2003-06-11(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 11,
2003, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at
6:03 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no matters presented tonight.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman to remove Item 5.1 from the agenda, to approve Items 5.2 through 5.6 and to accept Items 5.7
and 5.8 on the Consent Agenda as information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: March 5, March 17(A) and March 19(A), 2003.
No minutes had been read. All will go forward to another meeting for approval.
Item 5.2. Resolution to accept roads in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phases 4, 5 and 6, into the
State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, the following resolution was
adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phases 4, 5 and 6,
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 11, 2003, fully
incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Lake
Reynovia Subdivision, Phases 4, 5 and 6, as described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) dated June 11, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant
to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements:
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts,
fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Butternut Lane (State Route 1099) from the intersection of Route 1086
(Reynovia Drive) to the intersection of Route 1097 (Primrose Lane), as
shown on plat recorded 11/2/1996 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1590, pages 509-515, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 mile; and from the
intersection of Route 1097 (Primrose Lane) to the cul-de-sac, as shown
on plat recorded 11/2/1996 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1590, pages 509-515, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 mile.
2)
Larkspur Way (State Route 1089) from the intersection of Route 1086
(Reynovia Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 6/23/1997
in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 1557, pages 380-583, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.17 mile.
3)
Primrose Lane (State Route 1097) from the intersection of Route 1099
(Butternut Lane) to the intersection of Route 1098 (Sundrops Court), as
shown on plat recorded 12/18/1996 in the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1675, pages 577-581,
with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 mile; and from the
intersection of Route 1098 (Sundrops Court) to the intersection of Route
1086 (Reynovia Drive), as shown on plat recorded 12/18/1996 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1675, pages 577-581, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.05 mile.
4)
Sundrops Court (State Route 1098) from the intersection of Route
1097 (Primrose Lane) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded
12/18/1996 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1675, pages 577-581, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.06 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.55 mile.
Item 5.3. Authorize County to proceed with dedication of Mill Creek Regional Stormwater Pond as
Regional Stormwater Facility and authorize County Executive to execute plat and deed.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Mill Creek stormwater pond is a 2.6-acre pond constructed
in 1987 to provide stormwater detention for a significant portion of the Mill Creek development, including
compensation for areas of the development that drain directly to Biscuit Run. Since this development
predates the Water Protection Ordinance, the pond provides detention for the ten-year design storm only.
Stormwater management for the two-year storm and water quality was not provided. The pond is located
on an un-named tributary to Moores Creek that lies within the valley immediately upstream of the Southern
Parkway. The total drainage area is approximately 122 acres. The pond also receives uncontrolled runoff
from a portion of the Lake Reynovia development, discharge from the Cale Elementary ten-year storm
detention basin, and runoff from a portion of the pre-existing and underdeveloped properties along the east
side of Avon Street.
Since the mid-nineties, staff has had numerous conversations and meetings with the Mill Creek
Homeowners Association (MCHA) representatives regarding the sedimentation occurring in the pond and
the potential for County acceptance of the pond as a regional stormwater management facility. The
primary obstacles to dedication have been lack of permanent construction/maintenance access to the pond
and the condition of the pond. Through the cooperation of the MCHA and the developer of the proposed
Village Homes II site, permanent access will be provided to the pond and monetary contribution made for
the pond restoration/improvement.
Engineering & Public Works supports County acceptance of this pond as a regional stormwater
management facility due to the public benefit including: 1) potential to modify the outlet structure to provide
two-year storm detention for the existing upstream development; and, 2) potential for the facility to be
retrofitted to provide water quality treatment of stormwater runoff. Upon authorization from the Board, staff
will hire a surveyor to prepare a plat and work with the County Attorney to prepare a deed of easement for
the dedication of the pond as a regional stormwater facility.
There are fiscal impacts associated with this regional stormwater basin. It is anticipated that
approximately $150,000 in improvements and upgrades to the basin need to be performed. The basin is
not currently designed to provide water quality protection and those improvements would be made, as well
as improvements to allow for better long-term maintenance. To this end, the MCHA has offered to
contribute $50,000 toward those upgrades in recognition of the benefits the community will receive.
Additionally, it is anticipated that it will cost approximately $5000 per year to perform the same ongoing
stormwater basin maintenance as provided with other County basins.
Staff recommends that it be authorized to expend funds for the preparation of a dedication plat; that
the Board authorize the County to accept a monetary contribution to the cost of improvements to the
existing pond; and, the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the plat and deed(s) for the
stormwater management facility and access thereto when the County Attorney is satisfied with the
documents.
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized staff to expend funds for
preparation of a dedication plat; the Board authorized the County to accept monetary contribution
to the cost of improvements to the existing pond; and, the Board authorized the County Executive
to execute plat and deed(s) for the stormwater management facility and access thereto when the
County Attorney is satisfied with the documents.
Item 5.4. Set public hearing to grant the City of Charlottesville a gas line easement at Monticello
Fire Station.
It was noted in the staff's report that the City of Charlottesville has requested that the County grant it
an easement to enable the placement of a gas line along the access road serving the new Monticello Fire
Station property owned by the County. This is a new gas line that serves the fire station and will serve other
properties to be constructed in the future. Staff recommends that the Board set this matter for a public
hearing on July 9, 2003.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board ordered this matter advertised for a public
hearing at its meeting on July 9, 2003.
Item 5.5. TEA-21 Enhancement Grant Application for Historic Crozet Streetscape Enhancement
Project.
It was noted in the staff's report that in 2002, the Board supported a request to apply for a TEA-21
Enhancement Grant for Crozet streetscape improvements. The grant proposal is for streetscape
improvements along Crozet Avenue. The grant is still under development, but will incorporate sidewalks
and streetscape improvements, in phases, along Crozet Avenue, Three Notch'd Road and Tabor Street,
and may include the under grounding of utilities. The total project cost is estimated at $1,322,000 for
Phase I. These improvements are recommended in the County's Land Use Plan and in the Crozet
Community Study. The draft Crozet Master Plan also supports these improvements. Staff is working with
the Crozet Community Association, businesses and other community interests for letters of support.
The County is not required to conduct another public hearing because the grant application is for
the same project. Staff is requesting that the Board adopt a resolution to apply for a TEA-21 Enhancement
Grant. This is similar to the resolution adopted by the Board on January 16, 2002. The County has
programmed up to $550,000 to be available for the match in the FY 2003-04 Capital Improvement Plan for
Crozet sidewalk and streetscape improvements, which will be adequate to cover the anticipated match
amount for the first year of the project.
If the County decides not to complete a project within the time frame specified within the
agreement, VDOT can request reimbursement for all expenditures and any remaining funds will lapse.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution endorsing a TEA-21 Enhancement Grant for the
Downtown Crozet streetscape improvement project, agreeing to fund 20 percent of the project and to
reimburse VDOT for funds expended by VDOT if the County cancels the project.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution endorsing a
TEA-21 Enhancement Grant for the Downtown Crozet streetscape improvement project, agreed to
fund 20 percent of the project, and agreed to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation
for the funds expended by VDOT if the County cancels the project.
PROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board
construction allocation procedure for a TEA-21 Enhancement Grant application, it is
necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local government or state
agency in order for the Virginia Department of Transportation to approve an
enhancement project in the County of Albemarle;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation
Board to fund the Historic Crozet Streetscape Enhancement Project; and
FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to pay
twenty (20) percent of the total cost of this project, and that if the County of Albemarle
subsequently elects to cancel this project, it hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia
Department of Transportation for the total amount of the cost expended by the
Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.
Item 5.6. ACE Program Acceptance of Landowners offers to sell Conservation Easements.
It was noted in the staff's report that ACE regulations require each landowner who desires to sell a
conservation easement to submit a written offer to the County to sell the easement for a fixed price,
determined by an appraisal and subject to an adjustment based on adjusted gross income. The easement
is subject to the terms and conditions contained in a proposed deed of easement negotiated by the parties.
The regulations also require that, if the Board accepts the offer, it must do so in writing and only after action
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
is taken by the Board authorizing acceptance. The Board is not required to accept an offer to sell a
conservation easement. Either the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority
(PRFA) or the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) may be co-holders of the easements though none of the
properties from this year's class have designated VOF as an easement co-holder.
The regulations also require the ACE Committee to recommend which parcels, from an initial pool
of applicants, the Board should invite to submit offers to sell conservation easements. In the event a higher
ranked applicant(s) drops out of this initial pool, the Committee may slide down the ranking list and
substitute another parcel(s) that is lower ranked provided it is still eligible.
The County has received an additional offer to sell a conservation easement on the following
property:
Owner(s) Tax Map-Parcel Number(s) Price Co-holder
Hart TM 103, Parcel 31 (227.030 acres) $182,000 PRFA
At its meeting on April 16, the Board adopted a resolution accepting the offers to purchase
conservation easements on the Byrom, Hughes and Pollock properties, all applicants from the 2001-02
pool. On May 7, the Board adopted a resolution accepting the offer to purchase a conservation easement
on the Millwood Land Trust (Gildea) property, another applicant from the 2001-02 pool.
At its May 7 meeting, the Board also approved the ACE Committee's recommendation to slide
down the ranking list and substitute for purchase two lower-ranked properties from the initial applicant pool
- Hart and Scharer. Though Scharer declined to submit an offer to sell an easement, Hart has submitted
an offer. Therefore, the Committee's recommendation to the Board is to accept the Hart's offer to sell a
conservation easement on their property.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution accepting the landowners' offer to sell a
conservation easement to the County for the price specified and subject to the terms and conditions
contained in the proposed deed of easement, and also to authorize the County Executive to sign the final
deed of easement for the property.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution accepting
offers to sell conservation easements under the ACE Program for the price specified and subject to
the terms and conditions contained in the proposed deed of easement, and authorized the County
Executive to sign the final deed of easement for the property.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFERS TO SELL
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County has received offers to sell conservation easements
under the ACE Program from the owners of the following properties:
Tax Map 103, Parcel 31 (Hart Property)
WHEREAS, each owner offered to sell conservation easements on the
respective properties to the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and
conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County's
invitation to offer to sell, subject to any further revisions deemed necessary by the County
Attorney and agreed to by the owner.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby
accepts the offers to sell conservation easements described above, and authorizes the
County Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisitions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the
County Attorney to send copies of this resolution to the owners of the properties identified
herein, or their contact persons.
Item 5.7. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for May 20, 2003, was received for
information.
Item 5.8. Letter dated May 28, 2003, from Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, VDOT, to Ella W.
Carey, Clerk, re: Notice of proposed improvements on Route 691 in Crozet (Jarmans Gap Road, Project
0691-002-258,C501).
There will be an Open House type meeting at the Crozet Fire Department on July 8, 2003, at 5:00
p.m. to see the preliminary plans for the proposed widening and alignment improvements of Jarmans Gap
Road (Route 691) from 1.1477 miles/1.847 km. west of Route 1206 (Orchard Drive) to 0.3262 mile/0.525
km. east of Route 1206 (Orchard Drive). This notice was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2002-056. Canaan Church (Sign #53). Public hearing on a request to
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
allow a 200-member church in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 80, P 21, contains 6.903
acs. Loc on Rt 744 (Hacktown Rd) N of 1-64 & E of Rt 731 (Keswick Rd). Znd RA. Rivanna Dist. (Notice
of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report that is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. (Note: Mr. Martin arrived at 6:03 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg
said the applicant proposes to construct a one-story church building (100 by 40 feet) with 150 fixed seats
and 55 paved parking spaces on a 6.903-acre property. The number of seats requested was revised down
from 200 seats due to drain field limitations. A structure that was on the site at the time of submittal of this
application has since been demolished and removed. The church would be accessed from Hacktown
Road (Route 744). The applicant requested a waiver from Section 31.2.4.4 asking that they be allowed five
years from the date of approval to commence construction.
Mr. Cilimberg said the size of the church and the anticipated hours for services and meetings
should not adversely affect the character of the district. For a limited time before and after services,
Hacktown Road would experience higher than normal traffic volumes. The church would be located on an
unpaved portion of Hacktown Road, and according to 1999 traffic counts has 380 vehicle trips per day. The
Church is expected to generate approximately 50 trips during a limited time one day per week. The
weekday trips would be considerably less than the Sunday traffic. The trip generation for a church of this
size would be less, on a weekly basis, than that of a by-right subdivision with three single-family residences.
VDoT stated that for a church of this size, a commercial driveway is warranted.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff did recommend approval subject to conditions. The Planning Commission,
at its meeting on May 20, 2003, by a vote of 7:0 recommended approval subject to eight conditions. They
changed Conditions No. 7 and No. 8 as recommended by staff. No. 7 required VDoT approval of a
commercial driveway and the Commission deleted it because a commercial driveway will be required as
part of site plan approval. No. 8 was changed to require right-of-way dedication of only 25 feet from the
centerline of Hacktown Road. This dedication is necessary in order for VDoT to provide a drainage ditch
when the road is paved. Such a project is not now in the Six-Year Highway Plan or on the County[]s priority
list, but based on VDoT's comments, staff still recommends that 30 feet of right-of-way be required. The
concept plan shows that the church and its parking can be accommodated even with dedication of 30 feet
of rig ht-of-way.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to come forward.
Mr. J Edgardo Valladares was present to represent the church. He offered to answer questions.
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 SP-2002-056 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, but amending No. 6 to require 30 feet of right-of-way. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The church's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements
shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled
"Application Plan; Special Use Permit Application for Canaan Church" revised
12/23/02;
The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum one hundred fifty (150)-seat
sanctuary, under this 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 other Rural Area zoned properties;
There shall be no day care center or private school on the site without approval
of a separate special use permit;
Construction of the church, as shown on the plan shall commence within five (5)
years of the date of the approval of this special use permit or this special use
permit shall expire;
Minimum sight distance requirements of three hundred fifty (350) feet from the
entrance shall be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Any additional seating or other traffic generating uses shall require an
amendment to this special use permit;
Right-of-way dedication of thirty (30) feet from the existing centerline of
Hacktown Road (Route 744) along the entire property frontage shall be required
prior to the issuance of a building permit;
Health Department approval of a well and septic systems shall be required prior
to the issuance of a building permit; and
The outside play area activities shall be limited to only take place during daytime
hours. Lighting of the play area shall not be permitted. The play area shall be
located as far away as possible from the adjacent residential properties, but in no
case shall the play area be located closer than seventy-five (75) feet from any
adjacent property line. The outside play area location shall be depicted on the
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
site plan.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: SDP-2003-019 - Keswick Vineyards Site Plan Waiver, relief from
Planning Commission conditions of approval.
Mr. Cilimberg said this waiver has to do with a portion of the existing Keswick Vineyards winery
building that is to serve as retail space. A site plan is a requirement for that activity at a vineyard. With prior
approval of a site plan, one location may be established on each farm for the on-premise sale of wine and
wine consumption. In lieu of a site plan, the applicant requested a site plan waiver, such that the entire 393-
acre parcel would not have to be surveyed for trees of six-inch caliper or more. The Site Review
Committee recommended that the Commission approve the site plan waiver with conditions. The
Commission amended the conditions to include more screening and noise attenuating mechanisms, and to
lessen the adverse effects on the adjacent property. The applicant contends that three of the conditions
relate to the existing winery operation, not the proposed retail operation, and, therefore, should be removed.
The Commission heard from an adjacent property owner regarding the noise and adverse effects
of living next door to a winery. Staff had recommended a Condition No. 2 which had two parts, and that is
the condition the Commission amended. Condition No. 2 (in part) reads as follows:
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the mylar of the site plan
waiver for signature until a tentative final approval for the following conditions have
been obtained. The plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
The existing gravel road shall be surfaced with asphalt within the bus
turnaround, employee parking and service areas. Additionally, the bus
turnaround area shall be improved to include a paved bus parking area;
b. Screening trees shall be provided in the area behind the fence, between the
bio-filter and the adjacent property to the west;
The Planning Commission voted to amend Condition No. 2 to include the following (only new
language is provided)
2a. The applicant may cover the asphalt with prime and double seal, if desired;
2b.
Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall
not remove existing trees and shall plant an under-planting of shade-tolerant
screening trees for a depth of 50 (fifty) feet along the northwesterly property line
to a point measured at the end of the stable building located on the adjacent
property;
2C.
The noise of the chiller units shall be attenuated with a baffling mechanism,
subject to the agent's approval;
2d.
The noise of the refrigerated trailers shall be attenuated with one of the following
baffling mechanisms, subject to the agent's approval:
iii.
The use of electric refrigeration units, rather than diesel;
The loading dock being moved to the opposite side of the building;
and/or
A screening wall being constructed on the western side of the loading
stall.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has requested that the Board remove conditions numbered 2a, 2c
and 2d in their entirety. As stated in their request for an appeal, they believe these conditions relate to the
existing winery operation and should not be imposed on the site plan waiver approval for the retail use.
Should the Board agree with the applicant, staff believes that Condition 2a should remain because it relates
to the paving of portions of the site which will be used by employees, service providers and customers of the
retail use, and it was intended to address dust and noise impacts to adjacent properties attributable to traffic
associated with the retail use. Staff did not see a need for Conditions 2c and 2d as necessary to mitigate
impacts of the retail use. It was the Commission's decision to add those conditions. The conditions
recommended by the Commission would be as follows:
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached plans, entitled
Keswick Vineyards Winery Site Plan Waiver, dated April 15, 2003;
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the mylar of the site plan
waiver for signature until a tentative final approval for the following conditions have
been obtained. The plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a. The existing gravel road shall be surfaced with asphalt within the bus turnaround,
employee parking, and service areas. Additionally, the bus turnaround area shall
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
be improved to include a paved bus parking area. The applicant may cover the
asphalt with prime and double seal, if desired;
Screening trees shall be provided in the area behind the fence, between the
bio-filter and the adjacent property to the west. Except for the tree removal
expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
and shall plant an under-planting of shade-tolerant screening trees for a depth of
50 (fifty) feet along the northwesterly property line to a point measured at the end
of the stable building located on the adjacent property;
c. Resulting slopes shall be no greater than 4:1;
d. Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness; and
e. Engineering Department review and approval to include:
An erosion control plan, narrative, computations, completed application
and fee for erosion control and stormwater;
A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. A detention
waiver is approved for this site. Computations shall include water
quality requirements; and
A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement
and fee.
With no questions for staff at this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Garrett Smith said he is an attorney with Michie Hamlet. He had sent to the Board members a
detailed brief setting out legal and factual points in order for the Board members to have a chance to ask
him questions. He thinks there are three reasons why the waiver should be granted. Some are "big
picture" legal issues relating to the power the Planning Commission had to impose these conditions.
Others relate to smaller, more technical issues. There is also a long-standing dispute between the
applicant and his neighbor that colors the whole problem.
Mr. Smith said this is a farm winery, which is a use permitted by-right in a rural area. Based on that,
last year Keswick Winery constructed its winery building and went into operation without site plan review.
He thinks there was no need for site plan review. Now, the request is for a site plan waiver to open a tasting
of wine retail facility in the existing building. That involves constructing a parking area and improving the
driveway to make it welcoming to the public. The only authority the Zoning Ordinance gives the Board in
this regard is to condition the opening of that retail facility upon a site plan waiver. The regulations
specifically mention the waiver process. The waiver process appears to be in the ordinance to make it
possible for a vintner to open up a winery and to put a shop in without going through a full blown site plan
process. The site plan waiver language says that when a winery applies to open a retail outlet, particular
consideration shall be given to provisions for safe access, to parking, outdoor lighting, signs, and potential
adverse impacts to adjoining property, and reasonable standards and conditions may be imposed as
conditions on such waiver.
Mr. Smith said he contends that this language does not authorize the conditions that were imposed
by the Commission. The Commission acted to impose Conditions 2c and 2d at the request of Mr. Beltrone,
the adjacent property owner, who presented a logbook he had maintained recording sound produced
primarily by a refrigerator truck at the winery bay from September 12, 2002, through October 19, 2002. The
logbook showed the dates and his measurement of sound. He thinks the Commission wanted to help Mr.
Beltrone because of the discomfort he experienced. He said they understood that the waiver process gives
them some discretion and allows a more flexible approach. However, he contends that it did not allow the
Commission to go beyond the intent of the ordinance to deal with potential adverse impacts.
Mr. Smith said that under the law, when regulating and enforcing regulations, the enforcement
cannot be left to the will of subordinate officers or boards, there must be a basic standard. He thinks the
ordinance is fine. It establishes potential adverse impacts. But, by going back in time and looking at
existing impacts, the Commission exceeded its authority and the scope of its power to regulate. He thinks
the word "potential[] means what it says. As a matter of general policy, if every time a winery wanted to
open a shop inside the winery there had to be a site plan review process of existing operating features, it
would destroy the utility of the effective site plan waiver which is given by use. He said the applicant agrees
with retrofitting to deal with the public, but not with production and the noise generated from production.
Mr. Smith said he thinks staff's interpretation is important. Staff agrees that the issues of sound are
beyond what was intended by the ordinance. He thinks it is appropriate for this Board to give some weight
to staff[s interpretation. Because of the way the supplemental regulation was interpreted, he thinks the
Commission walked a fine line. It addressed something that was not a zoning violation. There was no
Noise Ordinance violation. The Commission had no power to act under the ordinance. He believes the
Commission was in violation of the ABC Act Section 4.1-128. The winery is processing grapes and bottling
wine. This interpretation forcing the winery to attenuate sound, move loading bays and build walls is a
regulation. He said this information would have been presented to the Commission if the applicant had
perceived the extent of the Commission's willingness to help Mr. Beltrone.
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Smith said that after he had sent a copy of the brief, Mr. Carter (attorney for Beltrone) pointed
out that there is some potential for an increase. He alluded to there being 3000 bottles of wine produced
per acre, and felt that with all of the additional wine the sound would only get worse. Mr. Smith said the
sound would not get worse. He asked if the winery manager could speak and give some information on the
winery's actual production capacity.
Mr. Dorrier said the applicant is limited to ten minutes for a presentation, with five minutes reserved
for a rebuttal.
Mr. Smith said he would like to have five additional minutes to complete his original presentation.
There are a couple of technical issues to mention. There is no Noise Ordinance violation. That has been a
sensitive issue, and the Board should not undermine the exemption for agriculture production. He said that
under full site plan review, Section 32.7.9, it permits screening and the use of planting materials. Staff
recommended that and the applicant has no problem with that. What they consider onerous and
unreasonable are requirements to shift their energy source from gas to electricity, to move a loading bay
and to construct walls. He does not think that could be done under full site plan review. As concerns
paving, Section 4.12.2 provides that paving and stacking regulations apply to each new use or structure
approved after the date of adoption (this was amended in February, 2003) and each change or intensifica-
tion, but only to the extent of additional parking. The area behind the buildings is a service area; it is not
additional parking. It is flat. Normally, gravel would be satisfactory. They have proposed prime and double
seal as an alternative. He said the Commission's requirement for full asphalt, is not helpful. It is costly and
unnecessary.
Mr. Smith said that as a practical matter, Keswick Winery would be happy to accommodate Mr.
Beltrone. The relations between these neighbors have deteriorated. Mr. Beltrone began as the winery[]s
publicist and neighbor, and welcomed the winery. That relationship soured when he made an offer to sell
his property, which the winery felt, was unreasonable. After that, he has opposed them every step of the
way. When the winery opened, Mr. Beltrone dug out a portion of his land and started shooting into it. There
is a trash pile and a manure pile. Ms. Thomas said she did not believe this information is relevant to the
matter in question.
Mr. Rooker asked where the grapes being processed are coming from. Mr. Smith said they are
from Edgewood Farm and Vinland acreage on Black Cat Road in Keswick. There are two growing areas.
Now, they are selling half of their grapes because more are being produced than can be used. The limiting
factor on the winery is the building itself. They are trying to develop a very fine wine; this is not a high
production facility.
Mr. Rooker asked about Condition 2c "The noise of the chiller units shall be attenuated with a
baffling mechanism..." He asked the objection to that condition. Mr. Smith said the baffling mechanism
would be a wall or a substantial structure. At this time, that has not been explored in detail. They believe
that most of Mr. Beltrone's problem is with the refrigerator truck. His log does not mention the chiller.
Mr. Rooker said he just wondered if from a practical standpoint, that could be easily done. He said
a small wooden fence around it might satisfy a baffling requirement, and not be expensive.
Mr. Michael Shatz, the consulting winemaker for Keswick Winery, said the current production is
almost maxed out in terms of what can be done at the facility. If there were any expansion plans, and there
are none, there would be a need to eliminate the refrigerator trucks and put in a cold storage room. If there
were any expansion on current grape growing, the current refrigerator truck is not being used to its full
capacity. Production in the winery could be doubled and still maintain the same unit. The grapes are being
sold. When the vineyard is in full production it will max out at about 13,000 cases, which is three times the
size of the present winery. All additional grapes are being sold, and there is no need to refrigerate those
grapes. There was a mention of a full size vineyard causing more noise and more refrigeration, but the
facility cannot handle more than it is doing now. The harvest season is about four to six weeks depending
on Mother Nature. That is the only time the refrigerator truck runs.
Ms. Thomas asked what percent of production would be sold in the wine shop. Mr. Shatz said this
will not be a tourist destination, there will only be a small-scale tasting room. There is more interest in
wholesale than retail. The Strombergs live here and do not want a lot of traffic and noise.
Ms. Thomas asked the question again. Mr. Shatz said that sales would be roughly 60 to 70 percent
wholesale. That is generally the industry average.
Mr. Joe Chambers with Dalgleish Eichman Gilpin & Paxton, Architects, said they are working with
Keswick Vineyards on this project. When the issue of a screening wall came up with the Commission, they
estimated a cost of between $6000 and $7000 to extend a mason and stucco wall. They felt that was the
only thing that would give good sound attenuation, rather than a wooded enclosure or vegetative screen.
As to the issue of the refrigeration truck, it is about 600 feet from the Beltrone's and 725 feet from the
applicant's own residence so it is about the same distance from each residence.
Mr. Martin said that unless Mr. Beltrone and Mr. Carter wish to speak, he thinks the Board has
heard enough from the public.
Mr. Richard Carter said he represents the Beltrones who live next door to the Keswick Winery. The
reason the Beltrones expressed concern is that while it is a "farm use" under the ordinance, in reality there
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
will be tourism use. There is a manufacturing use there now, along with the farm use. The Beltrones did
have a farm use, but since the winery located next door they have had to give that up. He said that at this
time, the chores make no noise, and the truck is making no noise, but the potential for noise is there. They
have heard it before. In his letter he cited the number of bottles of wine from 53 acres as 159,000 bottles of
wine. That number came from the minutes of the Board of Supervisors when White Hall Vineyards was
starting their winery. That is what could be on this property. He thinks the part of the ordinance that should
be focused on is the part that says "if a site plan waiver is requested ... reasonable standards and conditions
may be imposed as conditions of such a waiver." That is what the Commission did. That is why everyone is
here tonight. The Board is acting as an appellate court trying to decide if the Commission did right or did
wrong. He said the public hearing of the Commission went on for one and one-half hours. It was a good
thrashing out of the whole situation. The Commission heard the staff's report. The staff members were
questioned. The Commission heard from the winery, they heard from the architect, they heard from Mr.
Beltrone and others. Based on everything the Commission heard, they said the standards and conditions
that they were going to impose were reasonable. He said $6000 for a boutique winery producing upscale
wines is "a spit in the ocean." Why can't they hide the noise from the trucks that are there? They are not
asking for anything else.
Mr. Art Beltrone, adjacent property owner, said the statement was made that the existing building is
exempt from anything concerning the applicant opening to the public. In their opinion, that is not correct
because the existing bottling operating becomes one and the same with the retail sales. They visit wineries
often, and part of the allure of the wine is to show how the wine is processed and bottled. In past minutes of
the Commission and the Board of Supervisors, it is clearly stated that some of the other wineries are
dependent on 60 percent of retail sales from the winery and to achieve that they need to get people coming
back. All they want is relief from the noise. He said the applicant has every right to be in business as a
winery, just as he had the right to have a horse operation. He has had to eliminate paddocks because of
chemical spraying. They have lost boarding horses because of the noise from those trucks. He said they
been on their property for 21 years. The barn has been on the property since 1963. He said in this case,
there is one agricultural operation competing on another agricultural use.
Mr. Dorrier asked that the County Attorney advise the Board at this time.
Mr. Davis said the Board needs to keep in perspective that this is not a special use permit
application. The retail use and the agricultural use are both permitted by right in the Rural Area. This is an
issue of whether or not a site plan waiver can be granted. If a site plan waiver is not granted, the applicant
would be required to go through the site plan process and meet ordinance conditions. All this waiver does
is relieve them of going through that process. When the Commission and the Board grant waivers, they
must do so within the context of the ordinance, it is not a legislative act. He said there is the ability to
exercise some discretion within the confines of the ordinance. In his opinion, the potential impacts that are
defined in the ordinance can include cumulative impacts. That can include both existing and future
conditions. The Board is not necessarily precluded from saying that just because a condition is currently
there, it cannot be considered as a potential impact. There can be cumulative impacts. The Board would
need some basis in the record to make a finding that the retail operations have some
cumulative impacts, particularly in regard to the noise concerns that have been addressed by the
Commission in their conditions.
Mr. Davis said it is clear, and he agrees with the applicant, that the waiver conditions have to be
reasonably related to the retail use. He does not think the conditions for site plan waiver for a retail use can
be unrelated to the use they are asking the waiver for. The key to the Board's findings today is to first
determine whether or not the conditions have some reasonable relationship to the retail use, and whether
or not they are addressing impacts that arise from that use. He said the courts give great deference to the
Board's findings in these types of situations. If the Board can find a reasonable basis to support that there is
a reasonable relationship, the courts will give deference to that finding.
Mr. Martin said he thinks there are arguments on both sides. He heard Mr. Davis said there is the
issue of something being cumulative and he thinks to some extent this applies to the noise. He does not
know if it applies to the pavement on the existing road. To him a good outcome would be granting the
applicant's wishes to some extent with some assurances that they are willing to spend $6000 or $7000 for a
wall. He does not think that would be asking for too much. To him, that would be a good outcome.
Mr. Rooker said he is sympathetic with the Beltrone's circumstances, but he does not think when
these conditions were imposed that the applicant was prepared to analyze the conditions and determine if
they wanted to oppose them at the time. What is bothersome is that basically the applicant could go
forward with this project by filing a site plan and there could be no conditions imposed. It is a use as a
matter of right. Albeit that he is sympathetic with the Beltrones, he is bothered that the Commission used
the site plan waiver process to impose substantial conditions and limitations on a by-right use. That forces
the person to spend a lot of money for a site plan, and it does not help deal with the conditions at all. The
applicant can simply file a site plan, and then not one of the conditions are put into place, and the applicant
is not complaining about all of the conditions. That is the real issue. He thinks it is inappropriate to attach a
lot of conditions to a site plan waiver request. He hopes these neighbors can work out the circumstance in
a way that is mutually agreeable. He sees no reasonable nexus between Conditions 2c and 2d and the
retail operation.
Ms. Thomas said in trying not to hurt the neighbors, she hopes the Board does not "glum" onto a
wall that deals with the chillers. The chillers are not the noisiest aspect. The diesel-powered truck is the
noisy aspect. She has spent a good deal of time reading and pondering over the word "potential". She did
check to see what Sonoma County in California would do. They are encouraging vineyards, but they also
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
recognize the impacts. It turns out that the Department of Environmental Quality in California would have
required the applicant to do an environmental impact assessment that includes the noise impact. In
Sonoma they probably would not have been allowed to have continuous noise that exceeded 50 decibels in
the daytime or 45 decibels at night. She hopes the applicant will work out a reasonable way to coexist in a
rural area where the Board hopes agriculture will be pursued by a number of people in a variety of ways.
She is a big supporter of horse farms. She said she did not add a lot to what the Board is doing, but the
wall may not be quite as useful as Mr. Martin thinks.
Mr. Dorrier said he went out and looked at the site. He was impressed that the winery is not too far
distance from the horse barn. He can see that there is a noise problem, but the question is what to do
about it. He thinks it could be attenuated in a number of ways. He wonders is there is a way to put a
mechanism on the chiller units to mute the noise. Or, is there some kind of container that could be placed
over the chillers to attenuate the noise. He thinks there might be some creative ways to attenuate the noise
that the Board has not thought about.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board has to either sustain the conditions or remove them. Can the Board
fashion different conditions? Mr. Davis said the Board has the discretion to fashion different conditions.
The Board needs to make sure it has enough evidence before it to reasonably relate those conditions to the
retail use.
Ms. Thomas said they could decide not to do the retail use at all, and the noise would still be there.
Mr. Rooker said the noise relates to the current operation and not the retail operation.
Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mr. Rooker said he believes Condition 2a dealing with the paving and double sealing of the road
has a reasonable relationship to the retail use. He thinks that could be sustained.
Mr. Martin said that is the old road, not a new road.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there will be use of the road by the retail operation that would give rise to
additional dust.
Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mr. Rooker said he sees no significant nexus between the retail operation and the existing chillers.
He does not think the Board has a reasonable way of leaving those conditions, given the state of the
County's ordinances.
Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mr. Rooker then offered motion to eliminate Conditions 2c and 2d and sustain Condition 2a from
the Commission's action. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be helpful as the Board reviews the Rural Area section of the
Comprehensive Plan, to consider this case. The problems that can arise from agricultural uses that have
some sort of manufacturing component should be considered.
Ms. Thomas said she is the only Board member who lives in an agricultural situation, and it is often
noisy. There is not peace and quiet in the countryside. There are lumbering operations and lots of tractors.
To have a new neighbor move in, and put it right beside your horse stable is not what you expect to happen
in the countryside. She said this Board is not always the right forum to solve all of the problems.
Mr. Martin said it would be nice if the applicant and the Beltrones could work together.
Mr. Dorrier said he is not convinced that the noise will not be increased by the retail use so he will
vote against the motion.
At this time, the Clerk called the roll, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Dorrier.
(Note: The conditions imposed on this waiver are as follows.)
The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached plans entitled
Keswick Vineyards Winery Site Plan Waiver, dated April 15, 2003;
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the mylar of the site plan
waiver for signature until a tentative final approval for the following conditions have
been obtained. The plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a. The existing gravel road shall be surfaced with asphalt within the bus
turnaround, employee parking, and service areas. Additionally, the bus
turnaround area shall be improved to include a paved bus parking area. The
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
applicant may cover the asphalt with prime and double seal, if desired;
b. Screening trees shall be provided in the area behind the fence, between the
bio-filter and the adjacent property to the west. Except for the tree removal
expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
and shall plant an under-planting of shade-tolerant screening trees for a depth
of 50 (fifty) feet along the northwesterly property line to a point measured at the
end of the stable building located on the adjacent property;
c. Resulting slopes shall be no greater than 4:1;
d. Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness; and
e. Engineering Department review and approval to include:
£ An erosion control plan, narrative, computations, completed
application and fee for erosion control and stormwater;
ii, A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. A detention
waiver is approved for this site. Computations shall include water
quality requirements; and
iii, A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance
agreement and fee.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-2001-019. Hollymead Town Center, Regional Service Area B (Sign
#87). Public hearing on a request to rezone 24.7 acs from RA & HC to PD-MC to allow for shopping
center. Portions of TM 32, Ps 41 D, 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 43, 43A & 44. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S
of Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as the
Hollymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community & recommends Mixed Use/Regional Service uses.)
Rio Dist. (This public hearing was canceled by a vote of the Board at its meeting on June 4, 2003. The
hearing was rescheduled for July 16, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2001-063. Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In AU. Public hearing on a
request to allow drive-in window in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 42B, 42C, 42D,
42E, 43 & 43A, is 24.7 acs. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S of Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec.
Znd RA & HC. Rio Dist. (This public hearing was canceled by a vote of the Board at its meeting on June 4,
2003. The hearing was rescheduled for July 16, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2001-064. Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In B". Public hearing on a
request to allow drive-in window in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 42B, 42C, 42D,
42E, 43 & 43A, is 24.7 acs. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S of the Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec.
Znd RA & HC. Rio Dist. (This public hearing was canceled by a vote of the Board at its meeting on June 4,
2003. The hearing was rescheduled for July 16, 2003.)
Mr. Steve Blaine said he had registered to speak on this matter.
Mr. Bowerman said the public was given an opportunity to speak at the beginning of the meeting.
Mr. Blaine said there were a half dozen members of the public who came for these hearings
because they had not gotten the word that these petitions had been rescheduled. He could give the Board
an update on what the applicant has done to address the proffers if they would like to hear it now. (Mr.
Blaine will speak at the end of the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowerman said that last week he had mentioned the possibility of Townwood having a private
vs. a public road. The road was supposed to have been dedicated and taken into the public system by
VDOT. Now, there is a question as to whether the people who currently live on that road want to do that.
He is not sure how he can go about finding out whether it should be a public road or a private road.
Mr. Davis said he understands that as part of the subdivision process, the right-of-way was
dedicated to public use so it belongs to the County. Normally, the developer has to bond the road so he
can meet VDOT requirements and ultimately have it taken into the public system for maintenance. In this
case, it has been a protracted process.
Mr. Bowerman said it has been ongoing for 20 years. Mr. Davis said in order for it to be a private
road it would require that the plat be vacated and rededicated as a private road.
Mr. Martin said that would be the same as Peyton Drive between Greenbrier and Commonwealth
where the road was in terrible shape because no one claimed responsibility for it.
Mr. Bowerman said this is the entranceway for the whole Townwood Subdivision. They maintain
their own roads, and they want to continue to maintain this entrance road as well. He said he would talk to
Mr. Davis later about what to do.
Mr. Dorrier said there have been two additional applications filed for openings on the Mountain
Overlay District Committee. Copies were given to the Board members for review.
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Steve Blaine said he represents Dearman Realty and Regency Center on the Hollymead Town
Center Area "B" application. Since the last meeting with the Board, the applicants met with representatives
at the Department of Transportation offices in Culpeper. There were representatives present from the
County, the Board, and VDoT staff. At that meeting, the applicants pledged to contribute their share of off-
site road improvements to address what VDoT and the County project are needed improvements. They
pledged to lead an effort to formulate a community development authority (CDA). The applicant is
proffering to form or join or participate in a CDA for off-site road improvements. Those would be
improvements that VDoT and the County would identify. They would expect those to be related to Route 29
or the extension of what is being referred to as the ridge road (parallel road). Since then, amended proffers
have been submitted, and they have received comments from the County Attorney and various staff
members. Those comments are being addressed now that they have received a letter from VDoT's District
Office. From the Residency they received a list of off-site road improvements which VDoT recommends be
proffered to address the mitigation of traffic for the development of Areas "A", "B" and a portion of "D". Not
all of those improvements were included in the proffers. Now, the applicant needs to assess the added
costs associated with those recommendations. The applicant is going to take advantage of the time
between now and the public hearing to seek contributions from other aspects of the Hollymead Town
Center since VDoT is indicating that those improvements will mitigate not just Area "B". It is possible the
developer may be able to supplement, with VDoT's concurrence, further phasing of those improvements, or
tie them to particular aspects of the project. The applicant has pledged to work day and night to get it done.
Ms. Thomas said she saw the letter from VDoT, but she thought that letter was on the impacts of
the Area "B" development itself, and not on the entire Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. Blaine said there is a separate letter that does address the impacts of Area "C". The purpose
of the meeting on Monday with Mr. Don Askew was to get clarification on that. The cover letter from Mr. Jim
Bryan was somewhat vague. The confirmation received was that the improvements listed in his Attachment
"a" would mitigate development to build-out in 2008 for Areas "A", "B" and a portion of "D". There is another
list of improvements in Mr. Bryan[]s letter that VDoT suggests be future, phased improvements to which all
of the areas would contribute. He said Mr. Marshall Baron from VDoT felt these would be appropriate for
funding through a CDA, or multiple CDAs. They identified those not just as immediate improvements tied to
their development, but future additional improvements that include extending the ridge road to Hollymead
Drive, and also extending it to the west to Earlysville Road.
Mr. Perkins said in these conditions, he is concerned about VDoT saying that participation in a CDA
is a part of the package. That seems like they are saying they are looking for another funding mechanism.
There was a mention of an increase in the real estate tax, and he has said many times before that real
estate taxes should not pay for highways. Why don't they just raise the gasoline tax? He thinks that if they
can start making this a condition, then it is going to be a condition they will make on everyone of these
things. They will want everybody to have a CDA so they have another pool of money. He can't go along
with that. Of course, it is up to the applicant.
Ms. Thomas said she has the same concern as Mr. Perkins. She was going to ask staff to give the
Board some estimate as to how much money could be obtained through a CDA. She had figured out that it
would take about 60 years to pay for some of the interchanges being proposed. That gave her pause.
Mr. Martin said it would be interesting to know what kind of improvements these developers would
need to do if VDoT had widened Route 29 as they were scheduled to do. If VDoT had all ready widened
Route 29, how much less of a CDA would be needed?
Mr. Perkins said he has a friend, who works for the largest asphalt company in the world in North
Carolina, and they have more work then they can do. It is because the gasoline tax is higher there than in
Virginia, but the cost of the gas is the same.
Mr. Rooker said the Board was told that without substantial road improvements in that area, the
traffic would be catastrophic. From the intersection at Airport Road to Rio Road, the traffic would operate at
a "F" level of service. There are two ways to look at that situation. Either, the Board could not approve
additional development unless the transportation improvements were in place, or the Board could look to
proffers from developers to finance some of the improvements to enable development to go forward. The
developers of Albemarle Place expressed their interest in and willingness to participate in a CDA. They are
not being forced to do that by VDoT. North Pointe has indicated they are interested in participating in a
CDA. The developers of Hollymead are also proposing to participate in a CDA. They want to go forward
with their development, and they know there are substantial infrastructure needs in the area.
Mr. Martin said he would not argue against a CDA. He thinks that is the only thing available, but he
also thinks Mr. Perkins made a good point.
Mr. Perkins said he is not opposed to a CDA, but is opposed to VDoT taking the lead.
Mr. Dorrier said a CDA would not go forward unless this Board initiates it. He does not think the
Board has made that decision yet.
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session: Legal Matters.
(June 11,2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
At 7:20 p.m., Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board go into closed session pursuant to Section
2.2-3711 (a) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding
specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice relating to an inter-jurisdictional agreement and
a contract regarding a proposed communication system; and, under subsection (1) to discuss appointments
to boards and commissions.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Session.
At 7:30 p.m. the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was 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.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed: Mr. Rooker offered motion to authorize the County Executive to execute on behalf
of the County the Inter-jurisdictional Agreement between Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and
the University of Virginia for the 800 MHz Public Safety Communications System as presented to the Board
or as modified to appropriately address the resolution of the Airport Authorify's financial obligations if they
are resolved in a timely fashion.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to June 26, 2003, at 4:30 p.m., in Room 235, for a Joint Meeting with
the School Board.
At 7:33 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Martin
to adjourn this meeting until June 26, 2003. Ms. Thomas, who said she would not be present at that
meeting, seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 08/13/2003
Initials: EWC