2003-07-09(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 9,
2003, at 3:30 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arriving at
4:12 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker (arrived at 3:35 p.m.) and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Deputy Clerk, Georgina Smith, and, Planning Director, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by the Chairman,
Mr. Dorrier. The purpose of the meeting at this time was to hold a joint session with members of the
Albemarle County Planning Commission.
Mr. William Edgerton said the Planning Commission was in session. Present were: Mr. William
Edgerton, Mr. William F. Finley, and Mr. Rodney Thomas.
Agenda Item No. 2. Crozet Neighborhood Master Plan, Consultant's Final Report.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Neighborhood Model recommended that the first Master Plan of a
Development Area be for the Community of Crozet. A Request for Proposal was prepared and advertised,
and the Renaissance Planning Group and Nelson-Byrd Landscape Architects were retained as technical
consultants for the project. Ms. Becky Clay Christensen, Christensen and Associates, was hired as the
process consultant to assist with public participation activities. The consultants began work in June, 2002,
and the first of six community meetings was held on August 1,2002. During the late summer and fall of
2002, a series of meetings of seven Small Task Groups composed of volunteers and stakeholders
occurred, resulting in written recommendations from each group. A Developers' Open House was also
held, at which property owners were invited to present plans and serve on a panel discussing current and
future development issues in Crozet. The technical consultant incorporated this information along with its
own findings to generate three alternative scenarios which were presented at Community Meeting No. 3 on
November 2, 2002. A Framework Plan was developed and presented to the Board and Planning
Commission in December, 2002. The Board adopted a resolution accepting the Framework Plan on
January 8, 2003. A Community Design Day was held on March 10, 2003, followed by a work session with
the Board on April 2. A Community Meeting was held on April 30, 2003, at which implementation issues
were addressed. Comments from residents, County departments, and other stakeholders, were solicited,
considered, and have been incorporated into the final report.
Mr. Cilimberg said that when adopted, the Crozet Master Plan will be amended into the
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, replacing the current recommendations for the Community of
Crozet. This will provide guidance specific enough to support implementation of the twelve Neighborhood
principles and be flexible enough to accommodate changing market conditions and community needs and
preferences. Cost estimating of capital needs and implementation strategies were key elements of the
consultants' work program.
Mr. Cilimberg said that early in the process, the Community indicated its commitment to a series of
Guiding Principles that served as a reference point for this planning effort. The Community has consistently
supported the continued focus on "downtown" as the commercial and cultural center of the Community.
The desirability of local business and employment opportunities were emphasized. Preservation of Routes
240 and 250 as scenic corridors, and retention of usable open space in the form of greenways and
community parks throughout the Development Areas have remained Community priorities during the
process.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends that the Commission and Board adopt a Resolution of Intent
to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, for the Community of Crozet. Then, work sessions
would be scheduled with the Commission after presentation of the final report by the consultants. A public
hearing would be held and a recommendation made to the Board. The Board would then hold a work
session(s), and a public hearing, to consider adoption of the Master Plan as part of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg recognized several people who had been involved in this process. Ms. Susan
Thomas, Planner; Ms. Sally Thomas who was a strong advocate of the process and the keynote speaker at
several meetings during the Plan's development; Mr. Ken Schwartz, Project Manager for the Renaissance
Planning Group; Mr. Warren Byrd, Principal with Warren Byrd Landscape Architects; Ms. Becky Clay
Christensen, Public Process Consultant; and the members of the Commission and the Board.
Mr. Schwartz said this was a collaborative effort. He thanked Ms. Susan Thomas and all of the
County staff members who participated in this process; Kathy Galvin and Hannah Twaddell; and Noel
Murphy, Thomas Woltz and Sylvia Johnson from his office. Mr. Bruce Dotson, former Commission
member, served as an advisor to the County and the consultants throughout the process. Also, Christian
Clarien, president of the Renaissance Planning Group and a nationally recognized expert in transportation
planning.
Mr. Schwartz said they will show today the logic and process used to produce this Master Plan, and
the recommendations of the consultants. He said the report is divided into four sections, each of
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
which has a specific purpose and role. There is a "user guide" at the beginning of the report which will help
all understand the logic behind each section.
Mr. Schwartz said the first section is the "Crozet Community Guide." It is a brief section which is
intended to stand alone. It will give a snapshot of what occurred during this process over the past year.
Section two is "Strategies for Development." It is specific as to issues of implementation. Section three is
called "Process and Form of Development" and speaks to the way in which individual site development
should occur throughout the Development Area. This is the section that developers, property owners,
County staff, citizens, and others who are interested in more detail about how the process goes forward with
this Master Plan, will use. Section four is an appendix which includes transportation data, development
area statistics, community process issues, and a whole range of topics which would be of interest to people
who would like to understand the methodology behind putting together the Master Plan.
Mr. Schwartz said this Master Plan is potentially revisable over a twenty-year period. It is not an
accident that it has been formatted in a three-ring punched format with tabs, and dated at the bottom. They
felt that as the plan went forward there may be aspects which are visited carefully, and require adjustment.
He then showed a slide portraying the process which has been carried on over the past year.
Mr. Warren Byrd said he would like to discuss the physical planning ramifications of the Master
Plan. He said it was very important to have the citizens, landowners and developers involved in the
process. There were many members of the Crozet Community who acted as members of the various task
groups. He thinks what has evolved is a well-rounded report. He showed a map which reinforced the
importance of "downtown" Crozet; showed that the Crozet Park is a cultural/recreational center now; and,
the ConAgra/Acme area has been an important employment center in the past. He said they have
recommended that there be a modification of the Crozet Community boundaries. Since the last report, they
are now recommending that employment move into a mixed-use district as part of the development of the
western half of the Community. There are three primary roads recommended. An eastern avenue
connecting Route 240 to Route 250; a western avenue connecting Jarmans Gap Road to Route 250; and,
a new main street connecting Crozet Avenue toward the eastern section of the growth area. "Downtown"
Crozet is recommended to be reinforced as part of the Plan. They are recommending a series of
interconnected neighborhood centers which would have varying densities. They propose a new elementary
school in the eastern sector, and a new library in a place where there can be parking.
Mr. Byrd said the heart of this plan is the Lickinghole Creek Basin. The Master Plan is proposing
that at least one half of the land stay in an open/green space condition, as either part of the greenway
network or a nature preserve, or some developed parks to complement the existing Crozet Park. He said
they tried to acknowledge and respect the previous mixed-use and growth patterns. Throughout the
process this year, and just prior to their involvement in the physical planning, there were a series of
principles developed by the County and Crozet citizens as to what qualities and principles should guide any
Master Plan over the next 20 or so years.
Mr. Schwartz then mentioned some of the features of the report, which had been explained in detail
in other presentations.
Ms. Kathy Galvin was the next speaker. She focused on site development guidelines, as well as
design strategies for what is called the "Place Type Map." There is a difference between the "Place Type
Map" and the "Summary Process Map" (the direct outcome of a public process which pays strict adherence
to the existing natural conditions [topography, as well as the riparian network]). Before drafting this map,
the consultants talked with County staff and realized there are other aspects of the Master Plan which must
be considered. Foremost was application of the Neighborhood Model to the Summary Process Map. The
map should be a useful tool for the Planning staff, as well as the development community, to implement
and evaluate proposals and the development projects within the main street. That will create a block
network providing more in-fill opportunities and more interconnections between one place and another.
Another major change recommended is taking a square, building around a square in an "L" shape, and
then providing an open space. That removes a dangerous intersection where trucks currently exit onto
Crozet Avenue. She said County staff felt it was critical that employment districts be defined so investment
would be made in those areas. There are three employment districts identified in the plan.
Ms. Galvin said there are eight neighborhoods identified. A new elementary school is shown. They
also emphasize the preservation of the existing green infrastructure. She said that in the neighborhood,
there is a center of discernible mixed commercial and retail use. It is not as intense, or as big, as the
downtown area, which is the size of three neighborhood centers. It provides employment opportunities
close to where people live and where children go to school. The last type is called the "hamlet". There is
little, to no, retail in the center of a hamlet. Its highest residential density is in the center, and there can be
some public uses such as the church. There are examples of some site development guidelines in the
report which go into more detail.
Mr. Schwartz said they looked at transportation issues based on the Framework Plan presented
last December. He then presented a diagram showing existing traffic counts and traffic based on
assumptions from the Master Plan both in terms of the interconnected road system and other assumptions.
The combination of some employment, some mixed use and an interconnected road system produces
lower impacts in terms of transportation numbers accruing to population numbers for the development
area. The Master Plan, if only from a transportation standpoint, produces implications that are
advantageous to the County and the community that are not realizable under the by-right scenario of
existing zoning. There is a 600 page modeling disc that is available to anyone who wants a copy. This is
not the same kind of transportation modeling that an individual developer will do for an individual property. It
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
is an aggregate, overview of what happens as congestion starts to build and where there are alternative
paths that automobiles are likely to take. He then showed a slide representing what he had just vocalized.
He said the eastern avenue was included in the modeling because it has been on the books for a long time.
They assumed there is no western avenue because under a by-right scenario there is nothing that says a
developer would need to provide such a connection.
Mr. Schwartz said the Master Plan scenario shows a western avenue as well as dispersal of the
traffic that produces congestion, but shows that the traffic does not produce failure at this time. Members of
the public have asked what happens if employment does not evolve within the Crozet Development Area.
Will that yield different results over a period of time? The answer is "yes." If Crozet remains a "bedroom
community" and everyone commutes to work in Charlottesville and Waynesboro, it will have a different
effect in terms of transportation, particularly on Route 250. What happens if the Rural Areas in the western
part of the County are not controlled in some significant way? What impact will that have on the modeling
done in 2003? The answer is that it would have a negative impact on the model and produce increased
traffic on Route 250. It is likely to produce an argument for the four-laning of Route 250. These are major
policy issues for the County.
Mr. Schwartz said there is a graphic in the report which outlines a hierarchy of roads. Some of the
roads on the graphic are shown because they show the very important interconnection of neighborhoods.
In some cases, the lines shown are for pedestrians and bicycle paths. These roads will be built through the
private sector and, in some cases, with the County's involvement. Ten years from now, will the roads look
like what is visualized? The roads are included because they speak to a block system which produces a
healthy community as one option for the development community to consider.
Mr. Byrd said the open space infrastructure is also related to the road network. Some aspects of
this infrastructure is more in private hands than the public's hands at this time. While everyone recognizes
the Lickinghole Creek Basin as the green heart of the Crozet development area, the idea is to create a
series of greenways that generally trace the stream corridors of creeks in the area. There are parts that
traverse areas which are held in private hands. It is hoped that negotiation will take place over time to allow
this to be an interconnected system. He said that not all public parkland is the same, but all can contribute
to improving the quality of life in a community. This network of parks and greenways should have contact
with virtually every new and old neighborhood.
Mr. Byrd said they have focused on three places in the development area and how they may begin
to be implemented. Earlier, Ms. Galvin addressed the downtown area, and the critical issue is how to
address the remaking of Main Street on the south side of the railroad tracks, and how to make a new town
center with a new library facility. There needs to be cooperation from all parties as to parking in the
downtown area. Issues related to an eastern avenue are the expenditure and staging of a crossing of
Lickinghole Creek, and then crossing over or under the railroad tracks. Ultimately, the extension of Main
Street out into the eastern section over to Western Ridge Subdivision is a critical component of the
planning. The new elementary school is a critical capital improvement project. Ultimately, there will need
to be cooperative attempts to remake the employment center along Route 240. Most important to the
western sector of the development area are the improvements to Jarmans Gap Road, and the connections
between Jarmans Gap and Route 250. The consultants have proposed two different alternatives. They do
propose that it be a neighborhood-oriented street even though it provides some relief to Route 240.
Mr. Schwartz next referred to Section 2 of the report beginning on Page 15. Included in the Master
Plan are many different tables, charts and recommendations in regard to implementation. They tried to
help the community and the County visualize how things are currently shown in the Capital Improvement
Plan, and their priority if they are not yet identified in the Plan. There are different responsibilities for the
funding of these projects. He said current revenues are available, new revenue sources can be modeled
based on the increased population expected. Bonds are available. There is the opportunity for a
Community Development Authority (CDA) either in the downtown area or other areas as developers see the
possibility of that self-funding mechanism for a specific part of the community. VDOT's Six-Year Plan
already has money available for the Jarmans Gap project. In some instances, they have identified
strategies that might expedite funding if that project is going forward. There is the issue of the Lickinghole
Creek Bridge which is not a part of the current Six-Year Plan but is essential to the way in which the eastern
sector will evolve over time. There are also grant possibilities. Funding strategies for businesses include
the CDA.
Mr. Schwartz discussed "identified priorities." For Local Government, the development process is
key to the way in which the Master Plan evolve. Facilitating the process is important. There are some
specific private/public partnerships and issues that are embedded. For example, the Jarmans Gap Road
issue, the connections between downtown and the Old Trail development is important as that development
takes place. The community is aware of the pressures that will be placed on that road and on downtown,
as well. The Main Street example is one where there is the opportunity to produce positive results
downtown. It could have immediate effects to help the process of downtown move forward. He said
government will evolve a collaboration with the School Board for location of the new school, as well as
additions to the high school and the middle school because of the population increase.
Mr. Schwartz said the consultants have talked about the possibility of a new review process. He
thinks the Planning Commission will be looking at how this can happen. The business sector will develop
the western part of the development area, as well as the eastern area, with different combinations of
developers at work, and property owners involved. That will be done in some ways according to the Master
Plan. They assumed that the Master Plan as an adopted part of the Comprehensive Plan will
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
guide the private sector in their decisions, and in their conversations with the County in order to implement
their interpretation of this Master Plan with the principles involved.
Mr. Schwartz said there are other aspects which have not been discussed in detail. There is a
southern approach to Crozet that is important which is at the junction of Route 240 and Route 250, and has
a unique set of issues.
Mr. Schwartz said he would speak about governance. That is the way in which the process and
evolution takes place from this point forward. This involves community input in a different configuration than
exists currently. They have recommended a "Crozet Community Council" which could include community
leaders, and Board-appointed representatives to work with the Neighborhood Planner to further the Master
Plan. This group would be instrumental in guiding the process in a positive way. It could build on the
momentum that has already been put in place through the Master Plan process. There is the idea of
community teams, which is a more ad hoc and informal set of relationships depending on specific
opportunities and topics that may arise over time. There is the recommendation for a County staff member
in the way of a designated Neighborhood Planner.
Mr. Schwartz said it is important for the County to develop measures that help to gauge the
effectiveness of investments being made and the choices put forth, in order to gauge at specified intervals
any necessary adjustments depending on how this plays out in the reality of the world. There are
manageable ways to measure each of these different entities. To conclude, the Master Plan, as presented
by the consultants, includes maps and a narrative report providing a summary of the process, as well as
their recommendations for consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. It also
includes in Section 3, Land Use and Site Development Guidelines, that form the operational armature of
how property evolves over time. This can be used by the development community, County staff and the
Commission. It can be examined for full understanding and subjected to questioning along the way.
Implementation strategies appear in a methodical way in the report in order to give the County a better
understanding of where the consultants believe the priorities are based on what has been learned through
this process. The supporting materials are extensive and can be found in the appendix or in the
transportation model.
Mr. Schwartz said they have appreciated the County's commitment to an open process. Everything
they have presented has appeared on the County's website in the form of captured versions of the Power
Point presentation, and in many instances, showed the detailed work of the consultants. The entire Master
Plan report today, as well as the Power Point presentation will be available on the website as soon as
possible (due to the size of the graphics, it will not be available immediately).
Ms. Lee Catlin, Public Relations Officer, said staff hopes the Board will consider adopting a
resolution of intent today to amend the Community of Crozet Profile in the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use
Plan, so the Planning Commission may begin to hold public hearings. She said this is an opportunity for the
Board to ask questions.
Mr. Rooker noted that the population projection is less than that shown in the Comprehensive Plan
at this time. If the various densities anticipated for the Community were added together, is that number
high, medium or Iow? Ms. Galvin referred Mr. Rooker to the Development Area's Statistic Map. She said
no average residential density was used in the Plan. Each neighborhood shown on that table has a
residential unit count.
Mr. Schwartz said that based on the Framework Plan, they carefully went through each of the
areas and interpreted a likely scenario for each of the settings. There is judgment used, and it varies
depending on the setting. It is not a statistical mean and is not at the extreme or the top density or at the Iow
density. They were trying to be realistic about what is sensed as possibilities in one setting versus another.
That calculation was based on the Framework Plan and was subjected to an analysis they made of the
southeast quadrant and the downtown quadrant, if that move is taken by the County.
Ms. Galvin said in-fill considerations were taken into account. Some of the existing blocks in the
downtown area had a block density of two units per acre or less. When they created new blocks, they
imagined getting as high as 36 units because there is more flexibility with new lots. In the neighborhood site
they studied, they put in different combinations of block types and residential units. Because the
neighborhood they studied is located on a main road, they got a "plump center" in that neighborhood. Trip
traffic is needed going through it to patronize those establishments.
Mr. Dorrier said he takes for granted this will be the blue print for the future of Crozet in the
Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning Commission will apply these recommendations to every plan that
comes before them. Ms. Catlin said in terms of the immediate future, this plan would be translated into a
Comprehensive Plan amendment which would replace what is currently in the Plan for Crozet.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think any decisions should be made today that will impede this
process in any way. When it was mentioned that Jarmans Gap Road needs to be done in the right way,
that is a decision to be made by the Board and not by the consultants. There is the probability that this
report will become a part of the Comprehensive Plan at some point and it is hoped that VDOT will not build
a road in a location all will regret later.
Mr. Rodney Thomas agreed with Ms. Thomas. A good example of something happening prior to
everything being put into place is the Main Street adjacent to the railroad tracks east of the downtown area.
It has a loop in it, and he knows all would like to see it go straight through, but he does not think that can
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
happen. He does thinks this Master Plan has turned out really good.
Mr. Dorrier said a Community Development Authority was mentioned. He asked when the
consultants would recommend one being put into place. Mr. Schwartz said he does not know, but the
reason the consultants put it forth as an attractive option, particularly for downtown, is that there are well-
documented needs in that area that have been part of a community process going back to the community
study itself. The community and the County identified these a number of years ago, and they are still unmet
needs. A self-funding mechanism through a CDA affords that opportunity. That means things can happen
quicker and with a closer alignment between the business self-identified needs and the money available
one year to the next.
Mr. Larry Davis said a CDA, under the statute, is created by petition of the landowners to designate
the area to be within a CDA. It is actually created by ordinance of the Board. Included in the CDA, there
has to be consent of fifty percent of the landowners, or 50 percent of the assessed value of the land of the
owners. When it is created, it is a vehicle when the improvements are needed, and when there is a critical
mass of people willing to participate in it. A slight difference in what Mr. Schwartz pointed out is that people
can be compelled to be in it that are not willing to be in it voluntarily if it makes sense to have them in it in
order to fund improvements and the improvements can be both in the CDA and outside the CDA area.
They have to be public improvements that are necessitated by that development or that growth. The timing
of it is not set in stone. It will happen when the development is ready to happen and when the
improvements are needed.
Mr. Rooker asked if any people located in the downtown area spoke favorably about a CDA at any
of the meetings. Mr. Schwartz said there was a meeting held on April 30 which focused on implementation
and there was no one from the business community that spoke about this specific issue. The issue was
presented publicly as one idea. There was participation by the business community throughout the
process, but not on that specific topic.
Mr. Cilimberg said the report identified implementation through certain governance means that are
not in place at this time. Things like a CDA will take a lot of work, probably beginning with County staff
obtaining community interest. His staff recently read about a CDA in downtown Richmond that has taken
several years to get started.
Mr. Martin said it will be easier to do if only a few landowners are involved.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Mr. Cilimberg that first some interest has to be created in a CDA. It
will be a long process when trying to interest people who have existing buildings. There is a unique
opportunity on the north side of the County where there is a lot of undeveloped land, and people are
interested in rezoning to develop.
Mr. Perkins said he would like to follow up on Ms. Thomas' comment about Jarmans Gap Road.
As far as he is concerned, it is a very important road to the Crozet Community. The project has been in the
Six-Year Plan for a very long time. Most important is that VDOT build it right, and that it have sidewalks or
asphalt paths. It forms pedestrian connectivity to the downtown area, to Orchard Acres, and all other
development going along that road.
Ms. Thomas said she was intrigued by the recommendation for a library. That is a public
investment, and is within the Board's ability to determine its priority in the CIP. She read an article in
yesterday's Washington Postwhere City Council had considered putting a residential use in with a new
library. She said the idea of mixed use has been discussed, so maybe the County should consider mixed
use in public buildings. There is a successful library along with residential uses in Portland, Oregon. It is
possible that the public sector could build a library facility.
Ms. Thomas said she knows the County is proud of what has been done to the schools, that they
are all electronically connected. Obviously there is some infrastructure in the schools. Does that mean that
Crozet could be an electronically-connected community, and the best place to put a small business? She
thought that might be included in employment opportunities for Crozet.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff was asking for a motion. Ms. Catlin said "yes", if the Board and
Commission feel the report has been discussed sufficiently, and is pleased and satisfied with the plan, and
that nothing is being precluded from the plan, and recognizing that the CDA option could be complex and
time-consuming to put together. She summarized by saying that Mr. Perkins has mentioned the
importance of Jarmans Gap Road and the importance of having it done correctly. Ms. Thomas mentioned
the importance of a public library as a facility, and its possible mixed use or some creative combination of
uses. Lastly, there was the mention of electronic connectivity, and the use of technology in the business
development portion of the plan.
Mr. Rieley said he would like to point out one aspect of the plan which he feels has implications
across the County. Mr. Byrd articulated the combination of open space, recreation space, urban amenities,
and stream protection that is knit together into a composition. That is something which has been talked
about often over the years, but this is the first time it has been seen in a comprehensive way. It is important,
and has implications on almost everything that is done. He wanted to applaud that recommendation. He
thinks the County will see these types of things often in the future.
At this point, Mr. Perkins offered motion to accept the report and adopt the following Resolution of
Intent. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
None.
(The resolution of intent is set out in full below.)
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 7 of The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the
Development Areas, a part of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, sets forth
Guidelines for Implementation of the Neighborhood Model; and
WHEREAS, the second of these Guidelines states: fund and develop individual
Master Plans for the Development Areas; and
WHEREAS, the Community of Crozet was selected by the Board of Supervisors
on October 17, 2001, as the first Development Area to be master planned, and a
Request for Proposals was prepared and awarded for consulting services to assist the
County in preparing the master plan in collaboration with residents and other
stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, after an extensive public involvement process, consultation with
property owners and other stakeholders, the Crozet Development Area Master Plan has
been completed and presented to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission
meeting in joint session.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for the purposes of further
implementing the Neighborhood Model, a part of the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan, the Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hereby
adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Community of Crozet Profile as included in the
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
Agenda Item No. 3. From the Board and/or Planning Commission: Matters not Listed on the
Agenda.
There were no matters brought up at this time.
Agenda Item No. 4. At 5:00 p.m., with no further business to conduct at this time, the Board
recessed.
Agenda Item No. 5. The meeting was called back to order at 6:00 p.m. in Room 241, by the
Chairman, Mr. Dorrier. Assistant County Attorney Greg Kamptner was present and County Attorney Larry
Davis was absent.
Agenda Item No. 6. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 7. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 8. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Preston A. Coiner said he was present tonight for two reasons. First, he represents Coiner
Scrap & Metal which has been the vendor for the County's recycling program since its inception in 1991.
There have been some misstatements made concerning the program. One statement came from a
member of the Board who was surprised that there is no market for many of the recyclables included in the
County program. That is an incorrect statement. There is a market for all of the materials, although they
may be negative markets requiring payment for someone to accept them. None of the materials collected
by Coiner's have ever been land filled. The number one problem with the bag commingled curbside
program is the amount of pure, non-recyclables and trash the residents put in the bags. Sometimes, 30
percent of the weight is in non-recyclable material. Mr. Coiner said the County's Recycling Coordinator has
made many efforts to educate the public. There is no answer to why people act the way they do. He then
gave a few statistics for the County's program. He said that there have been over 11 million pounds of
recyclables collected in the County. That equates to about 75,000 cubic yards. As a vendor, he said they
are ready to bid on any programs the County has in the future. As an individual, he is ready to serve on any
committee or study group set up.
Mr. Jeff Wimsett said he lives off of Gilbert Station Road. He thinks the road is to be paved at some
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
point. As a parent, he is concerned because the school bus has gone off of the road three times. The road
is very dusty. The material that VDOT applies does not help and it makes the road more unsafe than if they
left the potholes. He asked that some consideration be given to paving the road based on the greatest
density and use of the road. He knows there is a very expensive portion of the road involving a railroad
bridge and an "S" curve. He thinks people would be happy to forego that section in order to get the
important parts paved.
Mr. Kelvin R. Hawkins said he was present for the St. John Baptist Church located in Cobham. He
would like to know if it would be possible to expedite the process for their building permit. They have
applied for an amendment to their permit. All of their information has been submitted to their principal
planner. They have a contractor who is waiting to begin. The contractor said if they do not start soon, it will
then be after the first of the year before he will be able to begin work.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Tucker the status of the permit. Mr. Tucker said staffwill have to look at the
request. He does not know its status at this time. If the Board wishes to expedite the process for this
applicant, staff will do whatever it can to hasten the process.
Mr. Martin said he has looked at the schedule and it appears that if it were expedited, the request
could be heard in about three weeks.
do.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Hawkins to call the Clerk in a few days after staff has determined what it can
Mr. Robert W. Couch, Jr. said he needs the Board's help. He and his wife own and operate A&W
Collectibles on Route 250. That road has been closed in order to modify two bridges. He said that on
August 1,2001, VDOT requested that the road be closed for 90 days, and that was approved by this Board.
He is asking for compensation because the road was closed. He has a shop and many dealers who use
this income to supplement their other income. He has lost about 85 percent of his business while the road
has been closed. He spoke with Mr. Jim Bryan who had a sign erected which said the road was open for
three miles, but there are other signs along the way that say the road is closed and traffic should use 1-64.
He said the biggest part of his business comes from traffic on the road who would never see an
advertisement, although he has put ads in the paper since the road was closed. He said he gave Mr. Bryan
an estimate of the amount of money he has lost, and he is now asking this Board for help.
Mr. Dorrier said when improvements are made for the total public benefit, certain individuals may
suffer, but it is for the total benefit that the improvements are being made. Mr. Couch said he appreciates
that, but the road improvement has been a hardship on him and about 60 other vendors. Any time a public
road is closed like that, he thinks compensation can be made to those who suffer. There are only three
businesses on the road that fall into this category. He does not think the Board considered the impact on
the businesses when it approved the closing of the road.
Mr. Rooker said this is the State of Virginia making an improvement to a state road, and the
decision about whether or not they compensate or not is a matter of state law. He suggested that Mr.
Couch work with VDOT to try and improve the signage.
Mr. Couch said the Board approved of closing the road. Mr. Rooker said the only issue before this
Board was the matter of having emergency access along Route 250 while the road was closed. The Board
urged VDOT to have an access point around those bridges so emergency vehicles could still service the
area. The decision about whether or not to improve that road was a state issue.
Mr. Dorrier said he would speak to Mr. Jim Bryan to be sure he is aware of the issue.
Ms. Annette C. Jareb said she was also present to speak about the closing of Route 250. She
thought it was the Board's decision to allow the closing of Route 250. She said no business owners along
Route 250 were ever informed of a scheduled meeting to discuss the issue. None of the business owners
had any say in what was going to affect their livelihood. She is one of the vendors at A&W who uses the
income to supplement her other income, and she has no income at this time. She said the business can't
be advertised, because their customers are usually impulse shoppers. Their problem will not be handled
by advertising, but only by reopening Route 250.
Mr. Rooker suggested that she contact the local VDOT Office and ask them to expedite that project
as much as possible.
Ms. Thomas said when the Board discussed this project, it was due to concerns by the fire
company that it be kept open for emergency use. She believes they thought of every possible way to have
a detour, yet keep the road open for some traffic. That is not the same as having traffic go by their store.
Mr. Rooker said he would be in favor of passing a resolution urging VDOT to expedite the project
due to impact of the closure of that road on businesses and the public who depend on using that road. He
made a motion to that effect. 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.
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Bowerman to approve Items 9.1
through 9.4 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. The motion was
seconded by Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Item 9.1. Approval of Minutes: March 5, March 17(a), March 19(a) and April 16, 2003.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of March 5, 2003 (Pages 1 to 19 ending at Item #9) and found
them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of March 19 (a), 2003, and found them to be in order as
presented.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of April 16, 2003, and found them to be in order as presented.
The minutes of March 17(a), 2003, will be carried forward to another meeting.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
Item 9.2. Set public hearing for August 6, 2003, on a request to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority service area boundaries for water and sewer service to Tax Map 56, Parcel 86, Lots 14
and 15 (Barry Easter).
It was noted in the staff's report that the applicant is requesting Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) jurisdictional (service) area designation for water and sewer service to a three-acre parcel located
on the south side of Three Notch'd Road (Route 240), approximately 600 feet west of Park Ridge Drive.
The property is located within the designated Crozet Development Area, in the White Hall District. Parcel
86 contains two lots (14 and 15.) There is a residential dwelling located on Lot 14 and Lot 15 is vacant.
The parcel is zoned LI, Light Industrial. 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. The septic system on the applicant's property, which serves Lot 14, has failed and the property
does not perk.
At its meeting on May 7, 2003, the Board approved a similar request for public water and sewer to
Parcel 87, which is adjacent to the east of the applicant's property. The Comprehensive Plan recommends
serving Development Areas with public water and sewer. This parcel is located within the Crozet
Development Area and should be designated as part of the ACSA jurisdictional area for public water and
sewer service. Water supply in Crozet is provided by Beaver Creek Reservoir.
As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity be reserved to support development
of designated Development Areas. Since this property is located within a designated Development Area,
the provision of both water and sewer service to the properties would be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan's public utility policy. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing to consider
providing public water and sewer to the site.
By the recorded vote above, the Board ordered a public hearing advertised for August 6,
2003, on a request to amend the ACSA service area boundaries for water and sewer service to Tax
Map 56, Parcel 86, Lots 14 and 15.
Item 9.3. Set public hearing for August 6, 2003, to consider granting proposed easement to
Dominion Virginia Power across Tax Map 61, Parcel 28.
It was noted in the staff's report that Dominion Virginia Power would like to extend its underground
power line from the Wynridge Subdivision, across County property, and connect to their underground
system at the Webland Park development. This extension will complete a loop that will improve service
reliability to the residents of these two developments as well as their commercial customers on Greenbrier
Drive.
The power line extension will cross the property recently acquired by the County for the Birnam
Regional stormwater basin and the pedestrian/bike trail project. The requested right-of-way and power line
will not impact the stormwater basin, but will cross the proposed pedestrian/bike trail. Appendix A of the
right-of-way agreement includes provisions to assure that installation of the power line will not obstruct or
interfere with the pedestrian/bike trail. The Assistant County Attorney and the Engineering Department
have reviewed the documents and are satisfied with the provisions.
Staff recommends that the Board set August 6, 2003, as the date for a public hearing on the
granting of the easement.
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker suggested that it be made clear in the easement that the easement is for
underground lines only. Although the staff report mentions underground lines, the easement itself seems
to indicate that they can install overhead or underground lines.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board ordered advertisement of a public hearing on
August 6, 2003, on this request to grant an easement across County property from Dominion
Virginia Power, with the clarification noted by Mr. Rooker.
Item 9.4. Request from George K. Noteman for Military Leave Pay and Benefits (P-83).
It was noted in a letter from Ms. Kimberly Suyes, Director of Human Resources, that Lieutenant
George K. Noteman was involuntarily recalled to active military service to serve in the U.S. Marine Corps
commencing on April 13, 2003. His military orders specifically state the period of active duty will be until
December 25, 2003. That is approximately nine months.
On July 3, 2002, the Board of Supervisors amended its policy on military leave (P-83), to state that
an employee recalled under these circumstances would be paid the difference between the employee's
regular pay and the military pay for a period of six months. An extension of three additional months is
allowed if requested by the employee. Also the employee may request that the County pay the employer
portion of the applicable health care premium for the lesser of 18 months or the day after the date on which
the person fails to apply for or return to a position of employment with the County. Lieutenant Noteman has
requested both the difference in pay and the payment of the employer contribution toward health insurance.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board granted Lieutenant Noteman's request.
Item 9.5. 2002 Development Activity Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development, was received for information.
Item 9.6. Letter dated June 10, 2003, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to
Carol H. Gates, re: Official Determination of Parcels and Development Rights - Tax Map 15, Parcel 2B
(Property of Carol H. Gates) - Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
Item 9.7. Letter dated June 26, 2003, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to
Brian S. Ray, L.S., Roger W. Ray & Assoc., Inc. re: Official Determination of Parcels and Development
Rights - Tax Map 80, Parcel 73 (Property of Albert Jr. or Cindy Schornberg) - Section 10.3.1, was received
as information.
Item 9.8. Copy of Draft Planning Commission minutes for work sessions held on May 27, June 3
and June 17, 2003, received for information.
Item 9.9. Copy of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the U. S. Route 29
Bypass in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia, as submitted by the U. S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Virginia Department of Transportation (on file in the
Clerk's office), received for information.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public hearing to consider the adoption of An Ordinance to Amend Section
2-101, Jack Jouett Magisterial District, and Section 2-106, White Hall Magisterial District, of Article I,
Elections, of Chapter 2, Administration, of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed ordinance would
amend the boundaries of the Jack Jouett Voting Precinct within the Jack Jouett Magisterial District, and
would create a new voting precinct, the Belfield Precinct, with St.-Anne's Belfield Lower School, Faulconer
Drive, Convocation Center, serving as its polling place. It would also amend the boundaries of the
Brownsville Voting Precinct within the White Hall Magisterial District, and would create a new voting
precinct, the Batesville Precinct, with the Mount Ed Baptist Church, 1606 Craigs Store Road, serving as its
polling place. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30,
2003.)
Mr. Tucker said Virginia Code. 24.2-307 provides that the Board of Supervisors may establish as
many precincts as it deems necessary. Virginia Code. 24.2-307 requires that the Board establish precincts
and polling places by ordinance. Redistricting resulted in the Jack Jouett Precinct within the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District being split by the 57th and 58th House District lines, and the Brownsville Precinct within
the White Hall Magisterial District being split by the 25th and 59th House District lines. To eliminate these
splits, the Albemarle County Electoral Board has recommended that a new precinct - the Belfield Precinct -
be established from a portion of the Jack Jouett Precinct, and that another new precinct - the Batesville
Precinct- be established from a portion of the Brownsville Precinct. If established, the Belfleld Precinct will
be entirely within the 58th House District; the Jack Jouett Precinct will be entirely within the 57th House
District. Likewise, the Batesville Precinct will be entirely within the 59th House District; the Brownsville
Precinct will be entirely within the 25th House District. He understands that Ms. Thomas will request tonight
that the Batesville Precinct be names the "Yellow Mountain Precinct."
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Tucker said the Electoral Board also recommended that the Convocation Center at St.-Anne's
Belfleld Lower School serve as the polling place for the new Belfleld Precinct, and that Mount Ed Baptist
Church serve as the polling place for the new Yellow Mountain Precinct. Preliminary assessments have
determined that the proposed polling places comply with the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act. Mount Ed Baptist Church is located at 1606 Craigs Store Road, which is outside of the
proposed Yellow Mountain Precinct. However, it may be used as a polling place for the precinct because it
is within 1500 yards of the precinct boundary (Virginia Code. 24.2-310). Both property owners have
consented to the use of their facilities.
After the public hearing, Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the ordinance just passed to the
Board members be adopted.
Ms. Thomas said she checked with Tex Weaver in GIS/Mapping and he said there is a Little Yellow
Mountain near Mint Springs, but there is no other Yellow Mountain in the County. Yellow Mountain and
Yellow Mountain Creek are in the center of this new precinct.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt An Ordinance to amend
Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, Elections, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by
amending Section 2-101, Jack Jouett Magisterial District, and Section 2-106, White Hall Magisterial District.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
None.
ORDINANCE NO. 03-2(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I, ELECTIONS,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, Elections, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 2-101
Sec. 2-106
Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
White Hall Magisterial District.
Sec. 2-101 Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
The Jack Jouett Magisterial District shall be bounded, and contain voting precincts
and polling places, as follows:
A. Description of district: Beginning at the intersection of Seminole Trail (U.S.
Route 29) and Greenbrier Drive; then northwest on Greenbrier Drive to its intersection with
Whitewood Road; then west on Whitewood Road to its intersection with Hydraulic Road
(State Route 743); then northeast along Hydraulic Road to its intersection with Earlysville
Road (State Route 743); then north on Earlysville Road to its intersection with the South
Fork Rivanna River; then meandering north and west along the South Fork Rivanna River
to its confluence with the Mechums River; then meandering southwest along the Mechums
River to its intersection with Garth Road (State Routes 614,676 and 601); then east and
south on Garth Road to its intersection with Ivy Creek; then west and south along Ivy Creek
to its intersection with Old Ballard Road (State Route 677); then south along Old Ballard
Road to its intersection with Broomley Road (State Route 677); then south on Broomley
Road to its intersection with the CSX Railway right-of-way; then east along the railway to its
intersection with U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass; then south along the U.S. Route 29/250
Bypass to its intersection with U.S. Route 250 Business; then east on U.S. Route 250
Business to its intersection with Reed Lane; then south on Reed Lane to Lewis Mountain
Parkway; then south on Lewis Mountain Parkway to its intersection with the fire road
connecting Edgemont Road and Lewis Mountain Parkway; then south along said fire road
to its intersection with Edgemont Road; then south on Edgemont Road to its intersection
with McCormick Road; then east on McCormick Road to its intersection with Alderman
Road; then south on Alderman Road to its intersection with the limits of the City of
Charlottesville; then meandering north and east along the limits of the City of
Charlottesville to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then north on
Seminole Trail to its intersection with Greenbrier Drive, the point of origin.
B. Voting precincts: The district shall be divided into three (3) voting
precincts, as described herein:
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
1. Belfleld Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Garth Road
(State Route 601) and Ivy Creek; then west and south along Ivy Creek to its intersection
with Old Ballard Road (State Route 677); then south along Old Ballard Road to its
intersection with Broomley Road (State Route 677); then south on Broomley Road to its
intersection with the CSX Railway right-of-way; then east along the railway to its
intersection with U. S. Route 29/250 Bypass; then northeast on U. S. Route 29/250 Bypass
to its intersection with the western limits of the City of Charlottesville and Barracks Road,
then northwest along Barracks Road to its intersection with Garth Road; then northwest
along Garth Road to its intersection with Ivy Creek, the point of origin.
2. Georgetown Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Seminole
Trail (U.S. Route 29) and Greenbrier Drive; then northwest on Greenbrier Drive to its
intersection with Whitewood Road; then west on Whitewood Road to its intersection with
Hydraulic Road (State Route 743); then south on Hydraulic Road to its intersection with
Georgetown Road (State Route 656); then southwest on Georgetown Road to its
intersection with Barracks Road (State Route 654); then southeast along Barracks Road to
its intersection with the western limits of the City of Charlottesville; then following the
Charlottesville City limits north and east to the intersection of Seminole Trail (U.S. Route
29); then north on Seminole Trail to its intersection with Greenbrier Drive, the point of
origin.
3. Jack Jouett Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Barracks
Road (State Route 654) and its intersection with Georgetown Road (State Route 656); then
northeast on Georgetown Road to its intersection with Hydraulic Road (State Route 743);
then northeast along Hydraulic Road to its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route
743); then north on Earlysville Road to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River;
then meandering north and west along the South Fork Rivanna River to its confluence with
the Mechums River; then meandering southwest along the Mechums River to its
intersection with Garth Road (State Routes 614,676, and 601); then east and south on
Garth Road to its intersection with Barracks Road; then east and south on Barracks Road
to its intersection with Georgetown Road, the point of origin.
4. University Hall Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of the U.S.
Route 29/250 Bypass and the northwestern city limits; then south with the city limits to its
intersection with Alderman Road; then north on Alderman Road to its intersection with
McCormick Road; then west on McCormick Road to its intersection with Edgemont Road;
then northwest on Edgemont Road to its intersection with the fire road connecting
Edgemont Road and Lewis Mountain Parkway; then north on said fire road to its
intersection with Lewis Mountain Parkway; then north on Lewis Mountain Pkwy to its
intersection with Reed Lane; then north on Reed Lane to its intersection with U.S. Route
250 Business; then west on U.S. Route 250 Business to its intersection with U.S. Route
29/250 Bypass; then northeast on U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass to its intersection with the
northwestern city limits, the point of origin.
C. Polling places: Each voting precinct shall have a polling place at the
location identified below:
1. Belfleld Precinct: St Anne's Belfleld Lower School, Faulconer
Drive, Convocation Center.
Road.
Georgetown Precinct: Albemarle High School, 2775 Hydraulic
Lane.
Jack Joyett Precinct: Jack Joyett Middle School, 210 Lambs
4. University Hall Precinct: University Hall, 300 Massie Road.
(8-19-71, 1; 9-5-72; 7-15-81; Code 1988, 6-1; 5-15-91; Ord. 95-6(1), 1-11-95; Ord.
98-A(1), 8-5-98, 2-100(2), 2-102; Ord. 01-2(1), 5-9-01; Ord. 03-2(2), 7-9-03)
Sec. 2-106 White Hall Magisterial District.
The White Hall Magisterial District shall be bounded, and contain voting precincts
and polling places, as follows:
A. Description of district: Beginning at the intersection of the unnamed
northern branch of the Mechums River and the Albemarle/Nelson County line; then
meandering east along the unnamed branch to its confluence with the Mechums River;
then continuing northeast along the Mechums River to its confluence with the South Fork
Rivanna River; then meandering southeast with the South Fork Rivanna River to its
intersection with Reas Ford Road (State Route 660); then north on Reas Ford Road to its
intersection with Bleak House Road (State Route 662); then north on Bleak House Road
to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665); then northeast on Buck
Mountain Road (State Route 665) to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route
664); then southeast on Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664) to its intersection with
Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663); then southeast on Buck Mountain Road (State
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
Route 663) to its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743); then southeast on
Earlysville Road to its intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then north on
Dickerson Road to its intersection with Dickerson Lane (State Route 763); then east on
Dickerson Lane to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then north on
Seminole Trail to its intersection with the Albemarle/Greene County line; then west along
the Albemarle/Greene County line to the Albemarle/Rockingham County line; then
southwest along the Albemarle/Rockingham County line to its intersection with the
Albemarle/Augusta County line; then south along the Albemarle/Augusta County line to its
intersection with the Albemarle/Nelson County line; then southeast along the
Albemarle/Nelson County line to its intersection with the unnamed northern branch of the
Mechums River, the point of origin.
B. Voting precincts: The district shall be divided into four (4) voting precincts,
as described herein:
1. Yellow Mountain Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of the
Albemarle/Nelson County line and its intersection with Batesville Road (State Route 636);
then east on Batesville Road to its intersection with Ortman Road (State Route 691); then
north on Ortman Road to its intersection with Rockfish Gap Turnpike (U. S. Route 250);
then east on Rockfish Gap Turnpike to its intersection with Interstate 64; then east on
Interstate 64 to its intersection with the Mechums River; then meandering southwest along
the Mechums River to its confluence with an unnamed northern branch of the Mechums
River; the meandering west along the unnamed northern branch of the Mechums River to
its intersection with the Albemarle/Nelson County line; then northwest on the
Albemarle/Nelson County line to its intersection with State Route 636, the point of origin.
2. Brownsville Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Jarmans
Gap Road (State Route 611) and the Albemarle/Augusta County line; then southwest
along the Albemarle/Augusta County line to its intersection with the Albemarle/Nelson
County line; then southeast along the Albemarle/Nelson County line to its intersection with
Batesville Road (State Route 636); then east on Batesville Road to its intersection with
Ortman Road (State Route 691); then north on Ortman Road to its intersection with
Rockfish Gap Turnpike (U. S. Route 250); then east on Rockfish Gap Turnpike to its
intersection with Interstate 64; then east on Interstate 64 to its intersection with the
Mechums River; then northeast along the Mechums River to its intersection with the CSX
Railway right-of-way; then west along the CSX Railway right-of-way to its intersection with
Crozet Avenue (State Route 240); then south on Crozet Avenue to its intersection with
Jarmans Gap Road (State Route 691); then west on Jarmans Gap Road (State Route
691) to its intersection with Jarmans Gap Road (State Route 611); then northwest on
Jarmans Gap Road to its intersection with the Albemarle/Augusta County line, the point of
origin.
3. Crozet Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Jarmans Gap
Road (State Route 611) and the Albemarle/Augusta County line; then northeast with the
Albemarle/Augusta County line to its intersection with the Albemarle/Rockingham County
line; then northeast with the Albemarle/Rockingham County line to its intersection with the
gate on Skyline Drive where Jones Fall Run and the Falls Trail originate; then east with
Jones Fall Run to its confluence with Doyles River; then meandering southeast with the
Doyles River to its intersection with Blackwells Hollow Road (State Route 810); then west
along Blackwells Hollow Road to its intersection with Browns Gap Turnpike (State Route
810); then south on Browns Gap Turnpike to its intersection with the Moormans River; then
meandering east with the Moormans River to its intersection with Millington Road (State
Route 671); then southwest on Millington Road to its intersection with Garth Road (State
Route 614); then southeast on Garth Road to its intersection with the Mechums River; then
meandering southwest with the Mechums River to its intersection with the CSX Railway
right-of-way; then west along the CSX Railway right-of-way to its intersection with Crozet
Avenue (State Route 240); then south on Crozet Avenue to its intersection with Jarmans
Gap Road (State Route 691); then west on Jarmans Gap Road (State Route 691) to its
intersection with Jarmans Gap Road (State Route 611); then northwest on Jarmans Gap
Road (State Route 611) to its intersection with the Albemarle/Augusta County line, the
point of origin.
4. Earlysville Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Seminole
Trail (U.S. Route 29) and the Albemarle/Greene County line; then west with the
Albemarle/Greene County line to its intersection with Dyke Road (State Route 810); then
south on Dyke Road to its intersection with Markwood Road (State Route 664); then south
on Markwood Road to its intersection with Davis Shop Road (State Route 671); then
southwest on Davis Shop Road to its intersection with Buck Mountain Creek; then
meandering southeast with Buck Mountain Creek to its confluence with the South Fork
Rivanna River; then meandering southeast with the South Fork Rivanna River to its
intersection with Reas Ford Road (State Route 660); then north on Reas Ford Road to its
intersection with Bleak House Road (State Route 662); then north on Bleak House Road to
its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665); then northeast on Buck
Mountain Road (State Route 665) to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route
664); then southeast on Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664) to its intersection with
Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663); then southeast on Buck Mountain Road (State
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
Route 663) to its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743); then southeast on
Earlysville Road to its intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then north on
Dickerson Road to its intersection with Dickerson Lane (State Route 763); then east on
Dickerson Lane to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then north on
Seminole Trail to its intersection with the Albemarle/Greene County line, the point of origin.
5. Free Union Precinct: Beginning at the Albemarle/Rockingham/
Greene County line; then southwest with the Albemarle/Rockingham County line to its
intersection with the gate on Skyline Drive where Jones Fall Run and the Falls Trail
originate; then east with Jones Fall Run to its confluence with the Doyles River; then
meandering southeast with the Doyles River to its intersection with Blackwells Hollow Road
(State Route 810); then west along Blackwells Hollow Road to its intersection with Browns
Gap Turnpike (State Route 810); then south on Browns Gap Turnpike to its intersection
with the Moormans River; then meandering east with the Moormans River to its intersection
with Millington Road (State Route 671); then southwest on Millington Road to its
intersection with Garth Road (State Route 614); then southeast on Garth Road to its
intersection with the Mechums River; then meandering northeast with the Mechums River
to its confluence with the Moormans River where they form the South Fork Rivanna River;
then meandering east with the South Fork Rivanna River to its confluence with Buck
Mountain Creek; then meandering northwest with Buck Mountain Creek to its intersection
with Davis Shop Road (State Route 671); then northeast on Davis Shop Road to its
intersection with Markwood Road (State Route 664); then north on Markwood Road to its
intersection with Dyke Road (State Route 810); then north on Dyke Road to its intersection
with the Albemarle/Greene County line; then west with the Albemarle/Greene County line
to its intersection with the Albemarle/Rockingham/Greene County line, the point of origin.
C. Polling places: Each voting precinct shall have a polling place at the
location identified below:
Store Road.
Yellow Mountain Precinct: Mount Ed Baptist Church, 1606 Craigs
2. Brownsville Precinct: Brownsville Elementary School, 5870
Rockfish Gap Turnpike.
Avenue.
Mountain Road.
Crozet Precinct: Crozet Elementary School, 1407 Crozet
Earlysville Precinct: Broadus Wood Elementary School, 185 Buck
5. Free Union Precinct: Free Union Baptist Church, Millington Road,
Free Union.
(8-19-71, 1; 9-5-72; 7-15-81; Code 1988, 6-1; 5-15-91; Ord. 95-6(1), 1-11-95; Ord.
98-A(1), 8-5-98, 2-100(6), 2-106; Ord. 01-2(1), 5-9-01; Ord. 03-2(2), 7-9-03)
Agenda Item No. 11. Public hearing to consider authorizing the County to grant the City of
Charlottesville a gas line easement across property identified as Tax Map Parcel 91-2E, adjacent to the
Monticello Fire Station. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 30,
2003.)
Mr. Tucker said 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. Virginia Code requires that the County hold a public hearing prior to authorizing
the granting of an easement. After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the proposed
easement.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve the proposed easement (set out in full below). The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. 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 deed of easement, as approved, is set out in full below.)
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT made this 10th day of July, 2003, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
hereinafter "Grantor"; and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter "City", P.O. Box 911, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902, Grantee.
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby GRANTS and CONVEYS with SPECIAL
WARRANTY unto the City and its successors and assigns forever the following property:
Permanent natural gas line easement (the singular term "easement" when
used hereinafter to include the plural if applicable) for the installation,
maintenance, operation, repair, replacement, and extension of natural gas
facilities and of utility lines, pipes, and facilities connected therewith, which
easement is beneath, upon, and over strips of land which are shown and
designated as a shaded line on a certain plat entitled "Plat Showing a
Fifteen-Foot Wide Easement Hereby Dedicated to City of Charlottesville
Public Utilities," by Thomas B. Lincoln, Land Survey Inc., dated August 14,
2002, and revised August 20, 2002, and to be recorded simultaneously
herewith in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia, to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular
description of the easements hereby conveyed. Said easement and right-
of-way cross a portion of the property conveyed to Grantor by deed of
Charles WM. Hurt and Shirley L. Fisher, Trustees for the Hillcrest Land
Trust, and Hurt Investment Company, dated September 18, 1995, of
record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1492, page 678.
Grantor further understands and agrees as follows:
1. All facilities, public works, and appurtenances which are installed within said
easement now or in the future by or for the City shall be and remain the property of the City
and no charge shall at any time be made by the Grantor for the use of the property
occupied by the City or for the privilege of constructing, maintaining and operating said
facilities and the necessary or appropriate appurtenances.
2. The City and its agents and employees for the purpose of inspecting,
maintaining or operating its facilities shall have the right and easement of ingress and
egress over any lands of the Grantor adjacent to the described easement between public
or private roads and the described easement in such manner as shall occasion the least
practicable damage and inconvenience to Grantor.
3. The City shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, repair, change, alter and install
such additional or substitute lines or facilities within the easement herein granted as the
City may from time to time deem advisable or expedient, and shall have such rights and
privileges as may be reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment or use for any of the
aforesaid purposes of the easement and rights herein granted.
4. The City shall have the right to trim, cut, and remove all trees, limbs,
undergrowth, shrubbery, landscape plantings of any kind, fences, buildings, structures,
paving, or other obstructions or facilities within said easement which it deems in any way to
interfere with the property and efficient construction, operation, and maintenance of the
facilities in or on said easement.
5. The City shall repair any damage to property or facilities of the grantor that
arises out of the construction or use of any of the City's facilities. The City shall also repair
or replace ground cover (pavement, gravel, or grass) existing on the said easement which
may be disturbed, damaged, or removed as a result of the construction of any of the City's
facilities, remove all trash and other debris of construction or repair from the easement,
and restore the surface thereof to its condition as nearly as reasonably possible, all
subject, however, to this exception, to-wit: that the City shall not be obligated to repair or
replace ground cover when it would be inconsistent with the proper operation, maintenance
or use of its facilities.
6. Grantor reserves the right to make use of the land subject to the rights herein
granted, which use shall not be inconsistent with the rights herein conveyed or interfere
with the use of the said easement by the City for the purposes aforesaid; provided,
however, that all such use shall be at Grantor's risk unless prior written approval of City is
obtained.
7. No third party shall be granted the right to use or shall use any part of the area
within such easement for any purpose or in any manner until after a review and a finding by
the City in writing that such use will not be in conflict with, or inconvenient to, the City's use
thereof or the purpose for which such easement was granted.
8. Grantor has seen and carefully examined a copy of the hereinabove-described
plat, is entirely familiar with the quantity of the land covered by this conveyance, and fully
understands the effect that it will or might have on the value of the remaining property.
9. This instrument covers all the agreement between the parties and
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
representations or statements, verbal or written, have been made which are inconsistent
with the terms of this deed.
10. To the extent permitted by law, Grantee agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless Grantor, its officials, employees and representatives for any damages, losses or
injuries to persons or property arising out of Grantee's activities covered by this
conveyance.
The City of Charlottesville, acting by and through its City Attorney, the City official
designated by the City Manager pursuant to authority granted by resolution of the City
Council of the City of Charlottesville, does hereby accept the conveyance of this easement,
pursuant to Virginia Code. 15.2-1803, as evidenced by the City Attorney's signature hereto
and to the City's recordation of this deed.
The County of Albemarle, by duly adopted resolution, has held a public hearing
pursuant to Va. Code. 15.2-1800(B), has approved the conveyance of real estate
memorialized by this deed of easement and has authorized the County Executive to
execute this deed of easement on its behalf.
This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code. 58.1-
801 pursuant to Virginia Code. 58.1-811 (A)(3).
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
Grantor:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Accepted by:
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
By: S. Craig Brown, City Attorney
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-2002-079. Old Trail Golf Club Entrance (Signs #21 & 51). Public hearing
on a request to allow stream crossing for access to proposed Old Trail Golf Club in accord w/Sec 30.3.05.2
of the Zoning Ord. TM 55, Ps 17B1&71 & TM 56, P 41, contains 2.07 acs. Loc on Rt 250 (Rockfish Gap
Turnpike) across from entrance to Western Albemarle High School. Znd R-1 & R-6. White Hall Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 2003.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, was present at this time for the staff. He said
the applicant proposes two stream crossings for roadway access to the Old Trail Golf Club and future
residential development of the remainder of the Old Trail property. The southern crossing would cross
Slabtown Branch with three 60-inch concrete culverts, and the northern crossing would be a bridge over
Lickinghole Creek. This proposal requires a special use permit under Section 30.3.05.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance for fill in the flood plain. Both Lickinghole Creek and Slabtown Branch are perennial streams
and are indicated as Important Stream Valleys in the Open Space Plan. Both lie in the watershed of the
Lickinghole Basin and the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. A special use permit for a golf course (SP-2002-
016 - Old Trail Golf Club) was approved on March 5, 2003. The property is located in the White Hall District
generally across from Western Albemarle High School.
Mr. Benish said that although it is not part of the Comprehensive Plan yet, the Crozet Master Plan
will ultimately be amended into the Comprehensive Plan. As currently proposed, the road network in the
Framework Plan for the Crozet Master Plan is generally provided for by the proposed stream crossings.
The applicant has worked with the Engineering staff to determine the most appropriate locations
environmentally for the crossings and the Engineering Department is in agreement with these locations and
has recommended approval of this request, subject to conditions.
Mr. Benish noted that the Slabtown Branch crossing is sited at a confluence of two streams in a
flood plain. Such locations have been recognized as probable Native American archaeological sites. Staff
has confirmed that this is an appropriate site for further consideration through contact with professional
archaeologists. A condition stating "A Phase 1 archaeological survey shall be completed in those areas,
and appropriate mitigation measures shall be carried out as directed by Planning Staff, prior to issuance of
a grading permit for the Slabtown Branch crossing."
Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 24, 2003, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended approval of this special permit request subject to five conditions.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Paul Trapp from the Timmons Group was present to speak for the applicant. He said they
have worked closely with the Planning staff on the proposed Master Plan for the Crozet Community with
regards to alignment of this proposed roadway in this plan. They feel they have a good engineering
solution for a roadway to provide access to the golf club and future development in Old Trail. Also present
tonight are Mr. Galen Bates and Mr. Justin Bates of Bates Development Corporation, and Mr. Jerry Kamis,
golf course designer. He offered to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to approve SP-2002-079 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. 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, Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting
changes to the flood plain. Plans must show flood plain limits and levels before
and after construction. Ordinance Sections 18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow
no increase in flood levels;
Engineering Department receipt of copies of Federal and state permits for
disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands, including
changes to the FEMA maps for the area;
Engineering Department approval of a final mitigation plan for repair and
enhancement of the stream buffers (17-322). The mitigation is to follow that
shown on the conceptual plans titled "Conceptual Stream Impact Mitigation Plan
(Lickinghole Creek)" and "Conceptual Stream Impact Mitigation Plan (Slabtown
Branch)" dated 6-05-03, and the streambank treatment schematic titled "Root
Wad Detail" received by the Engineering Department on June 9, 2003. The
existing Lickinghole Creek bridge is intended to become part of the trail system
for the site, but improvements or modifications to it may be part of the final
mitigation plans;
The location and nature of the crossings are to be as shown on Sheets 3 and 4
of the preliminary road plan titled "Old Trail - Western Avenue (N-S Access
Road)" dated 5/10/03. However, the Lickinghole Creek crossing may be a
simple span, or an arch, with road and fill elevations lower than that shown on
the preliminary plan. The road profile should be as Iow as reasonably
achievable; and
A plan showing all areas to be disturbed during the construction of the Slabtown
Branch crossing shall be submitted to the Planning Department. A Phase I
archaeological survey shall be completed in those areas, and appropriate
mitigation measures shall be carried out as directed by Planning staff, prior to
issuance of a grading permit for the Slabtown Branch crossing.
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2003-007. SP-2003-007. Greenbrier Service Center (Sign #43). Public
hearing on a request to allow expansion of motor vehicle sales & rental in accord w/Sec 22.2.2.8 of the
Zoning Ord. TM 61, P 148, contains 1.636 acs. Loc on Gasoline Alley (Rt 650) approx 100 ft from intersec
w/Rio Rd. Znd C-1. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 23
and June 30, 2003.)
Mr. Benish said that on a 1.636 acre site, the applicant proposes an expansion of the display of
automobiles and storage of U-Haul vehicles. It is not anticipated that the expansion will create any
additional traffic. It is to accommodate more storage area. It is consistent with the existing activities in that
area which consist of convenience stores, gas stations and car washes. Staff found the proposal to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval.
Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 17, 2003, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended approval of SP-2003-007, subject to seven conditions.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. David Wyant, the engineer on this project, was present for the applicant. He said the owner of
this facility had a fire last September which burned down the garage portion of the facility. Since that time,
he has been working with a new site plan and application for this special use permit. The staff had required
the addition of a sidewalk, which would have added $20,000 to the cost. Staff also recom-mended paving
which would have cost another $42,000. The bio-filter to handle the stormwater would cost $27,000.
Beyond what the insurance will reimburse, the owner will have spent $100,000. The improvements
requested by the County on this special use permit will cost more than $89,000. He said the Planning
Commission did give relief on the sidewalk. He is asking for relief from the requirement for trees and
landscaping along Gasoline Alley (this is the only parcel which touches that road), because it does not
serve anyone. The bio-filter serves about six other parcels with the drains coming all the way from the
Northside Baptist Church. This parcel is at the Iow point. It will handle runoff from a previous project where
that bio-filter is not adequate to handle their runoff. He asks for approval of this special use permit with the
conditions and the bio-filter, but not the paving. Paving in the parking lot would mostly cover the area where
the U-Haul trailers are parked. Leaving the area unpaved would help to recharge the groundwater rather
than running it into a bio-filter.
Mr. Bowerman said that is a site plan issue. That question is not before the Supervisors.
Mr. Wyant said it is part of one of the conditions of the special use permit.
Mr. Bowerman said that is not part of these conditions. It is a part of site plan review. Mr. Benish
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
said the Commission did grant relief for the sidewalks. Parking can be discussed at the site plan stage.
There are provisions for waivers.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-2003-007 subject to the seven conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: 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.)
Only vehicles for sale and rental shall be stored/displayed in the areas generally
shown for display on the "Greenbrier Service Center LLC" plan dated 5/20/03.
All other vehicles shall occupy an approved parking space;
The entrance onto the public road shall be improved to a standard commercial
entrance;
The required parking areas and travelways around the building shall be improved
to meet current Zoning Ordinance requirements at the discretion of the
Engineering Department;
The access to the shed to the north shall either be closed off and an alternative
constructed or the applicant shall obtain the proper access easement to the
shed;
Appropriate signage shall be provided on site to delineate the area for customer
parking and the area for storage of the vehicles for sale and rental;
The recommended improvements above shall be approved through a site plan
amendment; and
Vehicles for sale and rental shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-2003-018. Olivet Presbyterian Church Amendment (Signs #82 & 86).
Public hearing on a request to amend SP-2000-020 to expand an existing church for office/classroom uses
& outdoor recreation area in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 43, P 8, contains 9.187 acs.
Loc on Rt 614 (Garth Rd) approx 300 ft W of Garth Rd & Rt 676 (Owensville Rd) intersec. Znd RA & EC.
Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June
30, 2003.)
Mr. Dorrier said this petition request has provoked a lot of discussion. The Board would like to have
its attorney give a reading on some of the legal issues involved in separation of church and state.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney, said he would discuss some of the legal issues the
Board must deal with when considering a religious institution, such as a church. He said the first
amendment of the Constitution has a free exercise and establishment clause which must be considered
when making land use decisions. Beginning in 2000, there is a Federal law called "The Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act" which applies to land use decisions by local governments, etc. In
general, the Act prohibits localities from substantially burdening the exercise of religion unless there is a
compelling governmental interest, and then the least restrictive available means must be employed.
Mr. Kamptner then explained the phrase "substantially burdening the exercise of religion." He said
"substantial burden" means imposing a restriction which curtails a particular use or activity having special
religious significance. When a religious institution says the activity is part of its mission, local government
has to be careful if it is going to curtail that activity. The next question is the meaning of "religious exercise."
What Congress did in this law was to change the law concerning the meaning of religious exercise. Under
interpretation by the Supreme Court, it had to be some pure or fundamental religious value. Now, under
the law, it includes any exercise of religion whether or not it is compelled by, or central to, a system of
religious belief.
Mr. Kamptner said before the Board tonight is a special use permit. It is a land use decision. What
the Board is looking at are the impacts from this particular application. The impacts are looked at not only
for a religious type of place of assembly, but community centers, schools, etc. There are issues such as
traffic and noise and setbacks and whether there is adequate water and adequate septic fields available. If
the Board is going to curtail a religious exercise, it has to show a compelling governmental interest. What is
that interest? Application of zoning regulations assuring there is sufficient septic available for a particular
use is a compelling governmental interest because it is to protect the health and safety of the public. It
applies to all types of uses. Then the Board must look at whether or not a particular condition, if imposed to
address an impact, is the least restrictive means available. If there is a concern about traffic impact, should
the Board look at the number of people attending an event, or the number of cars? As to noise, does the
Board look at the activity itself? In this case, the County has noise regulations in place, and noise
standards.
Mr. Kamptner said the application is considered with these things in mind. He wanted to lay that out
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
so everyone will understand the framework under which a part of this decision is made.
Mr. Benish noted that he had just handed to the Board members the floor plans for the expansion.
He said the applicant seeks an amendment to SP-2000-020 to allow for the expansion of an existing
church, which would include office/classroom uses and the reconfiguration of parking. He said the
specifications for the proposed expansion are: the footprint of the proposed addition would be 3350 square
feet; the proposed addition would contain two above-ground floors and a basement for a total of 10,050
square feet; there would be no increase in the church's seating capacity (192 seats); and, there would be
no increase in parking spaces to the existing 92 spaces.
Mr. Benish said the special use permit that was approved in 2000 (SP-2000-020) was for an
addition that had a building footprint of 2400 square feet, additional parking area for 54 vehicles (92 total),
an outdoor recreational area, and an unlighted basketball play area. At the time of approval, it was
undecided as to how many floors the 2400 square foot building footprint would contain. The proposed
3350 square foot building footprint would be located in the same general location as the previously
approved 2400 square foot building footprint. The church is currently offering three Sunday morning
services from 8:30 a.m. through noon. There are also various church activities throughout the week at
various times, as well as community activities, such as Girl Scout and Boy Scout meetings.
Mr. Benish said the area surrounding the church is zoned for rural agricultural and residential. The
Harmony Subdivision is adjacent to the west. A portion of the Moormans River Agricultural Forestal District
is located to the east and to the north across Garth Road. The Agricultural Forestal Advisory Committee
met to review this request and had no concerns relative to the district. Staff reviewed the request for
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval subject to
conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3, 2003, by a vote of 6:0, recommended
approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff, but did modify those conditions. They deleted
two conditions referring to architectural treatments for the additions, and language regarding lighting. In its
report, staff addressed some of the concerns raised by the public, including noise, outdoor lighting, traffic,
septic capacity and water capacity. He said there were some issues regarding potential violations. The
neighbors raised the issue of a possible day care facility. There is a church program called "Kids
Connection" which meets on Wednesdays from 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. for a limited number of weeks during
the school year. The program offers Bible study, music, snacks, and supervised outdoor recreation for
ages four through the fifth grade, and there is no fee. The program was in existence in 2000 when SP-
2000-020 was approved. The Zoning Department determined that this program does not constitute a day
care facility on a one day per week basis, with limited hours.
Mr. Benish said there was a reported violation regarding the paving of the parking area near the
Harmony Subdivision. During review of SP-2000-020, it was noted that this parking area would be for
overflow parking only. A waiver was granted so that a gravel surface could be on a part of the parking area
rather than a paved surface. He said the portion of the parking area that was intended to be paved included
two basketball goals. Since that approval, the entire parking area has been paved with the installation of
the basketball goals. The Zoning Department has determined that there is no requirement for the parking
lot to remain gravel, and that the basketball area was approved for that use. Therefore, there is no
violation.
Mr. Benish said the neighbors cited a possible violation pertaining to a lighting issue. The only
outdoor light pole is in front of the church approximately 20 feet from the right-of-way on Garth Road. The
light from this pole glares into adjoining properties during the months when the deciduous vegetation has
dropped its leaves. This was investigated by the Zoning Department and it was determined that the light
was put in long before the County had a Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, although it may not be designed
consistent with the ordinance, it is not considered in violation of the ordinance. There is a condition of
approval that addresses that issue. He understands the applicant is willing to bring the light into
conformance.
Mr. Benish said there was an issue regarding turn lanes. VDOT had recommended a right turn
lane into the site from the west. The Engineering Department and Planning staff did not recommend that
because the proposal does not increase the level of traffic at the peak times of operation of the church.
The Commission did discuss whether that right turn lane should be required, and they essentially
recommended the conditions without that requirement, but asked staff to provide additional information for
the Board. He noted that on the first page of the staff report there is an update providing some traffic
information.
Mr. Dorrier asked how this accident data compares to other parts of the County with similar roads.
Mr. Benish said he understands from the planner who worked on this petition, that it not a significant
number.
Ms. Thomas said she found the traffic information to be useful. An E-mail she wrote recently
brought most of the people present tonight to this meeting. The Board is duty bound to assess the change
in a neighborhood's character, and deny a request if it causes substantial detriment to adjacent property.
She has never voted against a church's existence. She had assumed the special permit process would
allow the Board to note the time at which the impacts on the neighborhood became greater than in the past.
Although there have been split votes, the Board has always voted to allow churches, but has placed
conditions in an attempt to deal with its impact on the neighborhood. Sometimes there have been concerns
expressed about traffic, but in this case, that matter has been researched, and she does not feel traffic is an
issue.
Ms. Thomas said she made some proposals in her E-mail based on her interpretation of the
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
Board's duty in a situation where there is a new large, activity center in a rural area next to a residential
neighborhood. She believes the Federal law that was described at the beginning of this meeting precludes
the Board's ability to do most of what she suggested. She will not make a motion that includes any of the
suggestion she made in her E-mail with the exception of defining "walkway lighting." She asked the
Chairman if she could make this statement ahead of time because she thought a lot of the people present
would be commenting on concerns brought to them by her proposals. She felt it was unfair to the citizens
and the other Board members to hear comments on things that will not be part of any motion. She does
urge everyone in the room to be a good neighbor.
With no further comments, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Marcia Joseph was present for the applicant. She said Mr. Benish gave a good background of
the request. She explained to the Board what presently exists on the site. Ms. Joseph said the County has
no Historic Ordinance. There is nothing in place to protect the existing building. In Albemarle County, the
County counts on the buildings being used continuously, hoping they will be maintained and continue to
contribute to the fabric of the community. This church is luckier than most historic properties in that the
neighbors have donated land to it. There are 9.0+ acres in the site. About 80 percent of the lot is in open
space. She said this building is used, and they hope that the additional classrooms will insure its continued
use and maintenance.
Mr. Albert Connette said he has been the pastor at the church since 1996. He also lives on the
church property. He said Olivet has been carrying out its ministry since 1880. Neighbors of the church
gave land to the church to carry out its ministry. They feel the ministry is vital and helps people make the
saving connection with their God. They believe on-going ministries and activities of the church are ones a
church would normally be involved in. The church's size and activities have changed through the years.
Recent years have seen a slow and steady growth. Within five miles of Olivet there are over 7000
residents. The congregation currently numbers about 350. There are about 225 people in worship
attendance in three services.
Mr. Connette said the existing facility is not large, and almost every room is used for multiple
purposes, especially on Sunday morning. The facility planning actually began in the 1980's when the
Calhoun family gave the church an additional four acres. Ultimately, a renovation and expansion plan for
adequate, safe facilities, that met both the expectations and needs of the congregation, was developed.
Some renovations were done in the 1990's. Following completion of the fellowship hall in 1997, they began
a long-range planning process including an outdoor basketball court and additional parking. Their goal was
to develop a conceptual site plan and determine the best location for new facilities in light of any potential
future development of the property.
Mr. Connette said the plans were discussed by the congregation, they learned that the people in
Harmony Subdivision were upset because they thought the church was proposing to build a lighted ballfield.
In the fall of 1999, the church invited these people to a meeting to discuss the conceptual site plan.
Changes in the location of the outdoor parking and play areas were proposed by the immediate adjacent
Harmony neighbor. Those changes were made and approved by the congregation, along with other
changes such as the location of the basketball court. The church continued with the understanding that the
head of the Harmony Neighborhood Architectural Review Board and the neighbors present with them, were
satisfied with their plan. It was from this conceptual site plan that they proceeded to develop and seek
County approval in the summer of 2000 for a special use permit and site plan for the two additional parking
areas, outdoor play areas and their planned Phase 3 addition. They were approved with little comment.
The parking and outdoor play areas were completed in 2001.
Mr. Connette said there was a congregational planning process carried on in the fall and winter of
2001. It confirmed the need for the Phase 3 addition. They worked with an architect to identify their needs
and organize the facility. The congregation approved the conceptual design in January, 2003. They
anticipated that the 950 foot addition by amendment would be approved administratively. They were
surprised that with little change in the extent or the nature of their ministries in the past three years, the
request has been met with an aggressive campaign generating opposition to the church's building plans.
He said they do not want to spend money, or build facilities which are not needed for the support of their
ministry. The building size includes needed space and will allow them to address safety concerns for the
children who meet on the second floor who do not now have a second means of egress. They would no
longer use the basement for classrooms due to insufficient ceiling height. They had thought their case
would rest on its merits and would not benefit from having the congregation come out on behalf of the
church. They appreciate the thorough work of the County departments reviewing the request, and the
unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission. However, they feel the addition of several
conditions unreasonably constrains the ministry of the church. He then requested those in the audience
who had come to show their approval of the request to raise their hands. He asked for approval of their
request without adding additional conditions.
Mr. Rob Cumbia said he and his family live in the Owensville area. It is not an urban area. The
proposed 10,000 square foot church building would be the largest edifice on Garth Road and would be
similar in size to urban, commercial buildings lining the road along Route 29 North. This building would
increase the size of the church 168 percent. He fears there will be increased traffic, increased noise,
increased use of water, and increased wastewater issues. The church has asked the County to believe that
none of this will happen, since they expect no increase in church membership. He does not think they
would spend $1.5 million in a facility that will not result in expanded or more frequent activities. The original
permit dated February 24, 2003, requested a 3300 square foot building, which was eventually exposed to
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
actually be 10,050 square feet. He thinks there is growth hidden in the Phase 4 plan which the church now
advises never existed. Attempts to achieve modest compromises from the church about noise and outdoor
activities, and limiting private school and day care growth, have been refused. If there is no growth in the
plan, why were those requests flatly rejected? On behalf of his family, he requested that his concerns and
those of his neighbors be carefully weighted as they relate to changing the rural environment and character
of this community forever.
Mr. John B Simpson said his family is a member of the church, but do live about three miles away.
How this matter is handled has implications for all rural churches in Albemarle County. Based upon the
approach taken thus far, he is concerned whether all rural churches and residents who attend these
churches, have reason to feel threatened. The fact that Olivet has been in continuous existence for more
than 100 years appears to be irrelevant. Prior to enactment of zoning laws, Olivet was vested with the right
to their property for church-related activities. Those activities have never been limited to a couple of hours
on Sunday morning. How can the government have the right to take away Olivet's vested property rights?
He does not think the government has this power, and utilizing the special permit process to impose
additional burdens and restrictions upon Olivet, and potentially all other rural churches in Albemarle, carries
significant legal implications. That the government is even considering imposing restrictions upon Olivet's
right to use its property for church purposes is hard to understand. This is not a new church in this
neighborhood, but a case where the church predated everyone who is alive in this room tonight. The
church was there before any of the complainants decided to live near it, and yet they complain and seem to
be getting serious consideration. Besides the fact that Olivet has the right to use its property as most any
church would, including customary and reasonable activities, he wants the opportunity for his family to
experience the Christian fellowship in this country church. It is why they choose to worship there. They do
not want to have to drive eight miles into an urban environment as the complainants would have them do.
Imposing the suggested restrictions would not only unlawfully impair Olivet's property rights, but also send a
message that this county government regards rural churches as no different than any other classic non-
conforming use, something that should not be allowed to grow and prosper, but something which should be
restricted and ultimately eliminated.
Mr. Zach Andrews said he is a boy scout. He understands there have been noise issues with the
church with outdoor activities. He said their outdoor activities are for scouting, and they don't make much
noise.
Mr. Mark Andrews said he has two boys in scouting. He said Troop 7 has been using Olivet Church
for the last eight to 10 years. They meet at 7:00 p.m., on Thursday evening. They understand that one of
the restrictions says there will be limited activities after 5:00 p.m. He said any given Thursday there is a
period of time when activities are conducted inside the church, and then a short period outside of the
church. If the Scouts are limited after 7:00 p.m., they would not be able to meet. He said most young kids
when they are involved in school activities sometimes need to have those in the evenings. They do not want
a limitation on that.
Mr. Martin noted that Mr. Andrews is an old friend. He is the national winner of the Jefferson Award
for Good Deeds.
Ms. Mary Scott Birdsall said her concern is not about the existence of churches or the exercise of
faith, but about scale. Regardless of the Board's decision tonight about the specifics of this application,
citizens must look to the Board for guidance in maintaining the rural area. In spite of its name, Owensville is
not a village. But, there are aspects to the expansion that seem more like a village than like the country. If
Owensville becomes more like a village operating 24/7, the greater will be the concerns of those committed
to keeping the rural parts of the County rural.
Mr. John Birdsall said he owns a farm on the north side of Garth Road directly opposite Olivet. He
and his wife are not only concerned about the degradation of the rural areas brought on by the urban
sprawl throughout the County, but also by the incremental expansion represented in this application. To
suggest that a multi-story, 10,000 square foot building with its attendant uses, will not further impact the
rural nature of the area is ignoring reality. For this Board to approve an application of this nature by the
church would be extremely discouraging to those hundreds of landowners throughout the County who are
committed to rural preservation and have voluntarily donated conservation easements on their properties.
He said the land on the north side of Garth Road opposite the church is protected by an easement, and it is
the southern edge of several thousand acres in permanent conservation easements. He thinks the
consequences of granting a special use permit to a parcel of land in a rural area which is contiguous to
permanently protected land voluntarily protected by the landowners reaches far beyond this corner of
Albemarle. He asked that the Board deny the application.
Mr. Jay Townsend said he is Assistant Scout Master of Troop 7. He came to speak about what he
thought was a limitation on the after five o'clock use. He thanked the church for the home it has provided
for Troop 7. Troop 7 has existed since the late 1980s. It is a small troop of 15 to 25 boys who get
tremendous value from the scouting experience.
Ms. Cindy Reynolds said she lives on Willow Oak Circle. She is a member of Olivet and would like
to address the gentleman's comment about the expansion he suspects will take place as a result of
increasing their facilities. On any Sunday morning, a visitor would see "people piled on top of each other."
Enlarging the church does not mean they want huge numbers of people coming into the church. They only
want to adequately provide for the people who are already there. There will be only one new classroom.
They are not planning for a huge influx of new activities.
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Caleb Andrews said he will pass on speaking because the issues of outdoor activities had
already been addressed.
Mr. John Frizzell said he lives in the Harmony neighborhood. His property abuts Garth Road.
Under the leadership of Rev. Connette, Olivet Church has been transformed. It is no longer the small
unobtrusive church and congregation it had been for much of its 120 years. The church undertook a
building campaign and the current Phase 3 will add almost 10,000 square feet of classrooms, adult activity,
and Christian education space in a three-story addition. He said the church had plans in 1998 for an
addition after Phase 3 of a 6000 square foot sanctuary with basement classrooms. He has been told that
Phase 4 has been abandoned. He said the current addition is characterized as an addition to the footprint
of only 950 square feet over the already approved 2400 square foot permit. The neighbors fear the
increased size will create a desire to expand the frequency of activities at the church during the week.
Homeowners along Garth Road are concerned that any increase in traffic would eventually require that the
road be widened. That would have an adverse impact on these homeowners. In a letter from the Church,
it was stated that if they were limited to only one day per week for their Kids Connection Program, they
would not be able to consider additional formats, days or times to minister to children. He asked what
additional formats are required. To reach an amenable compromise, he thinks the neighbors need clear
answers to straight-forward questions. He asked the long-range plan of the County for the area around the
church, and at what point is the growth of the physical plant and activities on the Olivet property inconsistent
with that plan? Will the historic Olivet church be lost in the shadows of the new building? What is the long-
range vision of the church? If Phase 4 of the church has been abandoned, is the church willing to accept a
permanent restriction on new construction?
Ms. Sue Lirowski said she has been a member of the church for about ten years and is one of the
first lot owners in Harmony Subdivision. She said Lot 1 was a part of the subdivision, but was given to the
church by the developer. She has been a member of the Girl Scouts and can understand the Boy Scouts
being at the church because it is convenient. She thinks the Scouts could meet at Meriwether Lewis School
if noise becomes a problem. She never hears any noise from the Scouts where she lives. She thinks the
Supervisors need to look at the long-range plan of the church. The church is overcrowded and needs an
addition, bigger than what they originally thought. They need it, but where does growth stop? She is
concerned about traffic in the rural areas. She is not concerned about what the church has proposed now,
but is concerned about long-term plans.
Ms. Leslie Blackhall said she lives in the Harmony neighborhood. She is not in opposition to this
church. She is concerned that this rural church will turn into a large community center. This will be the
largest structure on Garth Road. What is the church's future plan for this building? Are there further plans
for future day care or after-school activities? Are there plans for an increase in the number of Boy Scouts?
She said it would be helpful to the neighbors if the church would stipulate in writing that they will not seek a
special use permit to open a school or a day care facility in this new building.
Mr. Lee McCauley said he lives within three miles of the church. His parents, and he, are members
of the church. He said to their knowledge, in the last ten years there has never been a traffic accident in
front of the church property. There is a section of the road which is curvy going down to the river, and that is
where most accidents on the road occur. There has been only one accident in front of the church, and it
occurred when a backhoe being moved came offthe back of a truck and landed in Olivet's parking lot. He
said a study of traffic on Garth Road was conducted three years ago, and over 3000 cars passed in front of
the church every day. Taking into account all of the activities at the church, the church only adds 50+ cars
per week to that traffic. Many of the kids come to the program on the school bus from Meriwether Lewis.
Sunday morning attendance is about 225 spread over three services. This occurs in non-peak times on the
highway. He asked that the Board approve the permit as applied for.
Mr. Dennis Crumpler said he is a lifelong member of the Presbyterian Church and was an Eagle
Scout. He is sympathetic to what has been said by the citizens tonight. He bought the 54 acres directly
across the road from the church four years ago to escape from Atlanta. His neighborhood in Atlanta 12
years ago had a small brick schoolhouse, and a small high school within four blocks. Over those 12 years,
governing bodies went to incremental decisions that wound up in 2001 with 30 mobile classrooms, four
baseball and football fields, a parking lot the size of two city blocks, and all of that lead to having a fire
station constructed directly across from his home. He said the Board is dealing with a calculus problem. At
what point, does this curve land in a place where it can be dealt with constructively? He said this church
may have already grown past its ability to thrive on that lot. He said his first summer experience with water
in Albemarle County was last year. He thinks his well is within 150 yards of the well on the church property.
He was not able to take a shower in his home for one of the first four weeks he lived there. He thinks the
water table in that area is in trouble. He said there are bounds for County services which are relevant. He
thinks the appraised value on his property will suffer.
Mr. Mac McRaven said Olivet Church is not just a one-hour on Sunday morning activity. For 123
years, it has had programs of all kinds. There is something going on now every afternoon and every
evening. He has worked with the youth in the church for 18 years. The programs they conduct for the
youth have had a tremendous impact. Their youth are not part of the problem. There is no teen pregnancy
among their youth. They don't have violence in the schools among their youth. They don't have drugs,
alcoholism, or suicide. They know they are doing something right. To curtail the activities of the church
would be a grave mistake because someone does not want to hear the sound of children laughing. For the
people who are dedicated to no-growth in the County, that will guarantee that children and grandchildren
will not have a place to live or a place to work in a County that is their birthright.
Mr. French Slaughter said he is a neighbor on the south side of the church property. He and his
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
family are concerned about the church's desire to expand. Olivet has been an excellent neighbor, but they
have done nothing to allay his fears that it will become a community center with little connection to the
church. He urged the Board to take action tonight to deny the special use permit, and let the community
decide what should be done.
Mr. Stephen Nachmanovitch said he is a neighbor to the church. He shares a lot of the concerns
expressed here tonight. He thinks there is a conflict of interest involved. When the church expands, it will
impose a cost on the neighbors. There is the issue of water, and property values, noise, traffic, and all are
incremental things which increase over time. Although the church has been there for many years, the
neighbors have a legitimate interest. All have a basis for reaching some common understanding. A
compromise of some kind is needed. Relatively small changes could be made to the plan to make it more
amenable to the neighbors without cramping the activities of the church. In reference to the statutes
mentioned by Mr. Kamptner earlier tonight, he thinks there are two separate functions being dealt with.
One function is the church as a spiritual community which has never been a problem and to which no one
objects, and the other is the growing activity as a community center. He urged the church to get together
with the neighbors, even with the aid of a trained mediator, and find some solutions to these problems.
Mr. Ernie Walls said he is a resident of Harmony and a member of the church. He would like to
note that not all of the neighbors in Harmony object to the proposal. He supports Olivet.
Ms. Linda McRaven said she has been active in the church for 18 years. She said the church, by
definition, is a community center. It brings people in from the community to participate in like-minded
activities. For 123+ years, Olivet has been a neighborhood country church, and it still is. She said the
three-story addition being discussed is actually a two-story addition, plus a basement. The church was in
the community long before Harmony, long before Owensville Road was named, and long before any of the
people who live there now were there. They all bought their houses knowing that Olivet was there, and it is
a place where people come together for public activity. People need to realize some things are a cause for
concern, and some things are not. She has personally been through this process, and she has seen how
emotions get out of hand on a completely baseless situation. She thinks this is that kind of situation.
Mr. W. A. Pace said he has been a member of the church for a long time. His wife grew up in the
church as a child, and they were married at Olivet 48 years ago. There has been a lot said tonight, and
there are a couple of things he would like to clarify. There are only six groups of scouts in the church. One
group meets only once each month, others meet twice a month, and one group meets weekly. There is not
a mass of scouting at the church. Also, there are no plans for a school or a day care center in this building.
There are no future plans for any other buildings on the property. If they can get this one building erected
and paid for, that is about all the congregation can handle. He said the Planning Commission voted 6:0 on
this, and he would ask this Board to do likewise.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said the Federal law which has been in effect since 2000 does not allow the governing
body to make a distinction between religious activities and the community activity center. She thinks it is
possible for something to grow too large to be in the rural area and too large to be next door to a
subdivision, but she said the Board is constrained in making that determination in the way she proposed in
her E-mail. The only amendment to the Planning Commission conditions she would suggest is that the
term "walkway lighting" be defined. She would suggest that it be defined as being no taller than three feet
and be allowed only on walkways going to the parking areas.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not know what Ms. Thomas is trying to accomplish with this condition.
He hates to limit the applicant, and suggested leaving it to the Commission. Ms. Thomas said the
Commission could do something at site plan stage, but the Board can go ahead and delineate it now. Ms.
Thomas said she would like to suggest three feet for the condition instead of two feet.
Mr. Martin said Ms. Thomas mentioned the Federal law and how it had changed. As a juvenile
probation officer, he would like to say that a church performs a valuable function when it reaches out to not
just the community, but to young people in general. He thinks it is significant that you don't often see a lot of
the people on the campus of a church in juvenile court. There are not many ex-Boy Scouts in juvenile
court. He is supporting this request, not just because of Federal laws, but because he is a strong advocate
of churches who reach out. He believes they belong in the community and need the support of government
as much as possible.
Mr. Rooker said by way of clarification, this special use permit as proposed does not include day
care or a school. Water use by a church generally is comparable to water use by a single household. He
lives in a rural area, and recently a church was approved on a lot in his neighborhood. There is a church
beside the neighborhood, and a church across the street. He has not found that it has created a problem in
his area in any way. Everybody in his neighborhood uses individual water wells. He said the Ag-Forestal
Committee looked at this request, and expressed no concern. He said there is a point where any activity
could overwhelm the rural area. If you look back at the churches which have been consistently improved
throughout Albemarle County, this request is not out of line. The seating capacity of this church is much
smaller than a number of churches which have been approved in the rural area. He does not think this
decision will set a precedent for permitting overwhelming structures in the rural area. He supports the
special use permit with the conditions proposed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Dorrier said he had been out to look at the site and there was not much happening when he
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
was there. He said there are some activities at night, and there is probably some noise, but he does not
think it is the kind of noise that will create a burden in the neighborhood. He said the road is a little curvy
along that section, and it would be nicer if there were fewer cars on Garth Road, but the Board cannot
change that by this vote. He will support the request for the special permit.
Motion was then made by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2003-018 subject to the eight conditions
recommended by the Commission, with the words "The structure to which the lighting fixture is attached
shall not be taller than three feet from the ground" after the second sentence in Condition #6. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
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, as approved, 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 site plan entitled "Olivet Presbyterian
Church Special Permit Amendment and Major Site Plan Amendment," prepared
by Joseph Associates, and dated February 24, 2003, and revised May 9, 2003;
The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum one hundred and ninety-two
(192) seat sanctuary;
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);
There shall be no day care or private school on the site without approval of a
separate special use permit;
Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems shall be required prior
to the issuance of a building permit;
No parking lot lighting shall be installed in the parking areas. Only walkway
lighting to the parking areas, with no more than three thousand (3,000) lumens,
shall be permitted to be installed. The structure to which the lighting fixture is
attached shall not be taller than three (3) feet from the ground. The walkway
lighting shall be turned on only for nighttime services or meetings;
No outdoor recreational/play activities shall be permitted after dark; and
The outdoor light will be brought into compliance with the existing lighting
ordinance.
(Note: At 8:07 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 8:13 p.m. Mr. Martin returned at 8:15
p.m. Mr. Davis returned and Mr. Kamptner left the meeting.)
(Note: The following two petitions will be considered concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 15. ZMA-2003-001. Four Seasons Proffer Amendment (Signs #63, 64 & 65).
Public hearing on a request to amend existing proffers for PUD district on 7.979 acs to allow office use in
existing facility. TM 61X2, Ps 4A, 4B & 4D. Loc on Rt 1456 (Four Seasons Dr) approx 1/2 mile S of intersec
of Four Seasons Dr & Rt 631 (Rio Rd W). (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban
Density Residential [6.01-34 du/ac] in Neighborhood 1 .) Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 16. SP-2003-017. Four Seasons School Amendment (Sign #38). Public hearing
on a request to allow priv school in accord w/Sec 20.4.2(1) of the Zoning Ord. TM 61X2, P 4B, contains
2.256 acs. Loc on Rt 1456 (Four Seasons Dr) approx 1/2 mile S of intersec of Four Seasons Dr & Rt 631
(Rio Rd W). Znd PUD & Airport Protection Overlay. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published
in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 2003.)
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas saw no need for a staff presentation of this item. Mr. Dorrier asked
Mr. Benish to make a brief summary.
Mr. Benish said the applicant is seeking to amend existing proffers to allow office use within the
former ACAC Family in the Four Seasons development. If approved, the Soccer Organization of
Charlottesville/Albemarle will move its offices to the facility where it already conducts training programs. In
a previous rezoning to allow expansion of the recreational use, the applicant proffered out the office use
that it now wants to reinstate. He said having SOCA locate its offices adjacent to the field it already uses
would improve its programming and transportation.
Mr. Benish said for SP-2003-017, the applicant is seeking to amend an existing special permit to
allow use of the form ACAC Facility in the Four Seasons development for a private school. If approved, the
facility could be used by a variety of private schools provided they operated under the conditions of the
special use permit. The applicant requested a maximum enrollment of 85 students, early childhood
through high school, with operating hours of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with occasional uses in the evening and
over the weekend. Classes would not be held during the summer.
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
At this point, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Grant Campbell, CEO of ACAC. He said they have two tenants who would like to co-habitat
the facilities at Four Seasons. The first group will be the SOCA organization. The second is the Montessori
School of Charlottesville who would operate within the guidelines proposed, with an enrollment of less than
85 students. Most of their activities would be done by 3:00 p.m.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve ZMA-2003-001, subject to the proffers submitted.
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.
(Note: The approved proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: July 9, 2003
ZMA 2003-001
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s):
061X1-00-00-004D0
Original Proffer 98-04
061X1-00-00-004A0, 061X1-00-00-004B0, and
7.979 Acres to be rezoned from PUD Commercial/Service to PUD Commercial/Service
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be
applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
requested.
Within this commercial/service area, only the following uses shall be permitted by
right:
a)
Pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of Section 22.2, C-1 Commercial zoning
district, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as those regulations
exist on July 9, 2003, as set forth below: Section 22.2.1 numbers (b)l;
(b)8; (b)12; (b)13; (b)17; (b)18; (b)19; (b)24; and, (b) 26;
b)
Pursuant to subsection 23.2.1 of Section 23.2, C-O Commercial zoning
district, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as those regulations
exist on July 9, 2003, as set forth below: Section 23.2.1 numbers 1; 2; 5;
7; 8; 9; 12; and 13.
Where permitted uses under the Zoning Ordinance have been further modified,
such modifications are indicated in italics and bold font. Uses which are not
permitted have been indicated by strike through.
22.2.1 BY RIGHT
The following uses shall be permitted in any C-1 district subject to the
requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after
consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may
permit as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use
shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character and more
specifically, similar in terms of Iocational requirements, operational characteristics,
visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's
decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0.
/~lnfhlnn ,~nn,~r~l on~l ohno ohnno
5. Florist.
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
8. Hardware store.
9. Music=! instruments.
4 9 Dhnfnnronhln
Tho followJno so~Jcos and public ostablJshmonts:
Administrative, professional offices--T~o primary businoss of
any offico uso s~all ~o oit~or rocroation or o~ucation.
~ ~hl irnh~e
~ ~lllhe In~n~e ~i:~i~ fr~f~rn~l n~frinfin /r~f~r~nn~ ~ 4
7. Funeral homes.
8. Health spas.
9. Indoor theaters.
12. Libraries, museums.
13. Nurseries, day care centers (reference 5.1.06).
17. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower
structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters
and related facilities for distribution of local se~ice and owned
and operated by a public utili~. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appu~enances owned and
operated by the Albemarle Coun~ Se~ice Authori~. (Amended
5-2-93)
18. Public uses and buildings including tempora~ or mobile facilities
such as schools, offices, parks, playOrounds and roads funded,
owned or operated by local, state or Federal aoencies (reference
3~ .2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines
treatment facilities, pumpino stations and the like, owned and/or
operated by the ~ivanna ~ater and Sewer Authod~ (reference
3~ .2.5; 5.~ .~2). (Amended ~ ~-~-~)
Iempora~ construction uses (reference 5.~ .~).
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
2!. ,Medica! center.
22.
~llfnrnnhil~ {filial/ r~n~Jr ~hnn ~vt~lll~intl l~t~tl
23.
24. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
25.
26.
Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final
site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-02)
23.2.1 BY RIGHT
The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the
requirements and limitations of these regulations:
Administrative and business offices--The primary business of any office
use shall be either recreation or education.
Professional offices,IIJ~¢lllvl~lll~J~'l~ medical, ~v,'~""m:,,,, ,,~"'~,~ v,,,w,A"U"~:. --The primary
business of any office use shall be either recreation or education.
3. Fi,-,a,-,cia! institutions.
5. Libraries, museums.
-Eating establishments;
sep;ice of office
rlfhi~,,~l nh,~rrn,~,i~o I,~hAr,~fAri~o ,~n~l ~of,~hliohrn~nfo far fh~ i~r~'~l i~'~fi~'~n
fiffinn ,~n~l/Ar e,~le~ Af Anfi~,,~l Ar nrAefhe~fi~, ,~nnli,~n~,e~e An eife~e ~,Anf,~ininn
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures
and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related
facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping
stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County
Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water
supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16
of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended
5-12-93)
Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as
schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated
by local, state or Federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and
sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping
stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89)
9. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
!0.
!!.
12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92)
13.
Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or
subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-01)
Four Seasons of Virginia LLC:
By: (Signed) Philip G. Wendel
Philip G. Wendel, President
May 25, 2003
Mr. Bowerman offered motion to approve SP-2003-017, with the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. 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.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
Maximum enrollment will be eighty-five (85) students;
Normal hours of operation for school shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with
occasional uses in the evenings and weekend; and
The applicant shall construct a pedestrian pathway connecting the school and
pool buildings to Four Seasons Drive, to a standard acceptable to the
Departments of Planning and Engineering and Public Works. The pedestrian
pathway shall be complete by December 31,2003.
Agenda Item No. 17. SP-2003-028. Matheny Well Drilling (Signs #57 & 66). Public hearing on a
request to allow well drilling business in accord w/Sec 10.2.2(31) of the Zoning Ord. TM 84, P 14E2,
contains 2.586 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Kacey Lane, approx 700 ft NW from the intersec of Kacey Lane & Rt
635 (Craigs Store Rd). Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on June 23 and June 30, 2003.)
Mr. Benish said the applicant is requesting approval of a special use permit for a Home
Occupation-Class B to allow for a well-drilling business. The business consists of four vehicles (two pickup
trucks, one rig and one service truck). The applicant has two employees, one of which is his father who
lives next door to the applicant's property. The drill rig and service truck normally move from work site to
work site and would rarely be stored on the applicant's property. One of the pickup trucks is used by an
employee who takes the vehicle home at night and on weekends. The other pickup truck serves as the
applicant's personal vehicle. Normal hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Benish said the staff report is self-explanatory. He would note that there are two waivers
involved of the supplementary regulations for a home occupation. One required that the home occupation
not be visible from the outside. There will be pipe stored outside and a waiver was requested for that. Also,
he requested a waiver for the amount of square footage dedicated to the home occupation being larger
than the permitted number in the supplementary regulations.
Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 24, 2003, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended approval subject to conditions.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Kenneth Matheny was present. He said the staff report sets out the request well.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2003-038 subject to the four conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. 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.)
There shall be no outdoor storage permitted except for the five (5) foot by
twenty-one (21) foot outdoor storage area for piping as shown on the sketch plan
in Attachment A;
The home occupation shall have no more than ten (10) visits per week;
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
No more than four (4) vehicles associated with the home occupation shall be
parked on the site at any given time (one drill rig, one service truck, and two
pickup trucks); and
Hours for the home occupation shall be Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m.
(Note: The following two petitions were considered concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2003-031. Albemarle County Fire Communications Amendment (Signs
#12 & 13). Public hearing on a request to allow attachment of antenna, consisting of two 15-inch segments
supporting communications for the County of Albemarle's Fire-Rescue services, at 165 ft on existing
205-foot tall tower, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 91, P 28, contains 234.165 acs. Znd
RA. Loc on Carter's Mountain Trail, approx 1 mile S of intersec w/Rt 53 (Thomas Jefferson
Parkway). Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 23
and June 30, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 19. SP-2003-032. Albemarle County Fire Department Communications
Amendment (Signs #20 & 22). Public hearing on a request to install an add'l antenna at an existing
emergency communication facility, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 109, P 60, contains
approx 111.5 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Fan Mountain Road approx 4.5 mis from the intersec w/Rt 29 S, past
the University of Virginia's Fan Mountain Observatory. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 2003.)
Mr. Benish said the proposal is for the collation of additional antennas at two existing tower sites,
supporting communications for the County's Fire and Rescue services. Presently the County contracts with
the City of Charlottesville for emergency dispatching of its county wide fire and rescue service. In July, the
Emergency Communications Center will take over the County dispatch functions from the City. In order for
this to happen, the County must place a main transmitter and antenna at the Carter's Mountain site and a
backup transmitter and antenna at the Fan Mountain site.
Mr. Benish said SP-2003-31 it is a request to allow the attachment of an antenna consisting of two
80-inch segments at 148 and 165 feet on an existing 205-foot tall tower at the Carter's Mountain tower
farm. All supporting ground equipment would be housed in existing buildings. At its meeting on July 1,
2003, by a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to five conditions.
Mr. Benish said SP-2003-032 is a request to install a seven-foot by five-foot array antenna attached
to the tower at 97 feet, from a bracket which would extend five feet from the emergency communications
tower facility on Fan Mountain. The existing tower is 99 feet high. All supporting ground equipment would
be housed in existing buildings. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 8, 2003, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval subject to revised conditions. Mr. Benish distributed a copy of those conditions to
the Board members.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Benish to explain the revisions. Mr. Benish said it is the description in the
staff report for the Fan Mountain tower. The seven-foot by five-foot array is changed. There is a more
complicated description which the applicant can explain. Condition 2.c. is amended from that shown in the
staff's report.
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 was placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas noted that the map in the staff report for Fan Mountain is incorrect. She mentions this
because the maps have been much better recently. Motion was then made by Ms. Thomas, seconded by
Mr. Rooker, to approve SP-2003-031, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission. 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 for SP-2003-031 are set out in full below.)
The tower shall not be increased in height;
The additional antenna may be attached only as follows:
a. The highest portions of the antennas shall not exceed one hundred and
sixty-five (165) feet above ground;
b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height nor two (2) feet in
width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
c. The antennas shall be mounted no further than two (2) feet from the tower
structure; and
d. The antennas subject to this approval may be replaced administratively,
provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the
replacement antennas are as proposed by the applicant;
With the exception of the safety lighting required by Federal Aviation Administration
regulations, outdoor lighting shall be permitted only during maintenance periods;
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire that is not required for
safety shall be fully shielded as required by Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance;
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, but
not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower;
and
The tower and all supporting facilities shall be disassembled and removed from
the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications
purposes is discontinued.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve SP-2003-032, with
the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The tower shall not be increased in height;
The additional antenna may be attached only as follows:
a. The antenna design shall be as shown on the attached brochure, entitled
"Ground Plane Omni Antenna", dated July 8, 2003;
b. The highest portions of the antenna shall not exceed one hundred four
(104) feet above ground;
c. The new antenna shall be attached to the tower by two mounting brackets
at ninety-seven (97) and ninety-nine (99) feet above ground. The
mounting brackets shall extend no more than five (5) feet from the tower
structure. The center pole of the antenna shall be mounted no further
than six (6) feet from the face of the tower structure. The maximum height
of the antenna shall not exceed eighty (80) inches. The height above the
base plate shall not exceed sixty (60) inches. The maximum width shall
not exceed thirteen (13) feet. The antenna shall be a color that matches
the tower;
d. All ground equipment related to this antenna shall be contained within the
existing building; and
e. The antenna subject to this approval may be replaced administratively,
provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the
replacement antenna is as proposed by the applicant.
With the exception of the safety lighting required by Federal Aviation Administration
regulations, outdoor lighting shall be permitted only during maintenance periods;
regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire that is not required for
safety shall be fully shielded as required by Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance;
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning administrator once per year, but
not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower;
and
The tower and all supporting facilities shall be disassembled and removed from
the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless communications
purposes it is discontinued.
Agenda Item No. 20. Ivy Creek Agricultural/Forestal District Review. Public hearing on an
ordinance to amend section 3-127, Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District, of Division 2, Districts, of
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts Administration,
of the Albemarle County. The proposed ordinance would remove TMPs 44-21 and 45-3C from the district,
would identify TMP 45-4C as being in the district, would extend the current seven year district review period
to ten years, and would set the next district review date deadline of July 9,2013. (Notice of this public
hearing was published in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 2003.)
Mr. Benish said the Ivy Creek Ag/Forest District was created in November, 1988, and included 578
acres. This is time for the regular review before reapproval of the district. There have been withdrawals
with this application, and within the time frame allowed for withdrawal. These withdrawals total
approximately 240 acres. The Ivy Creek District has been on a seven-year review cycle. Recent County
policy has been to extend these time lines to ten years. Staff is recommending that extension in this case.
Members of the district were notified by letter, and no one has expressed a concern about the change. The
withdrawal of the Wingfleld property means that the central core of the district is gone, but it still meets the
requirements for an Ag-Forest District.
Mr. Rooker asked why the property is being withdrawn. Mr. Benish said the applicant requested
that the property be withdrawn several years ago for the purpose of subdivision. That request was not
timely, and was denied.
Ms. Thomas said the Planning Commission had asked that staff make some determination about
the easement on the Wingfield property. She asked if the whole property is under a conservation
easement, or if the part of the property containing the house is under an historic easement. Mr. Benish said
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
he does not have that information, but believes it is the house. The Ag-Forest District Advisory Committee
recommended reapproval of the district.
Ms. Thomas said she understood that the Wingfield was deeded to the University of Virginia. She
asked if that is correct. Mr. Benish said it will be owned by the University even if the transaction has not
been completed.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt An Ordinance to amend
and reordain Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 3-217, Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal
District.
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 ordinance, as adopted, it is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 03-3(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE
SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, it is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By amending:
Sec. 3-217 Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-217 Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of
the following described properties: Tax map 44, parcels 20, 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20E,
20F, 20G, 21 D, 35, 35A; tax map 45, parcels 5F, 5F4, 7A. This district, created on
November 2, 1988, for not more than seven years, since amended at its last review on July
9, 2003, to continue for not more than ten years, shall next be reviewed prior to July 9,
2013.
(4-14-93; 2-14-96; Code 1988, 2.1-4(n); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 03-3(1), 7-9-03)
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker asked that Mr. Davis give a status report on the Hollymead proffers since the request is
scheduled to be heard next week.
Mr. Davis said the Area B proffers were revised and submitted after five o'clock on July 3. The
Area D proffers were received on Monday of this week. The Area C proffers were received yesterday. Staff
made a concerted effort to review those proffers today. There are still a lot of problems. The developers
placed a lot of conditions on how they will address the transportation improvements. The proffers are not
seamless in how community development authorities are being proffered. One set of proffers says they will
only participate if all the property owners do likewise. The other two sets of proffers say that part of their
properties will not participate. There are conditions placed on whether or not the road improvements will be
made, tied to whether or not VDOT approves their plans within 60 days of submittal. Staff hopes that
sometime tomorrow there will be comments ready to go back to each of the developers. He thinks it will be
ambitious for them to address the concerns staff has raised, revise the proffers, and get them back to the
Board with staff having an opportunity to review the revised proffers by next Wednesday. There is a lot of
work to be done between now and Wednesday.
Mr. Rooker asked ifVDOT has had an opportunity to comment on the proffers. Mr. Davis said staff
has not seen any VDOT comments yet. He said VDOT is less likely to have an immediate review of the
proffers.
Mr. Bowerman said the developer of Area B is about $1.5 million short. That is the money for the
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
800+ foot alignment of the southbound lane. They will not be able to come up with the money, so the issue
is whether Mr. Wood comes up with the money. That is a major issue of substance which is in addition to
the problems Mr. Davis mentioned.
Mr. Benish said there is a meeting scheduled with VDOT tomorrow or the next day with at least one
applicant.
Mr. Rooker said the County does not know at this time whether or not VDOT will support a
crossover. Mr. Tucker said VDOT supported the conditions listed in Attachment A to the staff's report.
Mr. Davis said he does not find that Mr. Runkle's proposal is inconsistent with what this Board is
looking for. He said Dr. Hurt is now proffering the same thing. Residential would not be included voluntarily
in a CDA, but they would accept the non-residential. In these proffers, they are agreeing to contribute a
dollar amount per unit; although a different dollar amount than what the other developer is proposing. The
proffers are not consistent with each other as to how they would address the impact. One other major issue
is that they are not at this time willing to proffer the right-of-way for the third, through lane in addition to the
existing right-of-way, which is what VDOT wants. VDOT does not want to give up their existing right-of-way
for the third lane. He said that is a stumbling block at this time with VDOT. Some of the staff comments
sent back with the Area B comments were not addressed at all.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to him to get a report to know what they addressed and what
they did not address. Mr. Tucker said staff is going to draw up a map showing the comparisons between
the proffers.
Mr. Benish said staff will not be providing any additional recommendations, but will furnish a map
and a table indicating what each applicant has proffered.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board will have to do the best it can with the information it has.
Mr. Rooker said these are the three most important zoning requests presented to the County in
years. The public will be trying to respond to a moving target right up until time for the meeting. At the last
meeting, the applicants did not want to delay, but the Board made it clear that they needed to respond
quickly with their proffers.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board can have the public meeting, but not act on the requests.
Mr. Rooker said he is concerned about holding a public hearing with "floating proffers." Mr. Tucker
said when staff gets all the developers "on the same page", there will not be as much movement.
Hopefully, staff will be able to figure out which developers are off and give them some directions. Staff
thought the proffers would be received at the same time, but that did not happen. Mr. Benish said he does
not think anything can be drafted and put out by staff by Monday. The Department is two planners short
and others are on vacation for the week.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board will be holding the public hearing based on proffers in hand
although staff's comment will not be available.
Mr. Davis said that by Friday the Board will have the road map, the comments from staff, and what
staff has suggested to the developers in the way of changes. The Board will probably not have any
changes from the developers addressing changes staff may want them to make.
Ms. Thomas suggested putting something on the web-site about what is going on.
Mr. Dorrier said he would put some message on the web-site about these requests.
Ms. Thomas said she was surprised at Mr. Bill Brent's response about the extension of a waterline
to Ivy. The public that brought up this question was concerned with the cost. She said the consultants said
today that growth on Route 250 must be kept down, or it will be a failing roadway. It will work if Crozet
develops as proposed, but it will not work with sprawl from Charlottesville to Crozet. Not extending water
service along Route 250 West has been an important component of the County's plans. The Albemarle
County Service Authority has apparently always had the authority from the County to extend their water
service. Mr. Brent said Route 250 West is in their service area boundaries for water service. If that is true,
she thinks service should be to "existing structures only."
Mr. Rooker said that is not what Mr. Brent said. Ms. Thomas said the Board needs to have stafftell
it exactly what service area is there. The Board might want to take quick action to change it. She does not
want to make it any easier to have sprawl on Route 250.
Mr. Martin said he thinks Mr. Brent misspoke.
Mr. Benish said since 1980, the Board has been fairly consistent in allowing water service only to
existing structures. The policy has been to allow service only where there are services with health, safety
and welfare. He said staffwill look at the map to see what might have been allowed early in the process
where those conditions were not applied.
(July 9, 2003 - Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 10/22/2003
Initials: GAS