2000-03-15March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
15, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Senior Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Vice-Chairman, Ms.
Thomas.
_______________
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.
Ms. Steele Howen, Associate Principal at Monticello High School, said she had come to speak
about the tragedy that happened last Friday night. They are concerned about the safety of the students
using Route 20 South between Route 53 and the entrance to Monticello High School. She said others were
present to also speak about this issue.
Ms. Bonnie Stevens said she was a parent of a student at Monticello High School. She wrote a
letter to Angela Tucker asking her to make improvements to Route 20 South from Route 53 immediately.
She then presented a copy of the letter to the Board along with pictures of the road she had taken just this
day, and explained in detail the pictures. She asked the Board to make this improvement its No. 1 priority
for the VDOT meeting in Culpeper on April 4.
Ms. Casey Rotella, student at Monticello High School, said she did not know Holly Nash, but she
was deeply affected by the accident. She has gotten 400 signatures on a petition in three days requesting
improvements to Route 20 South. She said others had slipped off the road in that spot. Many people are
afraid going around those curves. Three deaths have occurred in the last year on that same section of
road.
Mr. Charles Ward said he is a resident of the White Hall District and Chairman of the Albemarle
County School Board. He was frustrated by the number of accidents which have occurred on Route 20.
This tragedy, besides the accident with two other Monticello students, is totally unacceptable. He would like
to meet with the Police Chief and others to see what can be done to make Route 20 at and near Monticello
High School safer for the students, staff and community.
Ms. Thomas said traditionally the Board did not respond to matters brought up at a meeting. Here,
she feels the public should know what might be done. The hearing in Culpeper can be attended by the
public and the public is allowed to speak. The public can write letters to the CTB representative, Carter
Myers, and to the local Resident Engineer, Angela Tucker. Ms. Thomas said Forrest Marshall had been
discussing this issue for a very long time, so this is not something new. The project is on the priority list.
She asked Mr. Tucker to speak. Mr. Tucker said funds for preliminary engineering had already been
appropriated by VDOT. That is the first step to designing the suggested improvement. Four-laning is
proposed. The Board had been pushing this project for quite a while. Citizen letters would be helpful
requesting that construction funds be allocated immediately.
Mr. Bowerman said that in No. 4 of the Board’s draft statement to VDOT, it says “undertake the
widening of Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive.” Ms. Thomas noted that bikeways and sidewalks
are also being requested for this improvement. Mr. Tucker said this was the recommendation this Board
will present at the meeting on April 4.
Mr. Dorrier said he met with Angela Tucker today and talked to her about this project. She
mentioned that it is in the design budget, and suggested that citizens attend the April 4 meeting. She also
suggested that if the County felt strongly, it should be given a high rating on the priority list.
Mr. Bowerman said if some citizens attended that meeting it would be helpful. It is a community-
wide issue. That stretch of road has historically been bad although improvements have been made on
other sections of Route 20 South.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to know if the Board wants to move the project up on the priority list.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the discussion take place when the Consent Agenda comes up.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Student Recognition Program.
Ms. Thomas said the Board was pleased to have representatives from the People-to-People
Program present tonight. This program was founded by President Eisenhower in 1956 to create a new path
to international understanding. He believed that ordinary citizens of different nations, if able to
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
communicate directly, could solve their differences and find a way to live in peace. The simple thought that
people can make a difference where government cannot is the guiding principle of People-to-People.
Although People-to-People first build bridges between working citizens, Eisenhower himself recognized the
power of young people as future leaders. In 1963 the first delegation of student ambassadors was
organized. Since then, the student ambassador program has taken thousands of American young people
across international boundaries. The program encourages meaningful exchanges between young people
of different cultures through official meetings, educational site visits, and home stays, all of which create
deep cultural understanding, probe a nation’s history, and launch long lasting friendships. She said the
Board was honored to have present this evening a group of Albemarle County students who will represent
this community during a People-to-People visit to Australia this summer.
Ms. Cary Mersch, the group’s sponsor, came forward and asked each student to introduce
himself/herself. Ms. Thomas then presented each student with an Albemarle County T-shirt.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Before taking up the consent agenda as a whole, Item 6.4,
Draft Statement for VDOT's Primary Road Plan Preallocation Hearing in Culpeper, was discussed.
It was noted in the staff’s report that on April 4, 2000, the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) will conduct its annual Pre-allocation Hearing in Culpeper for improvements to the interstate and
primary system in the Culpeper District. All roads with route numbers below 600 are primary roads (i.e.,
Route 29, Route 250).
The Six-Year Primary Road Plan process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that a
specific amount of funds are set aside for secondary road projects in the County, whereas funds for primary
road projects are allocated for each construction district, and all primary road projects proposed within all
localities in the district compete for those funds. The Culpeper District includes Albemarle, Culpeper,
Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange and Rappahannock counties. The purpose of this
review process by the Board is to recommend which County projects to include in the Primary Plan for the
District.
The major changes to the Priority List (under each heading) are:
Standard Projects:
1.The changes to this priority reflect the approved alignment for the Meadow Creek Parkway
by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The statement also expresses the County's
intent to create a linear park.
2. The changes to this priority emphasize that the County does not support a limited access
design for the Albemarle County section of the Route 29 North corridor.
Safety Improvements:
1.Staff added a priority to construct a pedestrian walkway on Route 240 in downtown Crozet.
Enhancement Projects:
1.Staff changed priority #1 of the enhancement projects to reflect the need to install
sidewalks along Route 20 North. The County submitted a Transportation Equity Act of the
21st Century (TEA-21) Enhancement Grant Application for this project this year.
6.Staff added priority #6 to reflect the TEA-21 Enhancement Grant Application the Town of
Scottsville submitted this year for Streetscape improvements.
Ms. Thomas asked if any member had a change to suggest other than the widening of Route 20
South. She said that under “Safety Improvements” she would like to mention in #1 that the County has
extended the bus line out to Wilton Farm Apartments to demonstrate a concern for the safety in that area.
With no further comments, Ms. Thomas suggested discussing #4 under “Standard Projects”
“Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill Creek
Drive. Incorporate sidewalks, etc.”
Mr. Dorrier said he walked the road today and it is a dangerous, curvy road. The young girl who
died had only been driving one week. He said there are going to be many other kids who have only been
driving a week on that road. Because of the danger for everyone, he thinks it is worthy of being at the top of
the list for improvements. He moved that it be moved from #4 to #1.
Mr. Bowerman said as a practical matter, how does the County stand with the CTB in light of the
other items on the list. Mr. Cilimberg said there is only one other project ahead of this project that is getting
funding now, and that is the improvements to Route 29 North. Those improvements have been completed
to the South Fork Rivanna River, improvements are underway to the bridge over the Rivanna, and planning
is underway for improvements from that point through Airport Road (Route 649). One other project not
listed in the County’s priorities, which is being funded with a large amount, is the Western Route 29 Bypass.
These other projects were in the CATS Plan or are statements about how to improve Route 29 North. That
project is #2 in the present statement, but there is another funding source through the Governor's
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Transportation Act this year, or the Legislative Transportation Act for the TransDominion Express. In terms
of the County’s priorities for funded projects, there is one project ahead of Route 20 and that is Route 29.
Mr. Bowerman said that in terms of dollars, the Route 20 project is much smaller in total dollars.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is much less. Because preliminary engineering has not been done, he does not know
the expected cost of Route 20. The length of the project is a little more than one and one-half kilometers
(one mile+).
Mr. Bowerman said that while the focus is where the 65,000 trips per day are, a relatively small
amount of money, if expedited, could make a significant safety improvement for the people using Route 20,
and get the project done quicker without harming priority #1. He thinks that would be an important
statement to make. Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Board wants to make Route 20 priority #1.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks Mr. Bowerman is right, but is concerned about how fast VDOT can move
on this project. In the interim, he thinks VDOT should be talked to about making safety improvements to
the road now. Mr. Dorrier said VDOT told him they would put the chevron pointers on the sides of the road
going into the curves. They have promised to do that. Mr. Tucker said the Resident Engineer could be
asked to do an analysis of the speed to determine whether the speed can be lowered. The County can
also add additional Police enforcement of the speed limits.
Ms. Thomas said the Board does have a motion on the floor to change the priority on this project.
There has been no second.
Ms. Humphris said she understood the problem and sympathizes. She does not feel
knowledgeable about the implications of what changing that project to priority #1 would do. She said
priority #1 now (Route 29) is a major priority.
Mr. Bowerman said he thought the Board could work with the Residency both as a community and
as a Board to expedite this phase of a primary highway project. Mr. Tucker said the Chairman would be at
the VDOT meeting making comments and he would suggest in the prepared statement that the County
really has two #1 priorities. Route 20 is very important and it can move more quickly. He said the Board
needed to push for the preliminary engineering so that a cost estimate can be made.
Ms. Humphris suggested the Board emphasize while making the statement that until this date, the
County had Route 29 as its #1 priority, with the Route 20 project being #4. However, in light of what has
happened, the Board needs help in expediting the planning and engineering of Route 20 South. She added
that citizens should write letters and attend the meeting. Mr. Tucker said citizens should also write
Delegate Harris and Senator Couric as they are allowed to speak first.
Mr. Dorrier said he would move that the Board make Route 20 South priority #2 just ahead of the
Route 29 Corridor Study and the TransDominion Express. That will show that the Board fully backs this
project. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(The statement, as approved, is set out in full below.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2000 SPRING
PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY,
AND URBAN SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT
RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES
The following addresses Albemarle County's priorities for each allocation of
TEA-21 and each sub-allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Standard Projects:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside.
The County supports these projects as referenced.
1) Undertake those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) projects
eligible for the primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992, joint
resolution between the City, County and University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to
Route 29 improvements already completed or currently planned, construct Meadow
Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the
County's highest priority project after the Route 29 improvements, and is of the utmost
importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve
the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. The first phase
of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
secondary program. This project is being planned as a low speed parkway in the City of
Charlottesville, and the County asks that the same design aspects be employed from
Melbourne Road to Rio Road. In particular, the County asks that this section be designed
within a linear park concept that replaces McIntire Park land lost due to the project and,
at the same time, links McIntire Park to the Rivanna Foundation trails along Meadow
Creek and the County's urbanizing area along Rio Road. In an effort to further this
project, the County is also receiving funding within its Secondary Priority Plan for planning
and design of the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North. County
staff is working closely with VDOT staff to get the design process underway. However, it
is not possible to construct this project within a reasonable time frame solely with
secondary funding due to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for
completion of other important secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will
meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. With the Commonwealth
Transportation Board's decision to eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the County
believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with
VDOT staff to evaluate construction of subsequent phases as a primary road, provided it
will accelerate the Parkway's completion. For the ninth consecutive year the County
urges VDOT to investigate all possible funding sources, particularly primary road funds,
to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally important roadway. Other projects
listed in CATS in the northern study area also should be actively pursued and completed.
These projects include the Airport Road improvements and the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road
Connector. The County also supports any initiatives to reopen consideration of the Route
29 interchanges at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive and Rio Road, possibly under
modified design concepts.
2) Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20
South from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into
these improvements. This is a curvy section of road in the County's Urban Area that
serves the traffic from Monticello High School and has experienced several accidents
with fatalities recently. While this has historically been a project lower on the County's
priority list, its priority has greatly increased due to these recent events.
3) The County is closely following the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Route 29
Phase I Corridor Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board in 1996 with the County's endorsement. The recommendations
emphasized use of an access management approach in lieu of a limited access road
design. The County feels these recommendations should be the basis in developing
plans for the third phase of the Route 29 widening project from the South Fork of the
Rivanna River to the Airport/Proffit Road intersection. County staff comments on the
preliminary plans for this section of road have consistently supported this approach in lieu
of a limited access design. The Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study continues. The
County appreciates efforts that have been made in this process to receive public input.
Again, the County does not support a limited access design for the Albemarle County
section of the corridor. The County continues to hope that the study will be truly
multi-modal in scope and give particular consideration to the benefits of rail service to the
corridor.
4) The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and
recommends that it be seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the
issues and recommendations identified in the Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study and be
considered in the Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study.
5) Undertake road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will
relieve traffic on Route 29 by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects
include the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector and new roads parallel to Route 29
between the South Fork Rivanna River and Airport Road/Proffit Road that would be built
in conjunction with the Route 29 widening project.
6) Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into all parallel street
improvements associated with the Route 29 improvements from the South Fork of the
Rivanna River to Airport Road/Proffit Road.
7) Widen Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This
section is covered by a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia
and was recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The
joint study should be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The remaining
portion of Route 250 West to Yancey Mills (the I-64/250 interchange) has been under
study by VDOT with a local advisory committee to determine long term needs for this
road. The Board of Supervisors received the final report at its March, 2000 day meeting
and will review the final recommendations of this study at its April, 2000 day meeting.
VDOT is also completing a similar study of Route 250 East from Free Bridge to the
Fluvanna County line. The County supports and appreciates this effort and encourages
continued public participation and consideration of recommendations.
8) Finish the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in Crozet and improve Route
240 in accord with County recommendations regarding this study.
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
9) Undertake improvements of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to
the improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation
development. The County supports the recommendations identified by the Fontaine
Avenue Task Force.
10) Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250 East to
Elks Drive/Fontana Drive. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these
improvements.
11) Recognize that mass transit can relieve traffic congestion and is an
alternative to road construction, particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and
shift funds from road construction into mass transit to accomplish this.
Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this ten percent set-aside.
They are, in priority order:
1) Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the
County's Urban Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full
road widening/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for
pedestrian walkways: 1) Route 20 North from Route 250 East to Wilton Farm
Apartments and Darden Towe Park; 2) Route 20 South from the City line to Mill Creek
Drive; 3) along Route 250 East in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks;
4) along Route 250 West from the City limits to the Bypass; and, 5) Route 240 in
"downtown" Crozet. Of these, the walkways along Route 20 North are the most
important improvement. Pedestrian travel along this road has increased significantly with
the development in that area. Furthermore, Wilton Farms Apartments are now served by
public bus service which travels along Route 20 North and a walkway would provide
additional pedestrian access to this service. There is great concern with the safety of
walking along this segment of road as currently constructed.
2) Installation of traffic signals at Route 22 and Route 250 and the I-64
interchange ramps at Fifth Street.
3) Improvements to Route 250 West along the business corridor in Ivy (from just
east of the intersection of Route 637 to just west of the intersection of Route 678) to
address existing and short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to
developed properties in this area. These improvements should be undertaken in
accordance with recommendations approved by the Board of Supervisors in the Route
250 West Corridor Study.
4) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in
Crozet.
5) Functional plans for Route 20 North and South for alignment improvements.
6) Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for
Routes 22 and 231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it
relates to traffic created by large trucks along these road segments, and encourages
VDOT to consider all appropriate measures to ensure that trucks travel safely along
these roadways in the future. Restriction of through-truck traffic is still considered by the
County to be the most effective measure.
Enhancement Projects:
Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in
priority order:
1) Construction of pedestrian walkways along Route 20 North.
2) Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Routes 20, 29 and 250) and
Airport Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport -
landscaping, signage, placement of overhead utilities underground, etc.
3) Completion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation trail project
between the Monticello Visitors Center and Monticello.
4) Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City
of Charlottesville and Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an
element of the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991).
5) Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
6) Beautification of streets in Scottsville through the Scottsville Streetscape
project.
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
7) Removal of non-conforming billboards.
National Highway System (NHS):
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as
proposed by VDOT in this area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has approved the NHS, which includes the existing Route 29 and
the Route 29 Bypass. The County's highest priority project in the proposed NHS is the
completion of the widening of Route 29 North from the South Fork of the Rivanna River
to Airport Road. The County desires to continue active participation in Route 29 Corridor
studies, including the Route 29 Corridor Study south of Charlottesville, which is currently
underway. The County will monitor the progress and recommendations of the Route 29
Corridor Studies, which are part of the NHS (additional information is provided under
Standard Projects #2).
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program:
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of
non-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide
__________
Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 6.1
through 6.3 and 6.5 through 6.8 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining item for information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
__________
Item 6.1. Proclamation recognizing March 22 through March 26, 2000, as the Sixth Annual Virginia
Festival of the Book.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved:
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS,Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and
storytelling within and outside its borders; and
WHEREAS, our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted over
1,000 writers and tens of thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA
FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books
and publishing; and
WHEREAS, businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have
contributed to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE
BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Albemarle and Virginia and the world have made the
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the
country;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, on behalf of the Albemarle
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 22, 2000, THROUGH SUNDAY, MARCH 26, 2000, as the Sixth
Annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide
variety of available events and activities.
__________
Item 6.2. Appropriation: Sheriff's Office, $8865 (Form #99062).
It was noted in the staff’s report that Sheriff Ed Robb has requested an additional $8865
appropriation in the current fiscal year for one-time operational needs. This request ($5100) consists of
funds to equip transport vehicles with audio and video devices to improve safety and monitoring during the
transport of prisoners to and from court. The other major items are proposed to improve courtroom
security through additional training for deputies ($2000) and a "stun belt" for prisoners while in court
($1000). The "stun belt" is required because prisoners are not permitted to be cuffed and shackled while
they are in court. While one stun belt is currently shared between the City and County, the Sheriff believes
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
an additional belt is needed. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #99062 in the amount of
$8865 for the items requested.
By the recorded vote set about above, the following resolution of appropriation was
adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1999-00
NUMBER: 99062
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ONE TIME SUPPLIES FOR SHERIFF’S OFFICE
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORYDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 21020 601000 SHERIFF - POLICE SUPPLIES$8,865.00
TOTAL$8,865.00
REVENUEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE$8,865.00
TOTAL$8,865.00
__________
Item 6.3. Resolution granting $320,000 in eight annual installments to the Jefferson Board for
Aging for the Woods Edge Apartments (apartment complex for the elderly).
It was noted in the staff’s report that at the March 1 Board meeting, Fore Woods Edge L.L.L.P and
the Jefferson Board for Aging (JABA) requested $320,000 for the Woods Edge Apartments, a 96-unit
apartment complex for the elderly located near Mallside Apartments in the Rio District. The proposal asked
the County to commit $40,000 annually to JABA, beginning in FY-02, to be used to lower the rents by $100
to$150 for 24 of the 96 units making them affordable to the 30 percent to 50 percent of median income
range elderly. The remaining 72 units will rent to the 50 percent median income range. At the end of the
15-year period, JABA will have the option of purchasing the property for the outstanding debt and exit taxes.
The major thrust behind this request is the applicant's attempt to garner as many points as possible
for their March 17th competitive application for VHDA Low-Income Tax Credits. If approved, the County's
$320,000 contribution will give the applicants an additional 10 points. If the project is not approved for the
tax credits, the project will not go forward and the County will not be obligated to grant the $320,000.
There were three issues raised at the March 1st Board meeting: 1) the required resolution to
commit County funds; 2) Albemarle County residency for the subsidized apartments; and, 3) assurance that
the dollar value of the grant would go directly to the residents.
1) The resolution which has been drafted sets out the acknowledged need for affordable housing,
the need to address the housing needs of the growing elderly population and the terms of the agreement,
which would provide $320,000 in eight annual installments to JABA to lower the rents on 24 of the 96
apartments. The applicant understands that the grant is subject to the Board's annual appropriation
process, which is clearly stated in the resolution. Although it was determined that the County is legally able
to lend funds to a for-profit entity to develop or rehabilitate residential rental property, the short time frame
does not allow the County to go through the public advertisement and public hearing process for a loan.
The resolution also stipulates that the agreement will not be in effect if the application for tax credits is not
approved during this calendar year.
2) Restricting tenants to Albemarle County residents creates several problems: 1) According to
the VHDA attorney, tax-exempt housing bond rules require residential rental property to be available for use
by the general public and a restriction for Albemarle County residents would conflict with this general public
requirement; 2) It would be difficult to determine who qualifies as an Albemarle County resident, i.e., how
long someone would need to reside in Albemarle County to qualify as a resident. Restricting the subsidized
apartments to Albemarle County residents, however, does not violate any fair housing regulations as long
as a specific protected population is not being discriminated against.
3) The third concern was assuring that County dollars would be used "dollar-for-dollar" to benefit
residents, not the developer. Based on the proposed resolution and discussions with the applicant, all of
the $40,000 annual grant would be used to buy down the rent by $100 to $150 on 24 apartments. For
example, with the deepest subsidy of $150, a $500 apartment would rent for $350. At an annual rent
reduction of $1800, the $40,000 grant would directly subsidize approximately 22 units. Additionally, JABA
and Fore Properties have agreed that any balance of funds remaining each year would be used to lower
the rents on a number of additional units by approximately $50 per month. The owner would provide the
County with an annual report showing how the grant funds were used on a monthly basis, which would
include the lease rents for the apartments and the share of the rent paid by each household during that
time frame.
The original resolution is brought back to the Board for review and approval. The Fore Woods
Edge L.L.L.P must submit its application to VHDA by March 17th.
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Financial Support for
Woods Edge Apartments, a Proposed Tax Credit Affordable Housing Development for the Elderly,
was adopted:
RESOLUTION OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR WOODS EDGE APARTMENTS, A
PROPOSED TAX CREDIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
ELDERLY
WHEREAS, the elected and appointed officials of Albemarle County believe there is a
great need for new affordable housing for the elderly in this community; and
WHEREAS, Fore Woods Edge L.L.L.P. will submit on or prior to March 17, 2000, an
application for nine percent Housing Tax Credits to the Virginia Housing
Development Authority ("VHDA") for the development of Woods Edge
Apartments for the elderly in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the construction of Woods Edge Apartments and the allocation of federal
housing tax credits by VHDA for that development will help meet the housing
needs and priorities of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, one of the two general partners of this development is the Jefferson Area
Board for Aging, Inc. ("JABA"), our Area Agency on Aging which is widely
recognized as a leader in the provision of services to the elderly in this area; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors strongly endorses the allocation of the housing tax
credits requested by Fore Woods Edge L.L.L.P. for that development; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wants to express formally its additional financial
support and commitment to this much needed affordable housing complex for
the elderly in Albemarle County;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia:
The Board of Supervisors hereby approves a grant of Three Hundred Twenty
Thousand Dollars ($320,000) to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, Inc., to be
used exclusively for support of Woods Edge Apartments for the elderly. The
grant serves a very important public purpose by increasing the affordability of
Woods Edge Apartments for more elderly households in need of decent new
housing. The grant, comprising eight consecutive installments of Forty
Thousand Dollars ($40,000) each, would be subject to the County's annual
appropriation. JABA and Fore Woods Edge LLC, the two general partners of the
Owner of the proposed Woods Edge Apartments, have agreed that these funds
will be used to reduce the rent directly paid by residents in 24 of the
development's apartments between $100 and 150 a month, thereby enabling
Woods Edge Apartments during this period to serve another segment of the local
elderly population which otherwise would not have the minimum income to
qualify even at the affordable projected rents. Furthermore, the two
above-referenced general partners have agreed that the balance of these funds
remaining each year, if any, would be used to increase the affordability of a
limited number of additional units by reducing the rent directly paid by those
residents by up to $50 a month. The initial installment would be utilized starting
in July, 2001, the scheduled first year of operation of Woods Edge Apartments.
This Resolution and agreement with the Owner would no longer be effective if
the above referenced application to VHDA does not receive a reservation of
housing tax credits during this calendar year.
__________
Item 6.5. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission Withdrawal Resolution and
Agreement.
It was noted in the staff’s report that as a member of the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention
Commission and in preparation for the opening of our own detention facility in the fall of 2001, the County
must withdraw from current membership in the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission.
The proposed Agreement and Resolution establish the terms and conditions under which the County
agrees to withdraw effective April 1.
The County and City have decided to withdraw at this time from the Shenandoah Commission for
several reasons. The major reason is obviously that the County needs to terminate its membership in the
Shenandoah Commission, since it is now a member of the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission and
have our own financial and contractual obligations. Secondly, Shenandoah is about to enter into some
long-term financing arrangements for their new facility to be built in Augusta County in 2002 and the County
does not wish to be tied into any legal and contractual arrangements for a facility of which it will have no
part. Since Shenandoah will begin financing arrangements for their new facility this spring, April 1st
seemed to be the most propitious time to withdraw.
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
The withdrawal agreement sets out the following conditions:
C
The Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission agrees to lease
available bed space to the County at member per diem rates until our own facility
is open or through July 1, 2002, whichever is sooner;
C
The County shall be paid a withdrawal payment based on the Commission's
by-laws, which state that upon such termination "the average percentage of that
participant's utilization of the total of all the participant's utilization for the previous
five complete fiscal years will be determined. This percentage will be applied to
unrestricted retained earnings at the end of the most recent fiscal year, as per
audited financial statements, to calculate a one-time payment to the withdrawing
locality."
Based on the Commission by-laws, Albemarle should receive approximately 16.7 percent (based
on five-year participation) of the unrestricted earnings as of July 1, 1999, which should be equal to
approximately $65,313. However, since Albemarle is withdrawing April 1, it has been agreed that it will
receive the same percentage based on the unrestricted retained earnings as of April 1, 2000, since funds
from the retained earnings have already been used to Albemarle's benefit since July 1st. The final
withdrawal payment, based on the April 1st audit, is expected to be approximately $36,740.
The resolution states Albemarle County's resolve to withdraw membership in the Shenandoah
Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission and gives the County Executive the authority to execute the
agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and agreement, which state the terms and
conditions of the County's withdrawal from the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission
effective April 1.
By the recorded vote set about above the following Resolution and Agreement were
adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is a member jurisdiction in the Blue Ridge
Juvenile Detention Commission (hereafter Blue Ridge); and
WHEREAS, Blue Ridge is constructing a juvenile detention facility in Albemarle
County which will be available for occupancy prior to July 1, 2002; and
WHEREAS, it is now timely to withdraw as a member from the Shenandoah
Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission (hereafter Shenandoah); and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the County to enter into an agreement with
Shenandoah to continue to use its facility until such time as the Blue Ridge facility is
available for use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby gives notice that Albemarle County requests to
withdraw from the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission effective
April 1, 2000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Executive is authorized to
execute the attached Agreement establishing the terms and conditions for the County to
continue to use the Shenandoah Juvenile Detention Center until the Blue Ridge Juvenile
Detention facility is available and establishing the terms, conditions and amount of the
withdrawal payment from the Shenandoah Juvenile Detention Center Commission to be
paid to the County upon the April 1, 2000, withdrawal.
_____
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made this ___ day of ____________,
2000, among the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission (the
"Commission"), and the County of Albemarle (the "County").
Recitals
A. The County is a member of the Commission pursuant to the Commission's
Bylaws and applicable law.
B. The County has indicated an intent to withdraw as a member of the
Commission, effective April 1, 2000.
C. This Agreement sets forth the intentions of the Commission and the County in
the event of such cessation of membership.
Agreement
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
1. Lease of Detention Home Bed Space. On and after April 1, 2000 (or
if later, the date of withdrawal from the Commission by the County in accordance with the
Commission's Bylaws), the Commission agrees to lease available bed space to the
County, and the County agrees to lease available bed space from the Commission on
and subject to the terms and limitations contained in the Lease Agreement for Member
Jurisdictions attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (except for
the last sentence of Section 2(a) and the last sentence of Section 3(b)(ii), which are not
incorporated herein) (the "Lease"), as if the County was a member jurisdiction. The
Commission's obligation pursuant to this paragraph shall expire on the earlier of: (a) July
1, 2002, or (b) the date of opening of the detention home facility to be constructed within
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Charlottesville or the County. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the Commission has no obligation to make
bed space available to the County if the County is in default of its obligations or is
delinquent in any payments due the Commission.
2. Withdrawal Payment. Upon withdrawal from the Commission and
termination of the Lease, the County shall be paid a withdrawal payment by the
Commission in an amount to be determined in accordance with the Commission's
Bylaws, except that (a) the date for determining the amount of the Commission's
"unrestricted retained earnings" on which the payment is based shall be April 1, 2000,
and (b) the amount of "unrestricted retained earnings" on April 1, 2000, shall be
determined by an independent audit of the Commission's records, at the Commission's
expense.
3. Nonappropriation. The obligation of the County to lease bed space
pursuant to this Agreement is subject to and dependent upon appropriations being made
from time to time by the governing body of the County, as more particularly described in
the Lease.
4. Severability of Invalid Provisions. If any clause, provision or section of
this Agreement is held to be illegal or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the
invalidity of the clause, provision or section will not affect any of the remaining clauses,
provisions or sections of this Agreement, and this Agreement will be construed and
enforced as if the illegal or invalid clause, provision or section was not contained in it.
5. Notices. Any notice or other communication in connection with this
Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in accordance with the notice provisions set
forth in the Lease, provided that only the Commission and the County are entitled to
notice hereunder.
6. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
7. Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement, together with the
Lease, constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with regard to its subject matter,
subject to the Commission's Bylaws, and may be amended only by written amendment
executed by both parties and approved by a resolution adopted by the governing body of
the County and the Commission.
8. Effective Date. This Agreement shall only be effective upon approval
by resolution of the governing bodies of the County and the Commission and its
members. Each party agrees to provide notice of such approval to the other on or before
April 1, 2000.
9. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, all of which together shall constitute one and the same original.
__________
Item 6.6. November, 1999 Financial Report.
It was noted in the staff’s report that General Fund revenue projections were revised as part of the
2000-2001 budget process. Car tax revenues from the state are classified as local revenues where
budgeted, not state revenues where received, for comparison purposes. General Fund expenditure
projections have not been revised at this time. Education revenue projections have not been revised at this
time. Education expenditure projections reflect a 7.5 percent, $453,125, operating expense holdback, net
compensation adjustment.
By the recorded vote set out above, this report was accepted as information.
__________
Item 6.7. December, 1999 Financial Report.
It was noted in the staff’s report that General Fund revenue projections were revised as part of the
2000-2001 budget process. Car tax revenues from the state are classified as local revenues where
budgeted, not state revenues where received, for comparison purposes. General Fund expenditure
projections have not been revised at this time. Education revenue projections have not been revised at this
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
time. Education expenditure projections reflect a 7.5 percent, $453,125, operating expense holdback, net
compensation adjustment.
By the recorded vote set out above, this report was accepted as information.
__________
Item 6.8. Proclamation recognizing March, 2000 as National Professional Social Work Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved:
National Professional Social Work Month
March, 2000
WHEREAS, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) initiated National
Professional Social Work Month in 1962 as a time to honor social
workers and raise the public's awareness of the critical and often
unappreciated and overlooked contribution they make both to individuals
and families and to the well-being of the entire community; and
WHEREAS, each year in March the National Association of Social Workers actively
promotes this month by educating the public on pressing social issues;
and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County citizens are well-served by the professional and
compassionate services of the County social workers that work on their
behalf every day to increase self-sufficiency and promote human dignity;
and
WHEREAS, County social workers are dedicated to helping people help themselves
for the overall betterment of all local residents; and
WHEREAS, County social workers specifically within the social services department
are often called upon to deal with dangerous and highly complex
situations involving the lives of families;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Sally H. Thomas, Vice-
Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do
hereby commend and offer sincere appreciation to all social workers in
Albemarle County for a job well done and recognize the month of
MARCH, 2000
As
National Professional Social Work Month
and call upon all County residents to join in acknowledging their public
service and contributions on this 15th day of March, 2000.
__________
Item 6.9. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 8 and February 15, 2000, were
received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No 7. SP-99-68. Beverage Tractor & Equipment Co. (Sign #68). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to allow outdoor display & storage of farm equipment in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2(b) of the
Zoning Ord. TM 79, P 4P, contains 2.56 acs. Located on Richmond Rd (Rt 250 E) at NE corner of
intersect w/Hunter's Way (Rt 1146). Znd HC & EC. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
published in the Daily Progress on February 26 and March 6, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office and made a part of
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the site is already developed and the
proposed display area was previously used for the display of farm equipment. The site includes a 7200
square foot building, a parking lot in front of the building, a grass area between the parking lot and the road,
a parking area behind the building, and planted areas at the rear of the site. Parcels to the east, west and
north are commercially developed. The south side of Route 250 in the immediate area is undeveloped
farm land.
Mr. Cilimberg said this use is by special use permit due to the use of outdoor storage and display of
farm equipment in the Entrance Corridor. The Architectural Review Board has reviewed this request. They
recommended approval of the proposed use subject to conditions. Staff feels the expanded use will have
minimal impact on the district if the ARB’s conditions are satisfied. Consequently, staff finds that with the
ARB’s approval of a Certification of Appropriateness, this use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, and staff recommended approval of SP-99-68 subject to four
conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 15, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval subject to the four conditions recommended by staff.
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to
address the Board.
Mr. Alan Dillard said he has no problem with the recommendations by the ARB for additional
landscaping.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Perkins moved approval of SP-99-68 subject to the four conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out below.)
1.Items for display shall not be elevated;
2.Items for display shall be displayed only in the area indicated for display shown
on the plan labeled "Final Site Plan for Haffner Equipment Company" dated
October 5, 1987, with revisions dated January 22, 1988;
3.The following landscaping shall be added:
C
Fifteen (15) Glossy Abelia, twenty-four (24) inches in height minimum at
planting, approximately eight (8) foot on center, in a staggered row, to
complete the area of screening shrubs shown on the previously
approved site plan;
C
Additional Glossy Abelia, twenty-four (24) inches in height minimum at
planting, approximately eight (8) foot on center, in a staggered row,
along the east and west sides of the proposed display area;
C
Intersperse ornamental trees in the row of Scarlet Oak along Route 250;
C
Add three (3) medium trees at the south end of the east side of the site
forty (40) feet on center, measured from the easternmost Scarlet Oak;
and
4.Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the
ARB for a site plan amendment that satisfactorily addresses these conditions.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-99-72. Mary Ruane (Signs #71 & #72). PUBLIC HEARING on a request
to allow home occupation insurance business made up of two owners and one full-time employee in accord
w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord which allows for Home Office-Class B. TM 123, P 18C, contains 63.95
acs. Located off of Jefferson Mill Rd (Rt 618) at the end of Full Moon Lane. Znd RA. (This property is not
located in a designated growth area.) Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Daily Progress on February 26 and March 6, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office and made a part of
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant is proposing to establish a
business in a dwelling under construction on a one-acre portion of a 63.95 acre parcel that provides
wholesale insurance programs on a nationwide basis. All business is generated by phone, fax, mail and
Internet. The office hours will be Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Staff was not able to
identify any aspects of this request that would be of a substantial detriment to adjacent properties.
According to the applicant, they do not now, nor will they in the future, provide services in Virginia. The only
traffic to the site will be from the two residents and the one employee. Staff did recommend approval
subject to four conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 8, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-99-72, subject to the conditions recommended by staff, but added a fifth
condition reading: “No retail business shall be conducted on the site.”
At this time, the public hearing was opened, and the applicant invited to speak.
Mr. Ronald Ruane, agent for Mary Ruane, asked that the special permit be approved. They have
been in business for 18 years and no one can tell there is a business in the house from just looking at its
outside.
Mr. Bowerman asked why this is a Home Occupation B permit. Mr. Cilimberg said the use of an
outside employee requires the Class B standard.
Ms. Thomas questioned the hours of operation. Mr. Ruane said they work from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday. He said he is in his house and if the telephone rings he will answer it,
whatever the hour. Mr. Perkins asked if the conditions should refer only to the employee. Ms. Thomas
agreed. Mr. Davis said enforcement of such a condition will be hard. Mr. Dorrier said he does not think the
operation should be restricted to certain hours. He favors deleting Condition #2.
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dorrier moved approval of SP-99-72 with the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission, but deleting Condition #2 referring to the hours of operation. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES: Ms. Humphris. Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The conditions, as approved, are as follow.)
1.No more than one (1) employee except for family members who reside on site;
2.No signs for the business shall be posted on the property;
3.Use shall comply with the following provisions of Section 4.14 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance:
5.2.2 Regulations Governing Home Occupations
Section 5.2.2 of the ordinance provides regulations for home occupations. The
regulations do not permit the total floor area of the dwelling devoted to such
occupation to exceed 25 percent of the floor area of the dwelling or a maximum
of 1,500 square feet, whichever is less, unless waived, varied or modified by the
Commission in accord with Section 5.1 of the ordinance.
4.14.1.1 Method of Measurement
Noise shall be measured by means of a sound level meter and octave band
analyzer, calibrated in decibels (re 0.0002 microbar) and shall be measured at
the nearest lot line from which the noise level radiates.
4.14.1.2 Meaning of Terms
Decibel means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound
according to its pitch.
Impact noises shall be measured by means of an impact noise analyzer. Impact
noises are those whose peak values fluctuate more than six (6) decibels from the
steady values indicated on the sound level meter set at fast response.
Octave band means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies
sound according to its pitch.
Preferred frequency octave bands means a standardized series of octave bands
prescribed by the American Standards Association in S1.6-1960 Preferred
Frequencies for Acoustical Measurements.
Sound level meter means an electronic instrument which includes a microphone,
an amplifier and an output meter which measures a noise and sound pressure
levels in a specified manner. It may be used with the octave band analyzer that
permits measuring the sound pressure level in discrete octave bands.
Maximum Permitted Sound Levels (decibels)
Preferred Frequency Octave Bands
Location of Measurement
Octave band, At residential At other lot lines
cycles/second district boundaries within district
31.56472
636472
1256070
2505465
5004859
10004255
20003851
40003447
80003044
Overall for
impact noise8090
4.14.2 Vibration
The produce of displacement in inches times the frequency in cycles per second
of earthborne vibrations from any activity shall not exceed the values specified
below when measured at the points indicated.
4.14.2.1 Method of Measurement
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Earthborne vibrations shall be measured by means of a three component
recording system, capable of measuring vibration in the three mutually
perpendicular directions. The displacement shall be the maximum
instantaneous vector sum of the amplitude in the three directions.
4.14.2.2 Meaning of Terms
Vibrations means the periodic displacement of oscillation of the earth.
Area of Measurement
At residential At other lot lines
Type of vibration district boundaries within district
Continuous.00.015
Impulsive (100 per.006.030
minute or less)
Less than 8 pulses.015.075
per 24 hours
4.14.3 Glare
No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from flood lights or from high
temperature processes such as combustion, welding or otherwise, so as to be
visible beyond the lot line, shall be permitted except for signs, parking lot lighting
and other lighting permitted by this ordinance or required by any other applicable
regulation, ordinance or law. However, in the case of any operation which would
affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall apply.
4.14.4 Air Pollution
Rules of the State Air Pollution Control Board shall apply within Albemarle
County. Such rules and regulations include coverage of: emission of smoke
and other emissions from stationary sources; particulate mater; odor; particulate
emission from indirect heating furnaces; open burning; incinerators; and gaseous
pollutants.
4.14.5 Water Pollution
Rules of the State Water Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County.
4.14.6 Radioactivity
There shall be no radioactivity emission which would be dangerous to the health
and safety of persons on or beyond the premises where such radioactive
material is used. Determination of existence of such danger and the handling of
radioactive materials, the discharge of such materials into the atmosphere and
streams and other water, and the disposal of radioactive wastes shall be by
reference to and in accordance with applicable current regulations of the
Department shall be by reference to and in accordance with applicable current
regulations of the Department of Energy, and in the case of items which would
affect aircraft navigation or the control thereof, by applicable current regulations
of the Federal Aviation Administration, and any applicable laws enacted by the
General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the requirements of the
Virginia Air Pollution Act, whichever is greater.
4.14.7 Electrical Interference
There shall be no electrical disturbance emanating from any lot which would
adversely affect the operation of any equipment on any other lot or premises and
in the case of any operation which would affect adversely the navigation or
control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall apply; and
4.No retail business shall be conducted on the site.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-99-76. Starlight Farm Bridge (Signs #80Q). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request for a bridge crossing the South Branch of the Hardware River on 103 ac farm. Znd RA. TM 88, P
7B & TM 99, P 61. Located on S sd of Rt 760, one-half ml S of Rt 29 S. (This property is not located in a
designated growth area). Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on February 26 and March 6, 2000.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office and made a part of
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this bridge, with its associated fill, was installed
without prior County approval. The bridge was constructed approximately six months ago. The Department
of Building Codes and Zoning Services issued a violation letter on December 10, 1999, for the construction
of the bridge without the issuance of a special use permit. The property is located between the southern
side of Route 760 and the northern side of Route 813. Prior to bridge installation, vehicles used to ford the
stream in an area located further west of the bridge location.
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Cilimberg said the bridge falls under the category of an agricultural use because it is intended
to provide limited support to an agricultural population. The Open Space and Critical Resources Plan
defines this South Branch stream valley as a Major Stream Valley. The fill and the bridge placement are
located in an area of open pasture land, and the intrusions into the stream valley have not resulted in a loss
of aesthetic value.
Mr. Cilimberg said the bridge’s construction consists of concrete abutments that support a steel
beam and wooden deck span that is at the same level as the stream banks. Very little fill was necessary to
raise the road to the elevation of the bridge or for the bridge installment itself. The Engineering Department
noted that impacts associated with this bridge do not increase the flood plain elevation beyond that shown
on the existing FIRM maps. Engineering is competent that conditions of approval are adequate to fully
insure that provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are adhered to. The bridge abutments and approaches are
within the stream buffer, therefore, a mitigation plan is required by the Water Protection Ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff originally recommended approval subject to five conditions. A sixth
condition, recommended by the Engineering Department, was added at the Planning Commission meeting
on February 8, 2000. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request, but revised
the wording of Conditions No. 1, No. 2, No. 5 and No. 6.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened, and the applicant invited to speak.
Mr. Roy Coggins said several years ago he sold a parcel of his property. There was a ford in the
creek that he used. When the property was surveyed, the surveyor was supposed to keep one side of the
ford on his property, and the other side on the property that was sold. He put both sides on the property
that was sold, so Mr. Coggins could not use the ford without asking permission each time. He talked with
someone at the Highway Research Council about the possibility of putting in a wooden bridge. This person
said VDOT has no jurisdiction over private property, and as far as they were concerned, he could put in a
bridge. He then talked with someone at the local Residency Office and was told the same thing. This past
summer, he decided to put in a bridge rather than having to drive around the property to gain access to it.
There is a driveway there, and for some reason people thought he was going to put in a development which
is not the case. He does not want people driving through his property so has a locked gate on one end and
on the other end there is locked chain. He wants to reassure Mr. George Stevens, a neighbor, that he has
no intention of turning Starlight Road into a road which goes all the way through to Route 760 (Red Hill
School Road).
Mr. George Stevens said he is concerned this could become a connector road from Route 813 and
Route 712 to I-64. Although that is not Mr. Coggins' intention, a future buyer might not feel the same way.
He would not want that road to ever turn into a short cut because it would drastically change his property
since his house is close to the road. As the community develops, there might be a majority of new residents
that would appreciate such a short cut. He asked that the Board look at it in that light. He said there is a
stipulation that the bridge is for agricultural use only, and he would like to have a definition of “agricultural
use only.”
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Coggins had indicated there would be a gate associated with the bridge. Mr.
Coggins said he has not put the gate up because he did not know what the results of this meeting would be.
He said there is a chain on the fence now so that people can’t get through. He keeps that locked at all
times.
Mr. Dorrier asked if that would satisfy Mr. Stevens’ concern. Mr. Stevens said the stipulations of the
County satisfied him. However, he is looking to the future. It was stated in the Planning Commission’s
report that the bridge meets the minimum requirements for a subdivision. That is a little more than a
normal farm bridge would require.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and Ms. Thomas
asked for the definition of “agricultural purposes only.” Mr. Cilimberg then read the definition of "agriculture"
from the Zoning Ordinance. He added that the special use permit conditions run with the land, not with the
applicant. Any change in use of the bridge would have to come back before this Board.
Ms. Thomas said she got a question by E-mail asking what good it does the neighbors that there
are certain activities that are bonded. Mr. Davis said the bonds referenced in the conditions and in the
ordinances are performance bonds to ensure that ordinance requirements are met, such as; erosion
control, stabilization of soil, etc. If the conditions are not met, the County can then draw those bonds and
perform the work itself as a means of assuring performance. The bonds are not for the benefit of third
parties, so they are not indemnity bonds which would provide relief for someone if their property were
damaged by the inaction of the property owner.
Ms. Thomas asked if the special permit can be held up until the stream buffer mitigation plan listed
in #1 and the permits from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission are met and complied with since the
bridge is already built and is in violation as it now stands. Mr. Davis said the effect of condition #6 is really to
accomplish that. It specifies that the special permit shall only become active when those permits have been
granted. The conditions as stated accomplish the intent of what that condition is seeking.
Ms. Thomas said that means the bridge should not be used. Mr. Davis said the bridge is not
permitted until those permits have been received. The bridge is now in violation of the Zoning Ordinance
and should not be used.
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Ms. Humphris said she understands Mr. Stevens' concerns. She said the Board dealt with a similar
situation about six months ago, and put restrictions on the permit so that a road could not connect through
from Earlysville Road to Garth Road. She said Condition #1 is about as strong as it can possibly be for
now. Unless Mr. Coggins changes his mind, or someone else purchases the property, that is the way it will
be. If he wants to do something else, he will have to come back before this Board.
Mr. Bowerman said the public record would clearly show Mr. Stevens comments and Mr. Coggins
comments, as well as the concern of the Board, for any future Board to review a change to this permit.
Ms. Thomas said she has sympathy for a farm use that finds itself in existence without realizing that
there are regulations. But, the Board has little sympathy for developers who do the same thing. In fact,
there was a bridge which was torn down, and the Board’s decision was upheld in Court. The public just
wants to know if a development is contemplated on a farm road, since this would not be the first time that
had happened in the County.
Mr. Perkins asked if Condition #1 should be expanded to agriculture and forestry use. Mr.
Cilimberg said that part of the definition of agriculture is silviculture. Mr. Bowerman said it would be
superfluous, but it could be added.
At this time, Ms. Humphris offered motion to approve SP-99-76 with the six conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The conditions, as approved, are set out in full below.)
1.The bridge is for agricultural purposes only, and shall not serve as access for
any residential development, nor shall it serve through traffic between Route 760
and Route 813. The road on at least one side of the bridge shall remain chained
or gated with a lock at all times;
2.The applicant shall stabilize the bare ground along the entire roadway that this
bridge serves by vegetating the area as soon as possible, but no later than June
1, 2000. This work will be bonded as required by the Engineering Department;
3.No modification to the bridge or roadway within the flood plain may be started
until a determination has been made by Engineering that the modification would
not impair the stream's ability to convey the 100-year flood. This requirement
does not include routine maintenance such as regrading the roadway surface,
cleaning roadway ditches, or replacement of damaged bridge members;
4.Should the bridge need repair or modification in the future, the applicant will
notify the County Engineer and consult on any proposed work. No disturbance is
allowed within the stream, except for removing debris, and any other disturbance
in the immediate stream buffer is limited to that work necessary to restore the
bridge to its current level of operation;
5.The applicant shall submit, and have approved by the Engineering Department,
a stream buffer mitigation plan that will provide consistency with Section 17.317
of the Albemarle County Code. Upon approval of the stream buffer mitigation
plan, the applicant shall implement the mitigation measures in the plan without
delay and no later than June 1, 2000. This work will be bonded as required by
the Engineering Department; and
6.Within 30 days of the granting of the special use permit, the applicant shall
submit a Joint Permit Application to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
for a permit to disturb State waters associated with this bridge and shall comply
with any requirements related to a permit issued for this bridge. Applicant shall
provide the County's Department of Engineering and Pubic Works a copy of any
permit issued and shall coordinate through the Department of Engineering and
Pubic Works to assure this permit's conditions are implemented. The special
use permit only becomes active when the permit is granted.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: November 3, 1999.
No minutes had been read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg said he had a report about the White Hall Post Office. He spoke with someone in the
Richmond District Office who said the Board needs to make a written request for the purpose of setting up a
meeting. He did give the name and address of the person to contact with that written request.
________________
March 15, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn to March 20, 2000, 1:00 p.m.
At 7:55 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Ms.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adjourn this meeting to March 20, 2000.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes:
AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date
Initials