2004-01-14January 14, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
14, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis
S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Georgina A. Smith.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick spoke in reference to Agenda Item No. 5.2, and asked the Board amend the
ACE Ordinance to prevent similar situations in the future.
Ms. Linda Lloyd thanked the Board for proceeding with the affordable housing policy.
Mr. Forbes Reback, spoke about paving Route 795 and introduced Mr. Tom Sullivan, the property
owner.
Mr. Peter Mellon, spoke in opposition to paving Route 795.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Items 5.2
through 5.4, and to accept Item 5.5 as information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman
(Discussion on individual items are included with that item.) Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: September 3, 2003
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of September 3, 2003 and found them to be in order.
Item 5.2. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Wavier of Income Determination Method.
The executive summary states that in section A.1-110(I) of the ACE ordinance, the Board of
Supervisors may waive or extend any requirement or deadline if, for good cause, it is shown that
circumstances exist which warrant such action.
On August 13, 2003, the Board approved the appraisals of five (5) properties from the ACE
applicant pool for FY 2002-03. One of these appraisals was for the 483 acre Henley Forest, Inc. property,
located in the Blue Ridge Mountains three (3) miles west of Boonesville. Based on the ranking evaluation
criteria, it is the second highest ranked property in the applicant pool and has tourism value because a
portion of the property lies within a mountain "ridge area boundary". Before the County can extend the
owner an "Invitation to Offer to Sell", staff must determine the purchase price, which is calculated by
multiplying the appraised value by the applicable percentage of appraised value set forth in the income grid
on page 9 of the ACE ordinance. In the case of an "S" corporation, such as Henley Forest, Inc., "the
average adjusted gross income shall be based on the aeereeate annual adjusted gross income of the
shareholders".
The Henley Forest, Inc. property is held by fifteen (15) different shareholders, all of whom are part
of the extended Henley family. According to accounting rules for "S" corporations, income taxes are paid
by the individual shareholders of the corporation rather than by the corporation. In addition, profits and
losses are allocated according to a shareholder's proportionate share of stock. Of the fifteen (15)
individual shareholders, 58 percent of the average annual adjusted income is concentrated in two (2) of the
shareholders, whose interest in the family corporation is only three (3) percent. Under the calculation
required by the ACE ordinance, which considers only the aggregate income of all shareholders, Henley
Forest, Inc. would receive only four (4) percent of appraised value because the aggregate income exceeds
$200,001 (by a substantial margin). In fact, the aggregate income of the two shareholders alone, who
control only three (3) percent of the family corporation, exceeds this threshold.
January 14, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Though the aggregate income approach may be appropriate in other cases of multi-person
ownership, it is the opinion of staff and the ACE Committee that this approach unfairly penalizes the Henley
family corporation and those shareholders (including seven children) whose average annual income falls
within the range necessary to earn one-hundred (100) percent of appraised value. One of the original
objectives of the ACE program was to give landowners of modest means a financial incentive for placing
their property under easement since current tax laws provide little or no benefit from donating an easement.
Since the corporation's net profit and taxable income is not based on the shareholder's aggregate income,
staff believes it would be inconsistent to base the determination of (easement) purchase price on the
shareholder's aggregate income. If the vast majority of shareholders of Henley Forest, Inc. have
insufficient income to benefit from a donated easement, the purchase of an easement is the only financial
incentive available to these shareholders of modest means.
A more equitable solution would be to use a "weighted average" approach whereby payment is
based on a shareholder's proportionate share or contribution of income. The purchase price of the
easement would be determined by multiplying the appraised value of the easement ($242,000) by an
individual shareholders proportionate share of the corporation. The resulting value would then be adjusted
according to the income grid. The individual payments for each of the fifteen (15) shareholders would then
be added up to produce the total ACE payment. This approach would follow the accounting standard for
"S" corporations and minimize the disproportionate influence of two (2) high income shareholders to a level
that more appropriately reflects the relative contributions (in income) of each of the shareholders. Using
the weighted average approach, the net ACE payment would be $237,644 or 98.2 percent of the total
appraised value. Those with incomes below the minimum threshold would be entitled to the full appraised
value while those with incomes above it would be appropriately discounted.
Clearly, the Henley Forest, Inc. property has significant conservation value. In addition to qualifying
for tourism funds (because it has 76 acres and 2,250 feet of ridgeline within the mountain "ridge area
boundary"), the property has 11,494 feet of common boundary with the Byrom property (put under an ACE
easement in August, 2003) and 5,400 feet of common boundary with the Shenandoah National Park.
Placed side by side, easements on both Henley and Byrom would create a 1,083 acre contiguous block of
protected property that runs from Blackwells Hollow Road to the Shenandoah National Park. Since neither
property would permit any future division, this large block of unfragmented forestland would help to
preserve the rural character of Albemarle County, conserve and protect biodiversity and wildlife habitats,
and provide a permanent wooded buffer to protect the quality of water flowing into the South Fork of the
Rivanna River.
Therefore, ACE staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors waive the aggregate income
method for determining income for the Henley Forest, Inc. property and allow the determination of AGI and
purchase price to be based on the weighted average of the shareholders of the corporation as described
above and shown on Attachment "B". (Copy on file in the Clerk's office).
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker said Ms. Buttrick, who has worked with the ACE Committee for a long
time, sent an email suggesting that the Board consider amending the ordinance rather than having to grant
a waiver on individual cases. This matter may come up again in the future and it may be wise to amend the
ordinance so the ACE Committee has the ability to deal with these types of issues. There could be a
situation where someone with only one percent of a family "S" corporation, who has a high income, would
disqualify the entire corporation from taking advantage of the ACE program even though the property had
been selected under the criteria of the evaluation standards. He asked Mr. Davis if an amendment to the
ordinance is possible to deal with this and if the Board should still deal with this waiver tonight.
Mr. Davis suggested the Board proceed with granting the waiver. He does not think this will have any legal
implications when dealing with these issues in the future. Certainly this waiver is under the frame work of
the ordinance and, this situation justifies a waiver. The Board discussed this type of situation when the ACE
ordinance was being considered. Nancy McLaughlin originally, proposed the current language in the
ordinance. It is not going to be simple to draft an ordinance amendment to catch all possible variations.
The Board will have to be careful and make sure it does not open up any loop holes where people who
otherwise would be donating their land, would take money from the ACE program. He recommended that
the Board act on this request and direct staff to look at the possibility of amending the ordinance.
Ms. Thomas said the ACE Committee requested the staff back in November to address this issue. She
suggests the Board adopt the resolution tonight and proceed with amending the ordinance. Mr. Davis said
there have been some discussions between Ches Goodall and Sherry Buttrick, but no request came to the
County Attorney's office from the ACE Committee regarding this issue. Mr. Rooker suggested staff report
back to the Board on a proposed amendment.
Mr. Boyd agreed Mr. Davis's earlier comments that it would be difficult to address every situation. It seems
better to deal with this on a one to one basis. Mr. Rooker said, he thinks it would be helpful that while staff
is drafting a report for the Board, the ACE Committee also come up with some suggestions and bring them
back to the Board.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved staff's recommendation that the
purchase price for the Henley Forest, Inc. ACE easement be $237,644 by applying the weighted
income approach, rather than the aggregate income approach set forth in the ACE ordinance and
requested staff to review the need for an ordinance amendment and to work with the ACE
Committee in providing a recommendation back to the Board.
Item 5.3. SP-2003-71. Vernon or Jackie Shiflett-AIItel (Sign #56). Accept applicant's request for
deferral and request to refer back to Planning Commission.
January 14, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
In a letter dated January 5, 2004, Mr. Peter J. Caramanis, representing the applicant, to Steven
Waller, Albemarle County Planning Department, stated that ALLTEL has been thoroughly examining all
possibilities to make its Crossroads application more favorable to the County. Obviously, having one tower
on site, rather than two, would alleviate most if not all of the stated concerns with the application. Therefore,
ALLTEL is currently investigating the possibility of an agreement with nTelos whereby ALLTEL would
construct a new tower on the Shifflet property designed to accommodate ALLTEL's and nTelos's antennas.
As part of the agreement, nTelos would agree to take down its existing tower. Comments from the County
seemed to indicate the location of the existing tower was not favorable and that there were better locations
on the same parcel to locate a tower. There were multiple comments throughout the zoning process that
one tower on the site was okay, but two were questionable. This proposal would allow for one tower and
for that tower to be located in a more favorable location than the existing tower.
This plan requires a number of details to be worked out, which ALLTEL has not had time to
accomplish to date. Preliminary indications are that the details should be able to be agreed upon.
Therefore, on behalf of ALLTEL, Mr. Caraman's requested an indefinite deferral of SP-03-71 to allow the
necessary time for this investigation and discussion.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board accepted the applicants request to refer SP-
2003-71 back to the Planning Commission.
Item 5.4. Set public hearing for February 4, 2004 on Community Development Block Grant Citizens
Participation.
It was noted in the executive summary that local citizen participation is encouraged throughout
the process of developing Community Improvement Grant (CIG) proposals funded through the Virginia
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. To facilitate participation two public hearings
are required. The first hearing is to provide information on the availability of CDBG funds, past activities
funded with CDBG, and to solicit input for potential CDBG projects.
Albemarle County has been successful in receiving a number of CIGs over the years, the most
recent being a multi-year funded grant for housing and neighborhood improvements for the Porters
Road and Yancey Mill neighborhoods. This project was awarded the Best Housing Project in Virginia in
2003. DHCD staff has encouraged the County and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program to
submit another housing rehabilitation project.
Staff, in consultation with staff from the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), request
this first public hearing to receive input on community needs that may be eligible for a CIG.
At the public hearing staff will provide a brief description of eligible activities
under the CDBG program, Albemarle County's past performance with CIGs, and potential funding
available to Albemarle County for fiscal year beginning July 1,2004. Staff may also present some
options under consideration for a CIG proposal.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set the public hearing for February 4, 2004
to provide information on Community Development Block Grant funding that may be available
and to obtain input from Iow-and moderate-income persons or persons representing Iow- and
moderate-income communities for potential eligible needs for improvements.
Item 5.5. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for October 7, October 14, November 11,
November 18 and December 2, 2003, were received as information.
Agenda Item 6. SP-2003-64. Verulam Farm-VA32344 Omnipoint (Signs #12,13&14). Public
hearing on a request to allow construction of personal wireless fac w/wooden monopole, approx 101 ft in
total height & 10 ft above height of tallest tree w/in 25 ft. The proposed fac includes flush-mounted panel
antennas & ground equipment. This application is being made in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord.
TM74, P17, contains 356.26 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Rt 677 (Bloomfield Rd) approx .75 mis from the
intersec of Rt 637 & Rt 677. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on December 29, 2003 and January 5, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 2, 2003, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of SP-2003-64 subject to the twenty-five conditions recommended by staff.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Amber Blatter, representing the applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation. She requested the
Board to amend condition #3, to state "The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL),
shall never exceed ten (10) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet. Amending this
condition would give their customers more range coverage. Ms. Blatter said that she would be happy to
January 14, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
answer any questions the Board might have had.
Mr. Neil Williamson said he also believes that the extra three feet added to the antenna requested
by Ms. Blatter would improve the coverage area.
Mr. Boyd asked why the Planning Commission denied the ten foot coverage. Mr. Cilimberg said
the Commission felt more comfortable with the seven feet.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas moved approval of SP-2003-64, with the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission, and amended as recommended by the applicant. This motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The facility shall be desiqned, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the
conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any
antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan entitled, "Crown
Communications CAP Operations, LLC (McGuire #2)", dated July 24, 2003 and provided with
Attachment A;
2. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole
above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation;
3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet
above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet. In no case shall the pole exceed one
hundred and one (101) feet in total height at the time of installation without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit;
4. The monopole shall be made of wood and be a dark brown natural wood color;
5. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole
shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the
application plans;
6. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole
beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However, in no case
shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than twelve
(12) inches;
7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
8. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod not to exceed one (1) inch in
diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole.
9. No guy wires shall be permitted;
10. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting
shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such
that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the
shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a
complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute
the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply;
11. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area
shall not be permitted;
12. The plans shall be revised so that information identified as APN# on the cover sheet of is labeled as
the tax map and parcel number;
13. The electrical transformer and telephone pedestal shall be located within the confines of the lease
area;
14. The locations and heights of all trees within fifty (50) feet of the facility that are relied upon for
screening and camouflaging shall be shown on the plans;
15. Size specifications and other details, including elevation drawings of the antennas and ground
equipment and concrete pad shall be included in the construction plan package;
16. Site grading and all construction around the facility shall be minimized to only provide the amount of
space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment cabinets; and
17. Details and cross sections for any plans to upgrade the existing dirt logging road shall be provided
in the construction plan packet and is subject to review and approval by the County's Engineering
Department.
Prior to
18.
19.
the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to
justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator;
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or
utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods
and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside and outside
the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and
equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance
with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of
January 14, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
20.
Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be
required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer, after the installation of
the subject facility; and
With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for
construction of the facility. During the application review, planning staff shall review the revised
plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed.
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any
facility operation, the following shall be met:
21. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above
ground level and in elevation Above Sea Level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum
identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator;
22. Certification confirming that the grounding rod: a) height does not exceed one (1) foot above the
monpole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one (1) inch, shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator; and
23. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1
unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County
Engineer are employed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
24. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service
provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the tower
and the ground, are associated with each provider; and
25. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be
disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued.
The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator
determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as
required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety
satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for,
and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2003-68. Northridge Community Church Amendment (Sign #7). Public
hearing on a request for an amendment to SP-2000-58 Northside Community Church, to allow pre-
school/day care & an after school program, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ord. TM21, P1 lA,
contains 9.92 acs. Znd RA. Loc at 5100 Rt 606 (Dickerson Rd) approx 1,200 ft mis from the intersec of
Dickerson Rd & Rt 20N (Seminole Trail). White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the
Daily Progress on December 29, 2003 and January 5, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office. Mr. Cilimberg
recommended a change be made to condition number one (1), to add the word "exterior" before the word
"building" in the first line.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 2, 2003, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of SP-2003-68 subject to the three conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Ray Stark said he had nothing to add and would respond to any questions from the Board
members.
Ms. Thomas asked if the recommended operating hours will pose any problems. Mr. Stark
responded "no".
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Wyant moved approval of SP-03-86, with the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and Condition No. 1 as amended by Mr. Cilimberg. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
Exterior changes to the exterior building and site except for those depicted on and approved as
part of the final site plan, SDP-2001-022, are prohibited unless authorized by an amendment to this
special use permit. Prohibited exterior changes include changes to any architectural feature, color,
texture or materials, play area, and landscaping, but do not include repairing or replacing any
January 14, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
portion or element of a building provided that the repaired or replaced portion or element has the
same architectural feature, color, texture and materials approved as part of SDP-2001-022;
The maximum enrollment for the pre-school/day care shall be restricted to eighty (80) children
and the maximum enrollment for the after school program shall be restricted to sixty (60) children;
and
The hours and days of operation shall be restricted to the following: day care/pre-school program
7:30 AM to 2:00 PM, Monday through Friday; after school program from 2:30 PM - 6:00 PM
Monday through Friday.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2003-70. Gregory R. Galllihugh-Nextel Partners (Sign #59). Public hearing
on a request to allow construction of personal wireless fac w/wooden monopole, approx 126 ft in total
height & 10 ft above the height of the tallest tree w/in 25 ft. The proposed fac includes flush-mounted panel
antennas & ground equipment. This application is being made in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord.
TM74, P2C, contains 2.78 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Dick Woods Rd (Rt 637) approx 1.25 mis S of the
intersec of Dick Woods Rd & 1-64. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily
Progress on December 29, 2003 and January 5, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 16, 2003, by a vote of
5:0 recommended denial of SP-2003-70. However, it was also the consensus of the Commission that in the
event the Board of Supervisors approve the request that they follow the conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Valerie Long, of McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, representing the applicant, said she is willing
to defer the application for 30 days, until February 11,2004 Board meeting.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Long if she has considered looking at other sites. Ms. Long responded, "yes"
but the landowner does not want another tower on their property. Although this is a good location, she knew
the request was not going to be easy.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas moved to accept the applicant's request for a deferral for 30 days to the February 11,
Board meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2003-73. Foundations Child Development Day Care (Sign #90)_. Public
hearing on a request to allow a day care center in accord w/Sec 16.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ord. TM45, P112F,
contains 1.541 acs. Znd R-6. Loc on Rt 1403 (Berkmar Dr), approx .5 mis N of the intersec of Berkmar &
Woodbrook Rd. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on December 29,
2003 and January 5, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 2, 2003, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended approval of SP-2003-73 subject to the five conditions recommended by staff.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Bob Pingry, representing Stonehaus Development asked the Board for a change in
recommended condition No. 4 from: "The remaining slopes should not be more than 3:1 to allow for re-
vegetation and stability", to "The remaining slopes should not be more than 2:1 to allow for re-vegetation
and stability." Mr. Pangry said this would allow him a little more room for their play area and some privacy.
With no one else rising to speak. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerman moved approval of SP-03-86, with the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and Condition No. 4 as suggested by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan entitled, Foundations Child
Daycare Center, dated September 25, 2003.
January 14, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
2. The maximum number of children shall not exceed 125 or the number of students as approved by the
Virginia Department of Social Services, whichever is less.
3. VDOT approval of a commercial entrance.
4. The remaining slopes should not be more than 2:1 to allow for re-vegetation and stability.
5. The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained: 30 ft building and 10 ft parking setback from
Berkmar Dr and 15 ft building setback from the southern property line.
Agenda Item No. 10. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she attended a meeting of the Foundation for Virginia. She said the
main topic of discussion was education.
Mr. Boyd brought up the issue of the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development.
He remembered that the prior Board had put off any decision on this until the new Board took office. Mr.
Boyd said he has gotten some statistics of the 95 counties in Virginia. Eighty-three of these counties are
involved formally in some type of economic development. Of that number, 61 counties have full time staff
while the rest have part time staff. There are 14 regional economic development organizations and six joint
commissions in the state. The TJPED is not unique to this area; it is something that other counties have
taken hold of and are involved. Mr. Boyd said his understanding is that Albemarle County does not have
anyone on staff involved in economic development. He thinks the County does need to embrace this
wonderful opportunity.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to schedule this on an agenda to allow the public to
comment. The Board held a public hearing about six or seven years ago and at that time voted against the
idea. Mr. Boyd said he would like to have this public hearing soon.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that when they previously discussed this issue, the Board made
several suggestions. One was approval of the economic development section in the regional
Comprehensive Plan. The second suggestion was to update the economic development element of the
County's Comprehensive Plan which staff is currently working on. Mr. Cilimberg said that because of staff's
workload currently, he does think this could come to the Board before June 2004.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has adopted the TJPDC economic development plan, which is only one
of two counties that have adopted it. The County is a member of the TJPDC, deals with economic
development as well as other issues. He believes the Comprehensive Plan should be changed before the
Board considers joining another organization. He thinks the Board should proceed as it planned with the
adoption of TJPDC's Economic Development Plan, and the County's Comprehensive Plan followed by a
public hearing on joining the partnership.
Mr. Boyd said joining the partnership will not take as much time to deal with as updating the
Comprehensive Plan. He agrees with having the public hearing but he does not believe staff needs to study
this issue for another six months or wait for changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Wyant said this is a concern of the citizens in the Crozet area. He thinks the sooner the Board
can have a public hearing the better.
Mr. Dorrier said he cannot see any reason not to have a public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said the partnership is losing members who have not paid their dues. One public
member has totally withdrawn. One of the first things the partnership did was to change its' bylaws so that
public entities no longer had the ability to control the boundaries of the partnership. Part of the Board's
discussion will have to be about the present status of the partnership.
Mr. Boyd said he would just like it to be on the agenda.
Mr. Rooker said that legally no Board member can serve on the TJPED Board.
Mr. Dorrier suggested having a public hearing next month and asked about the time frame of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Cilimberg again commented that it is not scheduled in staff's work
program for this fiscal year because of other priorities.
Mr. Rooker said he knows of a lot of counties that are spending funds on economic development
and are not successful in doing it. This county has been growing at a rate of at least 2000 people per year,
been adding jobs and has the lowest unemployment rate in the state of Virginia. He feels that Albemarle's
record for achieving economic development is very good and the County's approach is extremely sound.
He objects to joining a private body which is not a public body and spending county money on attracting
additional growth to the county when handling growth is the biggest problem to deal with. The County is
already adding jobs without having to spend public money.
Mr. Boyd asked what the staff would tell a company that would like to move into this county.
Mr. Tucker responded that Mr. Foley is available to meet with them and to provide information.
Mr. Tucker said this will come back to the Board in June, unless the Board wants to change some
January 14, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
of its' priorities. Mr. Rooker said he would not object to this coming back to the Board maybe sometime in
June after the budget is completed. He thinks the Board has a lot off issues in front of it right now.
Ms. Thomas said the Board could always have a public hearing but she does not want to mislead
the public into thinking the Board will be taking action. She does not support having a public hearing in
February.
Mr. Rooker again suggested the Board get through the budget process and then schedule a date.
Mr. Tucker suggested amending the Comprehensive Plan and let that be the policy of this Board.
The Board can then decide how it wants to proceed with the TJPED. He would suggest that the Board not
decide to join the partnership until it develops a policy. Mr. Tucker said there may not be any changes to
the Board's existing policy. Ms. Thomas commented that the Board did adopt the TJPDC economic
development plan.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 7:40 p.m. there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman
Approved by Board
of Supervisors
Date: 04~07/2004
Initials: GKS