2003-09-10(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 10, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter
F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no matters presented.
Agenda Item No. 5. ACE Recognition. Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. Joan McDowell, Principal Planner for
the Rural Areas, to come forward and speak.
Ms. McDowell said the second round of ACE applications has been completed. This program
began with a vision and foresight by the Board of Supervisors and the citizens of the County to find a way to
permanently protect rural lands. Albemarle was the second jurisdiction in the State to initiate this type of
program. Now, six counties and one city, have similar programs. Two of those counties modeled their
programs after that of Albemarle. With the acceptance of this second round, 2202 acres of land in the
County will have been permanently protected. She said the celebration tonight will include a virtual tour of
the second round of ACE properties. She will then introduce the ACE recipients, and give them signs which
identify the ACE properties. After that, Ms. Sherry Buttrick, ACE Committee Chairwoman, will speak.
Next to speak was Mr. Ches Goodall, Manager of the County's ACE Program. Mr. Goodall thanked
the Board members for being committed to this program. Many people in the County have said it is an
outstanding program, so much so that people around the State are copying the program, namely, Clarke
County who even wanted to copy Albemarle's brochure. In the first round of the ACE program, easements
acquired on four farms protected 1045 acres, eliminated 102 potential development lots and protected 502
acres of prime farmland. This year, in the second round, easements obtained on five properties protected
1157 acres, eliminated 51 development lots and protected 284 acres of prime farmland.
Mr. Goodall then explained how each property chosen for the second round was rated according to
the ACE criteria. He showed pictures of each property chosen in round two.
Mr. Dorrier asked that Mr. Goodall explain for the public the restrictions placed on ACE properties.
Mr. Goodall said the main restrictions have to do with commercial use, or development of the property,
which is not completely restricted. Like many conservation easements, ACE owners retain the right to farm
their land as they have in the past, to manage the timber as they have in the past, as long as they do it
responsibly and with regard to protecting water quality. The easement mainly protects open space from
development, and commercial uses. It does not limit landowners in terms of how they manage their
property, and how they can make a living on the property. To date, the County has acquired easements on
nine farms, protected 2200 acres, eliminated 153 potential development lots and protected 786 acres of
prime farmland. Round 3 properties have been appraised, and staff is moving forward on closing on those
properties. Recently, the deadline for taking applications for Round 4 was extended to September 30,
2003.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Goodall would recognize the property owners who were present. Mr.
Goodall said three of the landowners from this year are present. He said Mr. Byrom is not here tonight, but
he and his children wrote a letter to the Board last year, and he read a couple of paragraphs from that
letter. In the letter dated February 21,2003, Mr. Bryom and his children indicated their individual and
collective support for the goals of the ACE program. They hoped that their farm "Cottonwood" would be
among the properties selected for the program. They thanked the Board for its support of the program, and
said "the use of public/private partnerships in general, and conservation easements in particular, for
preserving natural landscapes, animal habitats, and environmental resources, is the best way for
government to positively influence public landowner actions in this vital sphere of public policy."
Mr. Goodall said Mr. Jason Pollock is also not present, but will receive a sign and a post on which
to install the sign. He then introduced Mr. and Mrs. Hughes, Mr. Jim Hart and Mr. and Ms. Hugh Gildea and
their family.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick, on behalf of the ACE Committee, thanked all applicants for the ACE program
to date for their conservation ethic. Without the landowner's desire to protect their land, no effort to protect
the rural areas of Albemarle County can success. She thanked the Supervisors for Ches Goodall and for
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
its continuing support of ACE in the budget. It was always said that a conservation easement program was
a long-term commitment, and the Board has been as good as its word. She said the ACE program is
proving its value. There are more than 2202 acres which have been protected permanently. There are
over 1500 acres in process that the Committee hopes can be protected in Round 3. They are working to
conclude Route 3 by the end of 2003. The program is currently taking applications for Round 4. The ACE
Committee encourages rural landowners to consider making an application and looking into the program.
It is possible that by the end of this year, 5000 acres will have been protected. This is a realistic goal, and if
this can be done, the Committee will have accomplished more than originally expected. She said the ACE
Committee is grateful to the Board for making this program available to landowners, and making it a gift to
Albemarle County.
Mr.
the County.
Committee.
Dorrier thanked Ms. Buttrick, and said the Board appreciates all the landowners have done for
The Board appreciates the work of Mr. Goodall, Ms. Buttrick and the members of the ACE
He asked for comments from Board members.
Ms. Thomas said she has heard a lot of praise for the County's program from around the State.
But, none of it would be possible without the landowners being willing to participate.
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Mr. Rooker said he would recuse himself from participating
in the Consent Agenda. He has a client who has an interest in a matter on the consent agenda. (A written
disclosure of the personal interest is on file in the Clerk's office.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve Items 6.2 and 6.4 on the Consent Agenda and to
accept Items 6.5 through 6.7 as information. Item 6.1 was removed from the agenda and Item 6.3 was the
subject of a separate motion and vote.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Rooker.
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: March 17(A), 2003.
No minutes had been read. This item will be moved to the next agenda.
Item 6.2. Adopt Resolution Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds in an Amount not to Exceed
$9,000,000 for the MJH Foundation.
It was noted in the staff's report that the Martha Jefferson Hospital (MJH) Foundation requested
that the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, assist the Foundation, or any
corporation related to the Foundation, in financing a portion of the costs related to the acquisition of
approximately 70 acres of land at Peter Jefferson Place on Route 250 East in the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, by the issuance of its revenue bonds, in one or more series, from time to time, in an amount not to
exceed $9,000,000.
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority, the Authority agreed to issue its Bonds as requested.
The Authority conducted a public hearing on the proposed financing of the Project and recommends that
the Board of Supervisors approve the issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Forwarded with the staff's report was a certificate evidencing the conduct of the Authority's public hearing
and the action taken by the Authority, the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia Code
Section 15.2-4907, and the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence the Supervisors' approval.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution approving
the request:
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
("Authority"), has considered the application of MJH Foundation (the "Foundation")
requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed
$9,000,000 ("Bonds") to assist the Foundation, or any corporation related to the
Foundation, in the financing of a portion of the costs related to the Foundation's
acquisition of approximately 70 acres of land at Peter Jefferson Place on Route 250 East
("Project") in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and has held a public hearing on
September 9, 2003;
WHEREAS, Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
(the "Code"), provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of
private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of
private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia ("County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected
governmental unit of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the
issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the
Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a
Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of
the Foundation, as required by Section 147(0 of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the
Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") to permit the Authority to assist in
the financing of the Project.
The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement
to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the
Foundation.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Item 6.3. Appeal: ARB-2003-114. Seminole Plaza Landscape Changes (deferred from
September 3, 2003).
It was noted in the staff's report that on September 3, 2003, the Board deferred taking action on this
request due to the applicant's absence from the Board meeting. This item was rescheduled for the
September 10 consent agenda.
By approving this request on the consent agenda the Board would be upholding the decision of the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) to deny the application as presented. The ARB recommended that the
undersized Dogwood tree in the southwest island be replaced with a 2 1/2" caliper tree of a species to be
administratively approved by staff.
(Discussion: Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Bob Brugh is present. He asked if he would like to speak.
Mr. Brugh said he was present to request that he be allowed to keep a growing, healthy dogwood
tree even though this dogwood tree is seven inches shorter than that allowed by the ARB. He said the
minimum caliper tree was not available in the local market, or from their suppliers when the original
planting took place. He asked someone from the Dogwood Festival to see if they could secure the tree
from their Tennessee supplier. The Festival supplier was able to get him two 2 1/2" caliper trees. He lost
both of those trees, and he was not able to get replacements of the same size. He had a second and third
plantings, but one tree was destroyed by a delivery truck. He planted the largest trees he could secure, but
they were not 2 1/2" caliper. The second tree at the other location was snapped by having sleet pushed
onto it last winter. Then, there was a third planting at that location of a dogwood tree secured locally. Both
of the trees are approximately 1 1/2" caliper.
Mr. Brugh said the ARB allowed one tree to remain, but disallowed the other tree because it was
only 60 inches in height. The tree, measured yesterday, is 65 inches, or seven inches shorter than that
allowed at the other location. On each occasion, the trees were replaced with the largest trees that could
be found at the time. He has been told that the present healthy trees, although smaller than the site plan
requirement, will outgrow the 2 1/2" caliper trees, although it would take a few years. He said since the tree
is too small, the ARB thinks it is making an impact on the entrance corridor. He takes exception to that
statement. He is asking that the Board not make him pull up a tree that is seven inches too short, which
going by the growth it has demonstrated, by this time next year, will be equal to the requirement for a seven-
foot tree. That is what the ARB approved for the other tree on the upper part of the lot. He said that if a
new tree is planted, it will take a number of trips to that location to water a new tree.
Mr. Rooker suggested that this item be pulled from the Consent Agenda and it be dealt with as a
separate item.
Mr. Brugh said it was his haste to get a tree replanted after the other trees were destroyed, that led
to this problem. Also, he was highly influenced by the experts who said it would be best to plant a smaller
tree due to the water shortage at the time.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees that Mr. Brugh was not trying to get around the ARB requirements.
He does not want to do anything more with this appeal.
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Brugh filed an appeal with the ARB after being cited. The ARB voted
unanimously to stand by its decision that the tree needed to be removed. This information was before the
Board at the last meeting, but the Board deferred the request because the applicant was not present. He
said Mr. Brugh did not present anything today that was not in the letter he sent to the Board, and which was
included with the materials for this appeal. At the last meeting it was mentioned that the difference between
a 2 1/2" caliper tree and 1 1/2" caliper tree is fairly significant. As to height, a 2 1/2" caliper tree would
probably be between ten and twelve feet in height. He said Mr. Brugh was given the option of using a
different type of tree. He does not think there is enough information in the packet for the Board to overturn
the ARB's decision.
Mr. Brugh said he did not know about the option to plant a different type of tree.
Ms. Thomas said she asked staff why they speak in terms of calipers. The response was that the
ARB is trying to get an immediate impact with its landscaping decisions. Having a tree with a big trunk
means the tree is of a relatively mature size and will have an immediate impact. They have required that of
the landowners in other landscaping decisions along Route 29 North. That is her basis for thinking the ARB
made the right decision in this case. They did not make this case special. The ARB made the same
demands of this landowner that they made on other landowners up and down Route 29 North.
Mr. Brugh said one reason he was in trouble had to do with the drought. The water factor was the
reason he lost those trees. He thinks some consideration should be given in that respect.
Mr. Rooker moved that the Board sustain the decision of the ARB. The motion was seconded by
Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Martin said he would like to hear Mr. Perkins' opinion.
Mr. Perkins said he does not know what he can add, other than to say that the larger the tree, the
more difficult it is to transplant, and the lower the survival rate, and the more the tree costs. He knows the
County wants an impact from the time the tree is planted. He feels that there is something in place, and
probably within another year or so it would meet the requirements. The height is not always the ratio to the
caliper. Atree of 2 1/2" caliper is not always going to be 40 percent taller than a 1 1/2" caliper tree. It
depends on the species.
Ms. Thomas said the ARB's ruling was that the caliper be the important factor and not the height.
Also, it could be any type of tree, rather than it having to be a dogwood of a certain height.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Brugh if the first trees planted met the ARB's guidelines. Mr. Brugh said
"yes."
vote:
At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked for a call of the roll. The motion failed by the following recorded
AYES: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
Mr. Davis said the Board needs to take some action as to what it will approve. The motion simply
said the Board would sustain the decision of the ARB. Now the Board needs to take an affirmative action.
Mr. Bowerman said because of the efforts made in trying to meet the ARB requirements, it was
unfortunate they couldn't be met. He thinks Mr. Brugh has made a good faith attempt to deal with what the
ARB originally wanted, so he moved that the Board be allowed to approve the trees as they are planted.
Mr. Davis said the Board is only dealing with one tree. The motion should allow the one tree to
remain as planted, and if it is replaced, it would have to meet the requirements at that time.
Mr. Perkins said this means that if the present tree dies, he would have to go back to the original 2
1/2" caliper tree.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks it would be best if that were included as part of the motion. The site
plan still required a tree with a 2 1/2" caliper and a certain height.
Mr. Bowerman said the site plan should be updated to show that the current tree is the one shown
on the site plan. It would not have to be a larger caliper tree or a taller tree.
Mr. Martin said what Ms. Thomas wants is for the Board to say it is approving this particular tree to
be the size it is, but if this tree dies he will have to follow the original site plan.
Mr. Rooker said this particular tree is being approved in lieu of what the site plan requires.
Ms. Thomas said she would rather have the wording say "if the tree dies, it will be replaced by the
ARB's standard recommendation". The original site plan had a contradiction of a certain size and a certain
height, and dogwood trees don't meet those requirements.
Mr. Perkins asked if the site plan calls for a dogwood, or another tree.
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Bowerman said the tree can be another species.
Ms. Thomas said the ARB said it could be any species. But, the person who drew the site plan had
this contradiction.
Mr. Davis said he would suggest that the motion be: "The Board of Supervisors approves the
location of the tree to be satisfied by the existing tree or a 2 1/2" caliber species administratively approved
by staff." That way, the existing tree satisfies the requirement, but if it ever dies it would have to meet the
site plan requirement of a 2 1/2" caliper tree.
Mr. Bowerman said he would move the language the County Attorney just outlined. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
Item 6.4. Authorize County Executive to execute new Agreement between the County of
Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and the Charlottesville Albemarle Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (SPCA).
It was noted in the staff's report that the SPCA owns and operates an Animal Shelter in the County
and has served as the County's Animal Shelter since 1956. Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville desire that the SPCA continue, at its Animal Shelter, to impound and care for all animals
delivered by representatives of the local governing bodies, and receive and impound stray animals turned in
by residents who are not the owners of the animals, in accordance with Va. Code. 3.1-796.96. The prior
agreement with the SPCA, executed in 1977, needs to be updated to reflect changes in operational funding
and to include the County's capital contributions for the new SPCA facility.
The purpose of the Agreement is to set forth the terms, conditions and compensation that
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville agree to pay to the SPCA for care of such animals on an
annual basis and to set forth the terms, conditions and compensation the local governing bodies will pay to
the SPCA for construction of the new SPCA facility. Funding for the County's contribution for the
construction of the new SPCA facility is included in the County's FY 2003-07 CIP. FY 2003-04 funding for
SPCA operations was approved by the Board as part of the budget process and is included in the County's
annual operating budget.
This Agreement was developed in coordination with the City of Charlottesville's City Manager's
Office, the City and County Animal Control Officers and the Director of the SPCA, and has been reviewed
and approved by the City and County's Attorneys' Offices. The City plans to request authorization from their
City Council to execute this agreement in September, 2003. Staff recommends that the Board authorize
the County Executive to execute the agreement on behalf of the County.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked if the provisions in the agreement calling for payment of $100.00
per dog, and $100.00 for some of the cats, is based on some statewide standard. Mr. Tucker said he
believes that Albemarle County is the only one having that formula and he hopes the Board does not
change it. It took a long time to work that out with the SPCA. The current budget is based on this formula.
Mr. Bowerman asked the previous formula. Mr. Thomas said it was about $10.00 per dog. Mr.
Tucker said the budget approved for this fiscal year showed an increase of about 33 percent. The budget
was based on figures in the agreement, although it is just being presented for approval.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to sign the
following agreement between the County of Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville, and the
Charlottesville Albemarle Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, on behalf of the County.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this __ day of ,2003 by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (the "County"), the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (the
"City")(collectively referred to hereinafter as the "local governing bodies") and the
CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY
TO ANIMALS ("SPCA"), a Virginia nonstock corporation.
1. Purpose.
SPCA owns and operates an Animal Shelter in the County. It is desired by all the
parties that SPCA will, at its Animal Shelter, impound and care for all animals delivered
by representatives of the local governing bodies, and receive and impound stray animals
as turned in by residents of the local governing bodies who are not the owners of the
animals, in accordance with Va. Code. 3.1-796.96, as amended, and associated state
regulations.
The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms, conditions and
compensation that the local governing bodies agree to pay to SPCA for care of such
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
animals on an annual basis and to set forth the terms, conditions and compensation the
local governing bodies will pay to SPCA for construction of the new SPCA facility.
2. Definitions.
Animal: Shall not include agricultural animals
Animal Shelter: Means a facility, other than a private residential dwelling and its
surrounding grounds, that is used to house or contain animals and that is owned,
operated, or maintained by a nongovernmental entity including, but not limited to, a
humane society, animal welfare organization, society for the prevention of cruelty to
animals, or any other organization operating for the purpose of finding permanent
adoptive homes for animals.
Biting Animals: Animals that have bitten a person.
Killer Dogs: Dogs that have killed or injured valuable livestock or a pet belonging to a
person other than the owner.
Owned Dogs or Cats: Dogs or cats previously adopted out by the SPCA shelter or dogs
or cats whose owners are known or discovered during the period of stay at the SPCA
shelter.
Rightful Owner: A person with a right of property in the animal
Stray Dogs or Cats: Dogs or cats for whom no owner is known at the time of receipt at
the SPCA shelter or discovered prior to disposition either by adoption or destruction.
3. Term of A.qreement.
This Agreement shall be effective on July 1,2003, and shall continue in effect for
one year. The Agreement shall automatically renew for periods of one calendar year
unless terminated by any or all of the parties hereto upon one (1) calendar year written
notice.
4. Compensation for Annual Operations Costs.
The local governing bodies agree to pay a reasonable fee to SPCA for board
and associated costs for the City's and County's stray dogs and cats. Compensation will
be based on the most recent annual Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services Animal Report filed prior to the local governing bodies' ensuing fiscal year's
budget cycle submitted with the SPCA's budget request. Funding will be adjusted to
reflect submission of the prior year's annual State animal record report numbers, if SPCA
submits the report to the local governing bodies by January 15th of each year.
SPCA will maintain records regarding the number of cats and dogs received at
the shelter from each local governing body. These records will be used to distinguish
cost allocation for the City and the County and any adjustments on an annual basis.
The local governing bodies agree to make payments to SPCA on a quarterly
basis.
5. Payment Formula.
The local governing bodies will pay SPCA an annual fee based on a specific
formula and reimbursement rate. The formula is based on the cost of what the local
governing bodies could reasonably expect to pay to provide an animal pound that meets
Virginia law and regulations. The daily reimbursement rate may be reexamined and
revised by written agreement of all parties to this Agreement.
a. Calculation of Rate for Do.qs:
Rate paid per dog is based on SPCA's annual Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services Animal Report preceding the local
governing bodies' annual budget submittal process. Rate is $100 per
dog, in accordance with the following fee formula:
b. Fee Formula for Doqs:
Identify total number of dogs identified on the annual Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Animal
Report
Subtract the number of dogs "surrendered by owners"
Subtotal, and subtract number of dogs "on hand" as of January
1
Subtotal, and subtract the number of dogs "reclaimed by
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
owners"
Total remaining number of dogs and multiply by rate of $100 per
animal for total fee to be paid by local governing bodies
Divide fee by each jurisdiction, based on shelter records of
location where animals were found
c. Calculation of Rate for Cats:
Rate paid per cat is based on SPCA's annual Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services Animal Report of the year preceding
the local governing bodies annual budget submittal process. Rate is
$100 per cat brought to the Animal Shelter by the local Animal Control
Officers (herein referred to as ACOs). Rate is $50 per cat brought to the
Animal Shelter by residents of the City or the County in accordance with
the following fee formula.
d. Fee Formula for Cats:
4.
5.
6.
Identify total number of cats based on the Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services Animal Report
Subtract the number of cats "surrendered by owners" from this
number
Subtotal, and subtract the number of cats "on hand" as of
January 1
Subtotal, and subtract the number of cats "reclaimed by owners"
Identify the number of cats brought in to the shelter by ACOs
Subtract the total number of cats brought into the shelter by
ACO's from the total number of cats identified at the end of step
4
Multiply the number of cats identified in #5 by $100 and the
number of cats identified in #6 by $50 for total fee paid by local
governing bodies
Divide fee by each jurisdiction, based on shelter records
identifying the location where animals were found
SPCA agrees to keep and maintain detailed written records of any unexpected or
unusual expenses incurred to shelter cats and dogs in accordance with this Agreement
and applicable laws and regulations. The local governing bodies will consider providing
funds for these expenses as part of their regular annual budgeting schedule, it being
expressly understood that the local governing bodies are not obligated to provide such
funds.
6. Fines.
Compensation is based on results listed on SPCA's annual Virginia Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services Animal Report from the previous year and subject
to SPCA's adherence to Virginia law or regulations. If the State charges the local
governing bodies fines or civil penalties for any violations by SPCA of Virginia law or
regulations, then the City and/or County shall have the right to set-off the amount of the
fine from the next-owing quarterly payment due to the SPCA pursuant to this Agreement.
7. Capital Contributions.
SPCA will construct a new Animal Shelter facility in accordance with the plans
approved in 2001 by the local governing bodies and State veterinarian officials. The
facility is scheduled for completion in 2004. If the facility is not built or completed, SPCA
will return all capital contributions received from the local governing bodies to each
locality. The facility shall be constructed and maintained in strict accordance with all
Virginia laws and regulations regarding animal shelter facilities.
Subject to annual appropriations by the City and County, each local governing
body agrees to make a capital contribution of $50,000 to SPCA on an annual basis for a
period of five (5) years beginning fiscal year 2002-03, for a total contribution of $250,000
per jurisdiction. Such capital contributions will be made by each locality to the SPCA
shortly after July 1 of each year.
8. Responsibilities of SPCA.
a. General Responsibilities.
SPCA agrees to:
Impound and care for all animals delivered by the local
governing bodies
Place, hold or euthanize all animals not properly redeemed per
Virginia law
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Provide animal treatment and controlled drugs for euthanasia
and other needs and all applicable license and documentation
per Virginia law and applicable state and federal regulations
Maintain and publicize appropriate hours of operation at the
Animal Shelter
Maintain accurate written accounts of all animals impounded
and the jurisdictions in which they were found
Permit authorized representatives of the local governing bodies
to inspect records within 48 hours of request
Carry out all procedures required by Virginia law and regulations
and local ordinances, including those for impounded animals
that have bitten a person
Respond to any violations that are identified in annual State
inspections in a timely manner
Allow access to the Animal Shelter 24 hours per day for the
local governing bodies' ACO personnel
Properly dispose of euthanized animals
Provide regular maintenance and cleaning of pound areas in
accordance with Virginia law and regulations
Make available dog runs and cat holding facilities available at all
times for stray animals delivered to SPCA by ACOs
Provide all reasonable and necessary vet care and vaccinations
Meet all other responsibilities and obligations applicable to the
operations of animal pounds or shelters under Virginia law and
regulations
b. After-Hours Responsibilities.
Effective July 1,2004, SPCA staffwill handle, including pick-up, all injured dog
and cat calls within the County weekdays from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from
4:30 p.m. Saturday thru 9:00 a.m. on Monday, holidays included.
Effective July 1,2004, SPCA staffwill handle, including pick up, all injured dog
and cat calls within the City weekdays from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., except
Saturday when coverage will end at 8:00 a.m., and from 4:30 p.m. Saturday
through 7:00 a.m. on Monday, holidays included.
Prior to this date, ACOs for the County and City will continue to handle all injured
dog and cat calls, including pick-up, within their respective jurisdictions.
If SPCA does not begin assuming after-hours responsibilities as outlined in this
section effective July 1,2004, the actual costs incurred by the County and City
for after-hour services after July 1,2004, will be deducted from the County's and
City's subsequent compensation payment for annual operations to the SPCA.
c. Emerqenc¥ Access.
SPCA will provide a reasonably protected area or access to appropriate facilities
to the ACOs for emergencies and after hours use.
d. Emerqenc¥ Planning.
SPCA will develop and practice an evacuation plan for a major shelter disaster
and a plan for sheltering community animals abandoned or running loose in
case of a natural disaster in the area.
e. Iniured or Diseased Animals.
Critically injured or critically ill animals may be destroyed immediately at the
discretion of SPCA in accordance with State regulations.
Dangerous Feral Doqs or Cats.
Any feral dog or cat that does not bear a form of identification and that exhibits
behavior posing risk to any person can be euthanized, after being kept for a
period of not less than three days, one of which must be a full business day, in
accordance with Virginia law and regulations.
g. Biting Animals.
Stray biting animals shall be confined in accordance with Virginia law and
regulations. If someone other than the local ACO delivers a biting animal to
SPCA, SPCA shall notify the local office of the Virginia Department of Health.
SPCA will be responsible for working with the Health Department to ensure that,
in accordance with Health Department regulations and state law, stray biting
animals are released to SPCA at the end of the ten-day confinement period once
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
they have been deemed to be disease-free. Once these animals have been
released to the custody and care of SPCA, it shall assume sole responsibility for
determining whether they are suitable for adoption.
h. Non-resident Dogs.
If a dog is delivered to SPCA from somewhere outside of the physical boundaries
of the City or County, the local governing bodies shall not be charged for the
dog's care.
Properly Licensed Dogs.
SPCA shall shelter properly licensed dogs for the time period required by Virginia
law and regulations.
Licensinq and Vaccination.
SPCA shall not deliver any dog or cat for adoption or return any owned dog or
cat to its owner unless the animal is or will be properly licensed and vaccinated,
unless the SPCA is directed otherwise for medical reasons by licensed
veterinarians.
k. Monthly Records.
SPCA shall maintain supporting records for the Animal Shelter operation.
Records shall include, at a minimum, data identifying the date an animal is
brought to the Animal Shelter, the jurisdiction in which a stray animal was found
(including specific addresses), the applicable jurisdiction of the ACO, if involved,
and final disposition of each animal. SPCA shall establish and maintain an
automated data mechanism that will establish whether an animal has been
brought into the Animal Shelter from the County or the City. SPCA agrees to
provide a monthly report to the ACOs of each jurisdiction.
Supporting records may be modified from time to time by mutual consent of the
parties. Records shall be available for inspection by representatives by local
governing bodies.
9. Responsibilities of local governing bodies.
a. General Responsibilities.
To compensate SPCA in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement on a quarterly basis;
To deliver to the Animal Shelter dogs confiscated for running at
large in the jurisdiction;
To designate an official from the jurisdiction with whom
communication is to be made;
To require ACOs to comply with reasonable rules and
regulations of facility;
To allow all animals not claimed by rightful owners to be turned
over to the SPCA allowing it to place the animal for adoption or
euthanization, at its discretion; provided that ACO personnel
shall have the opportunity to provide input with regard to any
animals eligible for adoption if the ACO personnel feels that the
animal may be a danger or hazard to the community; and
To permit SPCA to have control over all animals upon delivery
by ACOs to the Animal Shelter, subject to provisions of local
ordinances and Virginia law and regulations.
b. Specific Responsibilities.
County ACOs will handle all stray dogs and injured animal calls
in the County between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. County ACOs will handle emergency calls at other
hours at the request of the on-duty County Police Department
supervisor.
City ACOs will handle all stray dogs and injured animal calls in
the City between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. City ACOs will handle emergency calls at other hours at
the request of the on-duty City Police Department supervisor.
County and City ACOs will not handle routine stray cat calls
unless the stray animal poses a health hazard.
If a stray biting dog is picked up by ACO, the ACO must notify
the local office of the Virginia Department of Health.
10. General Animal Shelter Procedures.
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Except for emergencies, animals should be brought to the Animal
Shelter weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and between 8:00
and 6:00 on Wednesdays, or during such hours as the parties may
mutually agree.
Check-in procedures shall be developed in conjunction with the local
governing bodies' ACOs and in accordance with Va. Code. 3.1-796.96,
as amended, and associated regulations.
Owned dogs turned over to ACOs for disposal shall have an admittance
form with owner's signature.
ACOs shall leave dead dogs in established area for SPCA staff to
examine prior to cremation.
ACOs or SPCA representatives shall write descriptions of dogs, locations
found, and cause of death.
ACOs must complete a form that includes the owner's name and
telephone number when bringing biting animals to the shelter.
Questions concerning disposal of dogs shall be referred to the SPCA
Shelter Manager.
ACOs shall not mark dogs for euthanasia unless reasons are provided in
writing.
ACOs shall not perform euthanasia functions.
Procedures for injured wild animals: The SPCA does not handle deer or
large wild animals. Small wounded wild animal can be brought to the
SPCA, and they will transport the animal to the Waynesboro wildlife
facility.
Further written procedures governing animal check-in will be developed in
collaboration with the City and County Police Departments and SPCA staff, and will be
followed by the local governing bodies, ACOs, and SPCA staff. The SPCA Executive
Director or Shelter Manager, the Albemarle County Executive or designee, and the City
Manager of Charlottesville or designee can propose amendments to procedures. To be
effective, these amendments must be adopted by written agreement of the SPCA,
County, and City representatives.
11. Liability and Insurance Requirements.
SPCA shall maintain sufficient insurance to protect it and the City and County
from any claims that may arise from SPCA operations under this Agreement. Such
insurance shall meet or exceed the minimum coverage requirements established by the
City and County, if applicable. Such coverage may be provided by commercial carriers
or by self-insurance or a combination of both. A certificate from the insurance carrier
providing the insurance shall be filed with the City and County prior to the execution of this
Agreement, naming the City and County as additional insureds.
SPCA shall at all times indemnify and hold harmless the City and County and
their respective employees, representatives, officials and agents from all liability, claims,
demands, damages, actions, suits, proceedings, costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees, of any kind or nature whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or resulting directly
or indirectly from SPCA operations under this Agreement.
12. Governinq Law.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws and regulations of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and applicable ordinances of the City of Charlottesville and
County of Albemarle.
13. Complete Agreement; Amendments.
This Agreement constitutes the final expression of the parties and supersedes all
previous agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, relating to the rights
and responsibilities of the parties. This Agreement may not be altered, amended,
modified, or changed except by written instrument executed by duly authorized
representatives of all parties hereto.
14. Nonappropriation.
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
This Agreement is subject to the approval, ratification and annual appropriations
by the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle of the necessary money to fund
this Agreement for succeeding fiscal years.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties do hereby set forth their signatures,
representing that the individuals who affix their signatures hereto have been duly
authorized to bind each party to the terms and conditions of the foregoing Agreement:
CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY
TO ANIMALS ("SPCA")
By:
Title:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Title:
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Title:
Item 6.5. Copy of letter dated August 19, 2003, to Steven W. Blaine, LeClair Ryan, from John
Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and
Parcels: Tax Map 59, Ps 37B, 37C, 37D, 37E, 37F, 38A, 38B, 39C, 38D, 38E & 38F (property of Fenstone
Developments L.P., Aeacus Real Estate L.P., Thomas E. Worrell, Jr.), Sec 10.3.1, was received as
information.
Item 6.6. Copy of Application of Central Virginia Electric Corporation filed with the State
Corporation Commission, re: for approval of its Plan to implement retail access (Case No.
PUE-2003-00327), was received as information.
Item 6.7. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for August 5, 2003, was received as
information.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2003-42. Vintage Virginia Apples, LLC (Sign #49). Public hearing on a
request to allow on-site produce sales at an orchard in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.45 of the Zoning Ord. TM 87,
P 9, contains 78.586 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Rt 29 (Monacan Trail) approx 0.8 miles from intersec of US 29
& Rt 692. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August
25 and September 1,2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant is requesting a special use permit for on-site
produce sales at an orchard growing a large variety of apples, peaches and other fruits in accordance with
Section 10.2.2.45 of the Zoning Ordinance, which permits farm sales operations. This site lies within the
Entrance Corridor (EC), but the submittal indicates that no new structures are proposed, and it appears that
the use will not change the appearance of the site as viewed from the EC. Therefore, ARB review was not
required.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff identified two factors which are favorable to the request: 1) This use would
further the County's goals of supporting local agriculture, and, 2) This horticultural use provides an
alternative to residential development of the property. The only unfavorable factor is that the existing
entrance does not meet the Virginia Department of Transportation's standards, but that has been
addressed by recommended Condition No. 1.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval subject to five conditions. Staff recommended
approval of the applicant's request to waive the preliminary site plan requirement, and also recommended
approval of a waiver of the 10-foot parking setback required by Section 5.1.353(d). He said the Planning
Commission, at its meeting on August 5, 2003, by a vote of 4:0, recommended approval subject to only four
of the conditions recommended by staff, eliminating staff's recommended Condition No. 2.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Charlotte Shelton said the information she submitted to the Board explained the request in
detail. She said this is a family business with about 1000 apple trees (comprising over 200 varieties)
planted on the site. This is not a large-scale commercial operation. It is a boutique niche kind of business.
They are interested in preserving these varieties, of which about 200 are heritage or antique varieties.
These apples offer unique taste experiences. The applicants also will offer seminars and workshops for
people who would like to grow their own fruit. They are looking for ways to promote this endeavor. They
want to find ways to use the 100 acres so they can live there.
Mr. Bowerman asked why two-thirds of their apples are not commercially grown. He asked how
these heritage varieties are maintained. He is amazed that so many seeds are still available. Ms. Shelton
said she has a lot of literature on this question. She is an historian by training, and she was intrigued by the
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
history of orchards. Orchards were a major endeavor in Albemarle County into the twentieth Century. The
fabled Albemarle Pippin is not easy to grow and is lopsided and not pretty, but is delicious when grown
correctly. She became interested through the Monticello apple tastings which are introducing people to
these varieties. To find these apples, one must seek them out. She thinks what they are doing will make a
contribution toward preserving the germ plasm. It may be possible to find more disease resistant apples.
She invited the Board members to sample their apples.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2003-042 subject to the four conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
A Virginia Department of Transportation entrance permit for a private entrance
shall be obtained for this use;
Guardrails shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Engineering
and Public Works on Rural Ridge Lane where it crosses the dam;
The applicant shall submit a revised sketch plan that:
a. Includes the following note: "The total retail sales area in the farm sales
structure shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. At all
times, at least fifty (50) percent of the retail sales area inside the farm
sales structure shall be agricultural or horticultural produce or
merchandise produced on the premises. The remaining fifty (50)
percent area may be companion items that are not produced on the
premises, but are intended to be used with the agricultural or
horticultural produce which is produced on the farm. Displays outside
the farm sales structure shall be limited to agricultural and horticultural
produce only."
b. Clearly indicates the limits of the sales area.
Retail sales shall be conducted only within the sales area depicted on the revised
sketch plan.
(Note: The next two items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2003-43. The Covesville Store (Sign #52). Public hearing on a request to
allow country store in existing structure, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2(22) of the Zoning Ord. TM 109, P 7E,
contains 1.03 acs. Znd RA&EC. Loc at 5930 Covesville Store Rd (Rt 841), approx 0.5 miles S of the Rt
29/805 intersec. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
August 25 and September 1,2003.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2003-51. The Covesville Gift, Craft & Antique Store (Sign #52). Public
hearing on a request to allow gift, craft & antique store in existing structure, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2(36) of
the Zoning Ord. TM 109, P 7E, contains 1.03 acs. Znd RA & EC. Loc at 5930 Covesville Store Rd (Rt 841)
approx 0.5 miles S of the Rt 29/805 intersec. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on August 25 and September 1,2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicants are requesting approval of a special use permit
to allow for a country store and a gift, craft and antique store to operate in the existing Covesville Store
which has been closed since 1994. The applicants propose to reopen the store as a country store with an
emphasis on antiques, art, jewelry and gifts. The store would also sell traditional "Made in Virginia" foods
as well as traditional country store items such as milk, bread, butter and cheese. Hours of operation would
tentatively be 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., seven days a week. At this time these hours are not definite, and the
applicants have expressed a desire to experiment with the hours during the first month of operation to
determine the optimal business hours.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Covesville Store, also known as the Johnson Store, is a two-story building
with a basement and attic that was built in the 1910s. There is a two-bedroom apartment in a portion of the
second floor in which the applicants will reside. There is approximately 5300 square feet of finished area,
not including the basement and attic. Of the 5300 square feet, 3999 square feet would be used as retail.
The property also contains the Covesville Post Office which began operation from the Covesville Store in
the 1940s but has been relocated to a trailer approximately 70 feet to the east of the store.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff identified several factors favorable to this application: 1) The Covesville
Store and post office are important to the Covesville community and to the County as a historic and cultural
resource; 2) The country store would provide a service to the surrounding area; and, 3) The Covesville
Store has been a part of the community since the 1910s. Staff found no factors which are unfavorable to
the request, therefore, recommended approval of both SP-2003-043 and SP-2003-051 with no conditions.
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 5, 2003, by a vote of 4:0, also recommended approval
of both petitions to the Board.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak first.
Ms. Sarah Dollard and Mr. Rick Ovenshire, the applicants, were present. Mr. Ovenshire said they
are trying to get the store opened again; it has been totally restored. They were going to put in an antique
store, but the community cried out for food and basic necessities, so they put in a country store section to
keep that alive. So far, people have only said good things about the idea.
Ms. Thomas asked if the post office will move back into the building. Ms. Dollard said the Post
Office has its own little building. A new lease has been negotiated, and it will remain in that building for the
next eight years.
The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and
the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she is very pleased at the prospect of having the store reopened. She then
offered motion to approve SP-2003-043, Covesville Store, with no conditions. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2003-051, Covesville Gift, Craft and
Antique Store, with no conditions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2003-044. Bellair Animal Hospital (Sign #54). Public hearing on a
request to allow companion animal veterinary hospital in accord w/Sec 22.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ord. TM 60,
Ps 25A & 25B, contains approx 5.6 acs. Znd C-1. Loc on Rt 250 W (Ivy Rd) approx 1/10 mile W of intersec
of Ivy Rd & the 29/250 By-Pass. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on August 25 and September 1,2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this special use permit would allow a companion animal
hospital (small animal veterinary clinic) to occupy a portion of an existing building located between Bellair
Market and Piedmont Equipment Company, on the north side of Ivy Road across from Bellair Subdivision.
Because the existing building lies less than 200 feet from a residential property line, a waiver from Section
5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance is required.
Mr. Cilimberg said this portion of Neighborhood Seven is best known for a series of historic estates
occupied by institutional and residential uses to the west on Ivy Road, with office, residential and institutional
also present on Old Ivy Road to the east. On this site there currently are a tractor equipment company, a
health care office and a gas station/country market. Staff believes that the proposed use is appropriate for
the site, with conditions. The animal clinic increases the intensity of activity on the site, and there is a need
to better provide for the safety of pedestrians in an environment where there are numerous and very
different uses operating simultaneously. Staff is recommending that the adequacy of on-site infrastructure
be improved to include a pedestrian pathway along the public road frontage. Additionally, the building
straddles the property line between the Bellair Market and Piedmont Equipment parcels, and staff has
recommended that the parcels be combined to avoid the need for cross parking and access easements.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff found only one unfavorable factor to this request, that is: The proposed
use increases the level of activity on a site which does not have the supporting infrastructure which would
normally be required to support such a mixture of uses, leading to staff concerns about vehicular circulation
and pedestrian safety. Staff found that no adverse impacts to other uses on the site or adjacent properties
would occur as a result of the animal clinic use. The clinic may benefit current and future residents along
the corridor, and within the larger area. Staff does have concerns about potential pedestrian and vehicular
conflicts in this active area, and thus recommends that the applicant construct a pedestrian pathway across
the front of the site.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of SP-2003-044, subject to six conditions. The
Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 5, 2003, by a vote of 4:0, recommended approval subject to
five of the staff's recommended conditions. They eliminated No. 5 requiring that Parcels 25A and 25B be
consolidated into one parcel.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Judd Palmer, the property owner, was present to answer questions. He said he agrees with the
five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
The public hearing was opened. 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-2003-044, subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out below.)
The approved final concept plan/site plan shall be in substantial accord with the
Conceptual Plan dated July 29, 2003, and special permit justification dated April
28, 2003;
Any enlargement or expansion of the animal clinic use or structures, within the
existing building or in a building addition, will require an amendment to this
Special Permit (SP-2003-044);
No overnight boarding use other than for those animals under medical care shall
take place in the animal clinic;
That portion of the existing building to be used for the clinic shall be
soundproofed prior to commencement of the animal hospital use;
A pedestrian path five (5) feet in width shall be constructed across the front of
Parcels 25A and 25B in the area between the existing vehicular parking area and
the public travelway, to a standard acceptable to the Departments of Planning
and Engineering and Public Works (Department of Community Development), to
be maintained by VDOT or by the applicant in the event the pathway cannot be
constructed to meet VDOT standards. In the event that existing power poles or
other obstructions make it impossible to meet the acceptable standard; this
standard may be modified in the interest of allowing installation of the path.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2003-46. Suntrust Pantops Branch (Signs #69 & 72). Public hearing on
a request to allow drive-in window to serve bank in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 78, P
73A, contains 1.19 acs. Znd PD-MC & EC. Loc on Rt 250 (Richmond Rd) at the SW corner of intersec of
Rt 250 & Hanson Rd. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
August 25 and September 1,2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to construct a new SunTrust Bank at
the southwest corner of Route 250 and Hanson Road, with drive-through windows to allow customer
transactions at three teller windows and one automated teller machine.
Mr. Cilimberg said the ARB expressed no objections to the use and voted unanimously to forward
the request to the Commission subject to two conditions. Staff recommended approval of this petition
subject to six conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 5, 2003, by a vote of 4:0,
recommended approval subject to the same six conditions.
Ms. Thomas said Condition No. 2 says the Automated Teller Machine lane shall be located closest
to the building. She asked the reason for this recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg said SunTrust operates
another drive-through on Route 29 North where the ATM is next to the building. He knows the ARB made
that recommendation, but he is not sure why.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Kelly Strickland, Rivanna Engineering, said he was present to represent the applicant. He does
not know the answer to the question. He will say that the architects (Dayton & Thompson) and the
landscape architect (LPDA) are happy to comply with the conditions, including the condition requesting that
the ATM be moved closer to the building. He can guess that the ATM would be more of an eyesore sitting
on the edge of the travel isles as one approaches the facility traveling along Route 250 going east. That
outside travel aisle would be the most visible.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve SP-2003-046, subject to the six conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
The site improvements shall be developed in general accord with the attached
concept plan, entitled, Application Plan for Suntrust-Pantops Branch, last revised
June 16, 2003;
The Automated Teller Machine lane shall be located closest to the building;
Provide an informal mix of native screening trees and ornamentals along the
western property line to minimize the impact of the drive-through structure on the
Entrance Corridor, to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board;
Drive-through windows will be limited to three (3);
Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness; and
Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such
as by-pass lanes, signage and pavement markings as indicated on the concept
plan.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-2003-048. Randy E. Fox - Home Occupation-Class B (Sign #2). Public
hearing on a request to allow Home Occupation-Class B for small machine shop that repairs heads off
engines in accord with Chapter 18, Section 13.2.2.9, of the Zoning Ord. TM 90, P 31, contains 5.170 acs.
Znd R-1. Loc on Rt 742 (at 1968 Avon Street Extended) approx 100 yards from intersec of Rt 20.
Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 25 and
September 1,2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to operate a small engine repair shop
from his existing garage. The applicant will go to customer homes to pick up engine parts and then deliver
the repaired part to the customer. No customers will travel to the applicant's home. The applicant has also
requested a waiver for the size of an accessory structure. The applicant will not use any chemicals to clean
engine parts. The solutions used to clean the engine parts will be water soluble so the public health should
be preserved.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff identified the following favorable factors to this application: 1) The home
occupation will take place in an existing garage; 2) The applicant will pickup and deliver repaired parts; and,
3) There will be no employees commuting to the site. Staff did not identify any unfavorable conditions.
Staff recommended approval subject to four conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on
August 19, 2003, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval subject to the staff's conditions, but modified No.
2 at the County Attorney's recommendation.
Mr. Martin said the way Condition No. 1 is worded, the applicant, if he decided to employ someone
who did not work on this site, could not do so because that person would not be a family member. Mr.
Cilimberg said that was not the intent of the condition.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Davis if the condition is only binding on this particular property. He
suggested the condition read: "There shall be no additional employees on this site outside of family
members living there."
Mr. Davis said the condition mirrors the definition in the Ordinance for a Home Occupation-Class B.
That definition says there can be no more than two employees other than family members residing on the
premises. That is a standard restriction. They just removed the two people, and said no one other than
family members residing on the premises, which is the definition of home occupation.
Mr. Rooker suggested adding the words "at this site" after the word "employee", to clarify intent. Mr.
Davis said that would be fine. It is still more restrictive than the definition.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Randy Fox said he agrees with what has been said. He is the only person who would be
employed there. He offered to answer questions.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Mr. Robert Spraul who lives at 1940 Avon Street said he is the next door neighbor to the Foxes. He
has no objection to what they plan to do on the property. He asked if the zoning variance addresses hours
of operation. Mr. Cilimberg said there are no conditions proposed to cover the hours of operation.
Mr. Spraul said he thinks a large part of what Mr. Fox will be doing will involve operating machinery.
That is a concern if it occurs at night.
Mr. Perkins said the applicant has stated in the application that the hours of operation will be from
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mr. Spraul said those hours would not be a problem. He would only have a problem
if the machines operated after 11:00 p.m. He really does not know at this time if the machines make much
noise, but he asked that his concern be addressed.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Fox if he would object to a condition that he not operate machinery between
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Mr. Fox said he does not object.
Mr. Davis said the County has a noise ordinance which would apply to this site that deals with the
amount of noise which can be produced at the property line. Staff and the Board spent a great deal of time
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
reworking that ordinance, and generally that ordinance is relied upon instead of trying to restrict noise.
Ms. Thomas said if she were a neighbor, it would be easier to know the hours of operation which
are allowed than to get someone to come with a noise meter.
Mr. Rooker suggested adding a condition saying there would be no machinery operated by the
business during the hours between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Mr. Davis suggested that it say "no machinery
generating noise..." Mr. Rooker agreed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2003-048 subject to the four conditions
recommended by the Commission, changing Condition No. 1 to read: "There shall be no additional
employees at this site outside of family living at 1968 Avon Street Extended." and adding a Condition No. 5
reading: "No machinery generating noise shall be operated between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m."
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
There shall be no additional employees at the site outside of family living at 1968
Avon Street Extended;
The applicant will be required to submit a Certified Engineers Report
demonstrating compliance with the performance standards in the Zoning
Ordinance Section 4.14;
The applicant will revise the conceptual plan received by the Planning
Department on July 15, 2003, to include a statement limiting the number of
vehicle trips weekly to 14;
A standard entrance permit for a private road entrance shall be required. VDOT
specifications for sight distance shall be required; and
No machinery generating noise shall be operated between the hours of 7:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation School
Bonds, Series 2003A, of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, in a Principal Amount not to Exceed $7,205,000
to be Sold to the Virginia Public School Authority and Providing for the Form and Details Thereof.
Mr. Tucker said this item would normally be before the Board as the subject of a public hearing, but
the Daily Progress failed to advertise this request properly. However, bond counsel requests that the Board
still adopt the Resolution in order to meet certain deadlines. This will be placed on the October 1 agenda
for the Board to reapprove, after holding the public hearing. He recommended that the Board adopt the
required resolution as presented tonight.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of General
Obligation School Bonds, Series 2003a, of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, In a Principal Amount Not to
Exceed $7,205,000 To Be Sold to the Virginia Public School Authority and Providing for the Form and
Details Thereof.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES 2003A,
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,205,000
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow a
principal amount not to exceed $7,205,000 and to issue its general obligation school
bonds for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County will hold a public hearing, duly noticed, on October 1,
2003, on the issuance of the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) in accordance with the
requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia
Code"); and
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution adopted on
August 14, 2003, requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds and
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
consented to the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that
$7,205,000 is the amount of proceeds requested (the "Proceeds Requested") from the
Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") in connection with the sale of the Bonds;
and
WHEREAS, the VPSA's objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the
Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market value (the "VPSA
Purchase Price Objective"), taking into consideration such factors as the amortization
schedule the County has requested for the Bonds relative to the amortization schedules
requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds
and other market conditions relating to the sale of the VPSA's bonds; and
WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Bonds having a purchase price other
than par and consequently (i) the County may have to issue a principal amount of Bonds
that is less than the Proceeds Requested but in no case greater than the Proceeds
Requested in order to receive an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the
Proceeds Requested, or (ii) if the maximum authorized principal amount of the Bonds set
forth in Section 1 below does not exceed the amount of the discount the purchase price
to be paid to the County, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market
conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines
that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school
bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $7,205,000 (the "Bonds") for the
purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes, including without
limitation, the projects described in Exhibit B. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance
and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this
Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to
accept the offer of the VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the
Bonds at a price, determined by the VPSA to be fair and accepted by the County
Executive, that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, except that the Bonds
may be sold for a purchase price not lower than 95% of the Proceeds Requested if
issuing the Bonds in the maximum principal amount authorized by Section 1 of this
Resolution is insufficient, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market
conditions, to generate an amount of proceeds substantially equal to the Proceeds
Requested. The County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either
may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a
Bond Sale Agreement dated as of October 1,2003 (the "Bond Sale Agreement"), with
the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA. The Bond Sale Agreement
shall be in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is
hereby approved.
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date of issuance and
delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series
2003A"; shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on
each January 15 and July 15 beginning July 15, 2004 (each an "Interest Payment Date"),
at the rates established in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature
on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts set forth on
Schedule I attached hereto (the "Principal Installments"), subject to the provisions of
Section 4 of this Resolution.
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The County Executive is hereby
authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the
VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent
(0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal
payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of
the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further that the
true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed six percent (6.00%) per annum. The
Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to change at the
request of the VPSA. The County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept
changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of
the VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed
the amount authorized by this Resolution and provided further that the final maturity of
the Bonds occurs no later than December 31,2024. The execution and delivery of the
Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest rates
established by the VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments
requested by the VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single,
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall
apply to the Bonds:
(a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds,
all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in
immediately available funds to the VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable
Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or
redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next
preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by
law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
(c) SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as bond
registrar and payment agent for the Bonds (the "Bond Registrar"). The County may, in its
sole discretion, replace at any time the Bond Registrar with another qualified bank or trust
company as successor Bond Registrar.
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by
the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2013, and the definitive Bonds for which the
Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2013, are
not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal
Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2013, and the
definitive bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature
after July 15,2013, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County
prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2013,
upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of
Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be
redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or
redemption:
Dates
July 15, 2013, through July 14, 2014
July 15, 2014, through July 14, 2015
July 15,2015, and thereafter
Prices
101.0%
100.5
100.0
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or
redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the
written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or
redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered
mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, either
of whom may act, and the Clerk of the Board or any Deputy Clerk, either of whom may
act, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of
the County thereto.
9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of
and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the
full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while
any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance
with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local
taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if
any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall
become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to
all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the
County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitrage. The Chairman
of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either
may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a
Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds Certificate, each setting forth the
expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such
covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations
relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA
Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the
issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such
Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall
comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the
County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on
(September 10, 2003 - Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax
purposes.
11. State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby
determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the Director
of Finance of the County to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection
with the Bonds. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or
officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby
authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the
deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other
participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager and the
depository, substantially in the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is
hereby approved.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board, the County
Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom
may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure
Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the
reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be
necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and directed to make all filings required by Section
3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA to be a
MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement).
13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are
hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with
the Circuit Court of the County.
14. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and
agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of
them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of
the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Agenda Item No. 14. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said she will be meeting with representatives of the County's Sister City, Pacific County
in the state of Washington, during her visit to Oregon for her high school reunion.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 01/07/2004
Initials: EWC