on top of each
other. He has some of those sentiments when talking about some of the things Ms. Thomas mentioned
such as protecting and enhancing the rural quality of life.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned No. 11 as "Strive for better understanding and coordination of rural area land
use planning with neighboring counties." He asked if the City of Charlottesville and the University are
included. Mr. Cilimberg said they do not have any rural areas.
Mr. Rooker suggested changing the word "counties" to "jurisdictions." Mr. Dorrier agreed.
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Ms. Catlin said she assumes everyone is happy with what has been discussed this afternoon about
the rural areas so that staff can move forward with their work.
Agenda Item No. 23. Work Session: Crozet Master Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said The Renaissance Planning Group-Nelson Byrd Landscape Architects, were
retained as technical consultants for the Crozet Master Plan project in June 2002. After extensive public
involvement during the summer and fall, a Framework Plan was developed and discussed at a joint work
session with the Board and Planning Commission on December 16, 2002. The Board subsequently
adopted a resolution of support for the Framework Plan, accepting it as "a preliminary guide and foundation
from which future Master Plan activities, products and policies will proceed." The technical consulting team
hopes to accomplish the following objectives at this joint work session: 1) provide preliminary information
on implementation needs and strategies in Crozet; 2) proactively engage the Board and Commission in
discussing and evaluating implementation options; and, 3) gain an early indication of decision-makers'
preferences in approach(es) to meeting identified needs.
Mr. Cilimberg said what the consultants present this afternoon would be a real shift in how
everyone thinks about dealing with issues. This is about how to approach urban planning, and the overall
planning of the county. He said the Development Areas have been designated in the Comprehensive Plan
for many years and there have been infrastructure recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for many
years. There are recommendations for development of those areas that require various forms of
implementation. The discussion of implementation has never been taken to the point that this master plan
process takes the County. The future of the County is dependent on the decisions regarding
implementation that the Board will have to make. He said the implementation piece has been a critical part
of the discussion in the community. There has been extensive public involvement. The public wants to
know how this Crozet Master Plan will happen. Staff knows it will not happen in just a few years, it is a
long-term process. The discussion today is not intended to focus on the elements of the Crozet Master
Plan as it stands now. That is still being pulled together and will be finalized ultimately for the bigger
presentation to the Board in June.
Ms. Becky Clay Christensen said she was present to set the stage for what will be presented. This
is a two-part work session. The first part is to educate the two bodies on the implementation process and
then to engage the two bodies in the process. She said there has been a lot of discussion with the
community about where the boundary lines should be drawn, and where different uses should be located.
They have also asked what will need to happen in the County to bring about the changes being
recommended.
Mr. Ken Schwartz with the Renaissance Planning Group spoke next. They are the technical
consultants for the Crozet Master Plan. He said Warren Byrd with Nelson-Byrd Landscape Architects with
give a brief introduction about the plan. The plan has gone through an evolution since these bodies saw it
in January. The purpose today is not to focus on the master plan itself, but on implementation.
Mr. Byrd said he will point out some of the key changes which have occurred since the plan was
seen last. This plan starts with preserving and enhancing the critical aspects of Crozet. First is the
"downtown area." Second is the Lickinghole Creek Basin. Third is the preservation and enhancement of
Route 250 and a portion of Route 240 in the ConAgra area. Part of that is preservation of the historic sites
in the development area.
Mr. Byrd said in the development area, the idea is to create pedestrian-friendly, walkable
communities with connectivity between various parts of the master plan. He said they focused on new
growth in the downtown area, and on the western and eastern parts of the development area with each
focused on a small central park. Based on their discussion with the community and the County, they are
looking at the adjustment of the development area boundaries to incorporate some of north downtown.
Currently, that boundary is along Route 240. They are suggesting that, in combination with a sedimentation
basis, that part of the watershed be included in the fringe area boundary. It makes more sense to keep
Crozet on both sides of the railroad tracks. It will help incorporate existing neighborhoods, particularly the
existing schools, and gives more flexibility on how to incorporate the use of those facilities. It is not intended
to add that much literal growth area.
Mr. Byrd said related to that is the idea that even though it makes sense to have the area to the
southeast in the developed area from a watershed point-of-view, it makes less sense from a topographic,
environmental point-of-view because it is very difficult to develop. That is why that area is shown as more
rural related, Iow-density. They are suggesting this could or could not be part of the boundary adjustment
for the developed area boundary. They also adjust the fringe areas of that original developed area. An
important aspect of their thinking about the fringe areas is on Route 250 between the schools and
Interstate-64. They would like to see this area as a part of that open space and the rural preserved area
that would take some doing because there exists commercial property in that area. The idea is to move
attention to the downtown area.
Mr. Byrd said they kept in the plans the important western avenue connection from Jarmans Gap
Road down to Route 250. They are also showing an eastern avenue connection across Lickinghole Creek.
It crosses the railroad tracks between ConAgra and Acme in response to citizen comments. They have
shown various degrees of mixed uses and densities. He then offered to answer questions.
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Schwartz said the master plan would include several components. It will include a map and
design guidelines for the various areas throughout the Crozet community. There are also land use issues
tied to the map and guidelines. He said implementation strategies are an essential part of the work that the
consultants will culminate in mid-June.
Mr. Schwartz said this plan is being drafted because the Neighborhood Model is a better alternative
for the community. It is a matter of public policy. They use the assumption that concentrating development
in development areas will lead to opportunities and have positive outcomes. It is the consultant's job to
determine how that can work in this, the first development area to be studied under a master plan. There
are costs associated with growth, and they will be present whether channeled into a development area
configuration or in some other form, sometimes hidden forms, with a growth in population from 3000 to
12,000.
Mr. Schwartz said he would mention where responsibilities lie according to the consultant's
assessment. He gave a slide presentation of the development area. He said things break down into three
geographic positions, each of which has particular implementation possibilities, and staging implications.
How much things cost, how do things get paid for, what are the options, and "when" is a key issue regarding
staging. What are the first steps to happen? He said "why" speaks to community values in trying to
reinforce wherever possible the historic patterns of development in Crozet.
Mr. Schwartz said there are a couple of basis points. Under the Master Plan as currently
described, there are approximately 4500 households, which is a population somewhere between 10,800
and 12,000+. The Comprehensive Plan calls for 12,552 that are essentially playing out the numbers in a
by-right scenario. One important distinction between the Master Plan in its current configuration and a
by-right development is the employment potential. Mixed use means there is the opportunity for some
employment built into the community as opposed to Crozet functioning exclusively or entirely as a bedroom
community. This has a profound impact over time on the nature of the community, the nature of
traffic patterns, demands on the road system, and many other dimensions. There are costs built into what
is being done with growth in Albemarle County.
Mr. Schwartz said the local development community has been a part of this process since the
beginning. They are active participants and are very eager to see how their work coordinated with the
intentions of the master plan.
Mr. Schwartz said he would mention the three players and their roles and responsibilities. They are
Schools, Libraries, Parks & Recreation and Greenways, which are traditionally and reasonably a function of
local government. There are services such as Fire/Rescue, Police and Social Services. There are also
things they are calling "Connections/Flows" which are processes that include solid waste, recycling, water
and sewer, and transportation and all the related elements of transportation.
Mr. Schwartz said that local businesses, the development community, primarily have several
unique responsibilities, and are in a position to do certain things very effectively. Local business
development on a small scale at the center of neighborhoods in various types and various forms, as well as
larger enterprises in the downtown and ConAgra area are the principal kinds of employment and economic
development activities envisioned as part of the master plan. They are also the engines for neighborhood
development. Within both the green field areas as well as in-fill areas within the existing Crozet community.
(Note: Mr. Craddock arrived at 2:59 P.M.)
Mr. Schwartz said they deal with connections and flow because in many instances they will be the
ones building the roads and implementing a system of interconnection that is important to the notion of the
Neighborhood Model and how it actually comes into being in Crozet. There has been a lot of interest
expressed in the downtown area. A lot of ideas have been floated about downtown and Yancey Mill. There
are specific opportunities for downtown that can move forward according to possibilities of local taxing.
There are community grants and citizen initiatives that are part and parcel of what the local community can
do. There are issues of local governance that will be part of the implementation plan. How is the local
community engaged in new ways in collaboration with the Board of Supervisors and the Planning
Commission to assure that everyone is playing a positive role in working toward the eventual outcome of
this design? A "Crozet Trails Foundation" is a logical way to advance the open space initiative of the master
plan. In other words, all of the responsibilities do not rest with County government and all do not fall to the
private sector. The local community can play a role.
Mr. Schwartz said he would take the two bodies on a virtual tour of three areas in the master plan.
There are specific implementation implications in each of these three areas. First is the downtown area.
He said connections to this area are critical, but are very difficult because of the railroad tracks, and
because of the neighborhoods that are not interconnected effectively. They are recommending an
east-west street to the south of the CSX Tracks. He said Main Street is important because it provides an
additional link running east-west. Building Main Street will not occur quickly, but in order to get it started
there is an implementation step that should happen immediately, that is the link between Crozet Avenue
and the Barnes Lumber property. When that road is completed, the square is freed up, a pedestrian safety
issue is solved and the light under the underpass is solved. Main Street continues further to the east into
other development areas.
Mr. Schwartz said a second step might involve other pieces such as the location of a new library on
Crozet Avenue, which in conjunction with western Crozet Avenue would be a catalyst for civic identity to the
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
downtown area. Other issues concerned overlay districts in regard to historic and design standards, as well
as the possibility of a community service district to help fund certain kinds of improvements which are
unique to the downtown area.
Mr. Schwartz said Eastern Avenue has its own set of issues. There is a north-south connection to
the east of Crozet Avenue. ConAgra is at the top along with Acme Pickfile. Crossing the CSX tracks there
are significant development areas on either side of Eastern Avenue that extend off of Cory Farms. In
regard to this, a few days ago they invited representatives of each of the task groups from the Crozet
community to their offices to get their views on some of these ideas. One of the more interesting comments
was whether Eastern Avenue should work north off of Route 250, or start off of Route 240 as a first step.
There are reasonable arguments for either side of the issue. They think crossing the tracks would occur as
either an underpass or overpass. It is not likely to be a grade crossing, as it currently exists in that location.
That is an issue that is essential to traffic distribution in this portion of Crozet. One key issue has to do with
crossing Lickinghole Creek. There is a crossing associated with a bridge, and how it connects through
depends on the initial step of building that bridge which is not currently in any plan, nor is money available
for crossing the CSX. There is an important decision in front of the County about which of those two steps
should be requested. It is the job of the consultants to provide more specific ideas about cost and
implications of those kinds of choices.
Mr. Schwartz said the development community, in conjunction with the development process,
would probably pay for this segment of Eastern Avenue, as would the cost associated with developing
parklands, which are an important part of the recommendation in both the eastern and western portions of
Crozet. Also important is the location for a new elementary school. The funding for an eastern park is
noted as being both private and public. The land could be devoted to the public sector from the private
sector, but the on-going cost of maintaining that facility is clearly a public responsibility if it is to be a public
park.
Mr. Schwartz said to the west of Crozet Avenue is a very large development area between
Slabtown Creek and Lickinghole Creek. There is a significant area between those two streams, and
another significant area to the north and a smaller area to the south set back from Route 250. There are
improvements to Jarmans Gap Road in the plan that total about $10.0 million. There is about $5.0 million
already in the pipeline for 2005, but the other $5.0 million needs to be expedited. A lot of the transportation
issues that are of concern to the community focus on the western part of the town. Issues of travel and
commuting patterns that go through Crozet now, and if they go through Western Avenue to the 1-64
interchange will depend on improving Jarmans Gap Road. From the new development area to downtown
is less than one-half a mile. There are bridges and roads throughout the development area. He is not sure
of the costs, but Western Avenue is the main road that organizes the western area along with other areas,
as well.
Mr. Schwartz pointed out a connection from Western Avenue to Crozet Avenue potentially going
along the base of the hillside below The Meadows and tying onto the existing County road that leads to The
Meadows. There is a park that is similar to the strategy for the park that is identified on the eastern side, as
well. Staging issues are simpler on the western side or on the eastern side because they can start either
from the south or from the north. Either one can provide access to the major area of development and the
golf course, etc. Both ultimately need to be put in place in order to have continuity so the Western Avenue
can exist.
Mr. Schwartz then mentioned funding strategies. He said the local government has several
options. They include the current revenue sources of property taxes, sales taxes, business taxes,
water/sewer, other sources. There are new revenue sources from the same sources as a result of the
growth that will take place. There are bonds and tax increment possibilities, a community service authority,
a community development authority, and ways of identifying funds directed toward specific purposes.
There is the VDOT funding which is already in the pipeline for Jarmans Gap Road. There may be other
possibilities depending on where the County places its priorities. There are Federal grants. Business
provides new development opportunities through proffers. Developers, according to the Nexus test, are not
expected to make improvements beyond existing service standards, and they must be improvements that
directly benefit their own developments. The local community also has the potential for funding possibilities
both through grants and sweat equity.
Mr. Schwartz said he would mention some key issues on which a response is needed. They think
local government needs to facilitate the development process by encouraging, streamlining, and making it
easier for the development community. To the extent that is done, the County would be encouraging
development in this development area and making it more plausible for the private sector to do the right
thing. This is a big issue that has been heard from the development community and the citizens of Crozet.
It is important that the County government play a key role in partnering with the private sector in identifying
funding opportunities. These would be for the Jarmans Gap Road, the Lickinghole Creek Bridge, the CSX
crossing, and the main street example he mentioned earlier.
Mr. Schwartz said as to services, collaboration with the School Board for new school development
is a key issue. The neighborhood school is a fundamental center point to the eastern part of the Crozet
growth area. That will require work and collaboration between the boards involved. He said they believe
there will be a need to find new ways to do business within County government in order to implement an
effective master plan in the Crozet community, or any of the development areas throughout the County.
There needs to be a different way of interacting between the public and private sectors and between the
public and citizens as a whole. In terms of the community's role, there could be some kind of community
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
governance system that worked by appointment from the Board of Supervisors to bring the energy of that
community forward as an active participant in an on-going basis, not just in the context of helping to prepare
the master plan, but in an on-going way to provide guidance, checks and balances, and activity on the
ground.
Mr. Schwartz said from the development community, development is expected to occur according
to the Master Plan both as to Western Avenue and eastern avenue, as well as several important in-fill
opportunities within the ConAgra/Acme area and the downtown area. Another area of development is from
the southern approach at the store on the corner of Route 240/Route 250. It presents an opportunity for
making a green gateway into the community. The multiple parties involved with the Crozet Avenue
development, the library, the post office, and all of the properties west of Crozet Avenue and north of
Jarmans Gap represent an opportunity for establishing downtown the way the community has desired for a
long time. For the local community, property owners and merchants, organization of the downtown area is
extremely important. It is a challenge.
Mr. Schwartz said that eventually there would be suggestions in the master plan as to the
importance of indicators or instruments for the community to assess how the master plan is working. Some
communities have used the term "trigger points" which is a way to find ways to measure when things are not
working, or when the County is not delivering on a necessary element that is key to the healthy growth
within a certain area of the Crozet community.
(Note: At 3:20 p.m., Mr. Dorrier called for a break. The Board reconvened at 3:30 p.m.)
Ms. Christensen said this would be part two of the meeting today. She asked for Board and
Commission comments about the presentation. They want to know how this master plan is consistent with
current County policies, how it fits in with what is already the subject of discussion. She said this is a
long-term plan so some of the seeds are things that are happening now. On the other hand, it may be felt
that some things will not occur until the latter stages of the plan go into effect. Finally, where does this plan
begin, where is the focus of the Board and Commission in the next two years?
Ms. Christensen asked for comments on what the members feel is consistent with what is already
going on in Albemarle County.
Mr. Dorrier asked the build-out period for this master plan. Mr. Schwartz said it is 20 years.
Mr. Rieley asked the value of the two bodies listing what is consistent with current trends. He thinks
this has come directly out of the Neighborhood Model. Ms. Christensen said that is one answer. Part of the
final master plan is to address where it is to begin today.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Mr. Rieley. The Neighborhood Model has been adopted as part of
the Comprehensive Plan. The Board just adopted the Neighborhood Model District Ordinance. The trend
is in the Comprehensive Plan that is the guideline for the future.
Ms. Christensen said if the Comprehensive Plan gives the history of this, what in this presentation
indicated how far away the County is from realization of its goals.
Mr. Martin said paying for a bridge, even though that is a new opportunity.
Ms. Christensen asked if it just the bridge. Mr. Thomas said paying for a main street would be
another.
Mr. Martin said there are a lot of areas where the County pays in conjunction with VDOT for a
bridge, and then someone else might build the roads. Mr. Tucker said the biggest stretch might be
negotiating with CSX. Ms. Thomas said if the County got into the business of paying for bridges, there are
other places in the County where a bridge is needed.
Mr. Perkins said there is infrastructure the County will have to front load with the hope of getting that
money back somehow. There are other kinds of infrastructure, such as for schools and libraries. Ms.
Christensen asked if front loading the infrastructure could be seen as a sort of investment strategy. Mr.
Perkins said he thinks that is the way it will have to be done. Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Perkins what he was thinking about in the way of front-loading costs. Mr.
Perkins said he understands there are mechanisms where the County could borrow the money to build the
bridge. Then the bridge is paid for by whoever receives the benefit from the bridge.
Mr. Dorrier said a community development authority would be a new opportunity. The County does
not have one at this time. Mr. Martin said it is the current trend.
Ms. Christensen asked if there is anything other than paying for it that seemed to be out of sync with
the focus of this study.
Ms. Thomas said a year ago she would never have thought that planners, developers and the
community could sit down together and plan out the community, but that has happened.
Ms. Christensen said she would like to discuss the three scenarios and how they would be staged.
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
What comes first? She asked if anything presented seemed like a real opportunity or a big stretch.
Mr. Dorrier said getting public input is important. He is trying to understand when that turns into
concrete action.
Mr. Bowerman said one of the biggest stretches for him is because the land is privately owned at
this time. A lot of private decisions will have to be made in order to get anything done.
Mr. Rooker said the only mechanism the Board has to use is if someone is requesting a rezoning of
the property.
Mr. Bowerman said they have to have the desire to do it. He has talked with Mr. Perkins and not
many people want to do anything.
Mr. Perkins said the whole plan is a big stretch. It will take a lot of cooperation between lots of
different parties to make it work. Although certain things have been identified on the map such as a new
park, why not expand the current Crozet Park instead. The County has an opportunity to add land to an
existing park. There is also the alignment of Tabor Street and Jarmans Gap Road that has been
mentioned several times. There is an opportunity to do that, but if it is not on the plan, VDOT will say it is
not on the master plan. Aligning those two streets should be on the master plan. There is so much stuff on
this plan that it will be interesting to see how it actually works out in 20 years. The Neighborhood Model can
be met by doing it more ways than just this one presented today.
Mr. Rieley said what he is about to say does not fit into the structure of what is presented today. He
said the Commission has worked over the last year on several projects that have tried to reconcile private
initiatives with a comprehensive plan vision. The bigger the project, the more complicated and difficult it is.
The biggest implementation challenge will not be solved by park associations to build greenways, or some
of the other things mentioned. What the County will have to grapple with is how to make a reasonable
transition between the existing, underlying zoning, the landowner's aspirations for their property, and this
master plan. It will be difficult. It will require a new way of giving assurances to people that if they work on
one end of the road, the other end will appear when it is supposed to in the future. That is where he would
like to see the attention focused when talking about implementation. That is the crux of having this plan
come into reality.
Mr. Dorrier said there must be some economic incentives. Something will have to help that person
make some money; something will have to motivate a person to put a plan forth. There is no financial
incentive, and government will not pay for it. How do you move off of square one?
Mr. Martin said people come forward everyday with their plan for their piece of property. Once this
master plan is in place, people will see opportunities. Once that bridge is built, that becomes a huge
incentive in terms of making someone's property more valuable than it was the day before the bridge was
opened. He is hopeful. It is important for the County to move forward realizing that there have to be
incentives. People are not going to do it on their own. The County cannot say, "this is what we want" and
put up roadblocks. It is not going to turn out exactly as the County wants.
Mr. Finley said there has been talk about the Neighborhood Model and people walking to school
and walking to work. There has been mention of commercial, but are there industrial sites? Is ConAgra
still industrial, or will it become a business? Is someone actively trying to attract industries that would
employ some of the 12,000 people who are looking for jobs?
Mr. Schwartz said ConAgra and Acme could have a continuing industrial employment role. The
importance of thinking about the north side of Route 240 in conjunction with the south side is a way of
intensifying that economic development activity in that location. It is difficult from the downtown area that is
more small scale shop-oriented. It is important as an employment opportunity for the Crozet community.
Mr. Finley asked if a community development authority would be concerned with attracting
industries. Mr. Schwartz said it could be. An increased economic development focus would be a new thing
in order to initiate those kinds of activities and facilitate those activities.
Ms. Christensen asked how to begin implementation. How does the Board, Commission, staff,
begin to gear up? It may be in the near future, or much longer. What needs to happen in terms of the
kinds of things these bodies have raised? The question is how to facilities these things happening.
Mr. Rooker suggested the words "schedule and prioritize infrastructure improvements." The
improvements must be price-loaded. Then a decision must be made as to how they would be financed.
Mr. Dorrier said this plan need to become almost second nature in the Crozet area. People need
to understand it so there needs to be public education.
Ms. Thomas asked what percent of the people in Crozet have participated in the planning process.
She has been impressed with the number of people who attended meetings. Ms. Christensen said the
number of people involved could be as many as 300. There have consistently been 100 people present at
the community meetings. She asked for another suggestion as to how to make some of this happen.
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Rooker said the plan must be completed.
Ms. Thomas said she was impressed with the description of what should happen on Route 250.
Ms. Christensen asked if there were other specific issues that need to be dealt with at the policy
level.
Mr. Martin said the whole Neighborhood Model need to be put into place.
Mr. Rooker asked if the area north of Route 240 would require a change of the boundaries. Mr.
Schwartz said that area is currently outside of the development areas. It is a fringe area. County
Engineering said there are issues in this area regarding water protection and sediment control. If there is
control at this point, it protects a watershed that would allow existing neighbors, existing downtown, and
existing industrial uses to actually be protected. It could be an adjustment that essentially recognizes the
current pattern, including the two schools.
Mr. Rooker said downtown Crozet would be the center of the growth area, where right now it is not
the center.
Ms. Christensen asked if the Board and Commission would be interested in other funding
mechanisms.
Mr. Martin said the Board has been talking to VDOT for a while about design standards. A change
in their standards is needed in regard to funding partial projects. The way their standards are now, they
could not help the County build, or pay for a portion of a road project.
Ms. Thomas said in thinking about a new stormwater detention pond, the Board should look for
some specific funding for that sewer project.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the Board can look at Crozet in isolation from the rest of the
County. It has 4000 people now, and it is projected that over some period of time it will have 12,000 people.
It could have that population under current zoning without a master plan. He thinks it needs to be
recognized that part of this is an effort to make sure the growth will occur in a more planned way and with
less of an impact on infrastructure than it would have otherwise. When the Board is prioritizing its funds for
capital projects, it cannot look at Crozet in isolation from the rest of the County.
Ms. Christensen said this is the first growth area to go through the master planning process. One
way to look at the list of "to do" items is that they will actually facilitate other areas. There are some things
that will be put in motion here that will not have to happen again because the work will have been done.
Mr. Rooker said with respect to transportation capital improvements, there are projects in the
Crozet area that are now in the Six-Year Road Plan. One of the things that need to be done is to look at
those road projects to see how they fit in the master plan and consider if it is wise to decide if a certain
improvement should be made ahead of things already in the Six-Year Plan.
Ms. Christensen said the consultants met a month ago with the people they call "the internal
stakeholders." Those are the department heads in this building that are running their own planning
processes for their individual pursuits. This whole concept was explained to them. They were then asked
how it fit in with what is already planned. She said it would be part of the master plan report to understand
what is going on with existing projects. She said comments from today's meeting actually become a part of
the master plan.
Mr. Schwartz said the idea of getting together with the Commission and Board came about from a
discussion the consultants had with County staff. They have had biweekly meetings talking about the
process, and monthly meetings with planning staff members. They all recognized early in the process the
importance of implementation. They did not know a couple of months ago "how to get out of the gate."
They felt that engaging the Board and Commission now instead of waiting until June would serve two
purposes. The conversation today has been very helpful. It also helps to build an understanding of what is
coming up in June. On April 30, there will be community meeting Number 6 to update the community on
where the master plan stands. Their primary focus will be implementation. It is their goal to get the
community's input on preferences, on desirable outcomes and strategies based on issues brought to them.
They feel they can reflect preferences and some difficult choices. The next step is in the middle of June.
There will be a date set for presentation of the master plan that will be presented to the Board, Commission
and the community as a whole.
(The Board recessed and reconvened immediately in Room 241 .)
Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to appoint Ms. Sade Ridley to replace Ms. Ashley G. Young as
the County Youth representative to the Commission on Children and Families. This term runs from June
30, 2003, to June 30, 2005.
Mr. Martin offered motion to appoint Mr. Mitchell E. Neuman as the at-large member on the
Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Neuman replaces Mr. Fred W. Hudson whose
April 2, 2003 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
term had expired on January 19, 2003. This term runs through January 19, 2007.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motions. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said she has been invited to attend the Natural Resources Leadership Summit being
sponsored by the Governor and Secretary Tayloe Murphy, next Thursday and Friday, April 10 and 11, in
Williamsburg. The purpose of the meeting is to determine natural resource policies for the next three
years. Only elected officials from Albemarle and Fairfax counties were invited to participate.
Mr. Martin said he would not be present for the Board's meeting on April 9, 2003.
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 09/03/2003
Initials: GKS