2000-08-02August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors was held on August 2, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., Room
241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman; Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 9:09 a.m.);
Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris; Mr. Charles S. Martin; Mr. Walter F. Perkins; and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney,
Mr. Larry Davis; and Senior Deputy Clerk, Ms. Laurel A. Bentley.
Agenda Item No. 1. The Chairman, Mr. Martin, called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m.
_______________
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.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. GFOA Budget Award Recognition.
Mr. John Touhy, Director of Finance from Fauquier County Schools and Government, and a past
president of the Virginia Government Financial Officers Association, presented the Distinguished Budget
Award from the Government Finance Officers Association for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000, to
Assistant County Executive, Ms. Roxanne White. Mr. Touhy said this is the sixth year the County has won
the award, and this year the County is one of only 34 localities out of 168 to receive the award.
Ms. White accepted the award and acknowledged the work of Ms. Anne Gulati and Ms. Holly Bittle.
Ms. White then introduced Ms. Christina Cavaliere, who replaced Ms. Ann Gulati as Budget
Manager. She also introduced Mr. Kirk Dewyea, the County’s new Quality Improvement Coordinator.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. DISC Committee Recognition.
Mr. Martin recognized members of the former Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee
(DISC), thanking them for their assistance. Members present, and who were given certificates of
appreciation and Albemarle County coffee cups, included: Ms. Kathy Galvin, Mr. Eric Strucko,
Ms. Elizabeth Myer, Mr. Brian Broadus, and Ms. Sherry Buttrick. He also acknowledged the efforts of
Mr. David Tice, who was a DISC member and a Planning Commissioner, and who has since died.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Presentation to Ms. Treva Cromwell.
Mr. Martin presented the Outstanding Citizen of Albemarle County Award to Ms. Treva Cromwell, a
91-year-old County resident who has been active in land-use and other issues her entire life, and who still
serves as a mentor to the community. Ms. Cromwell said she wished to recognize the efforts of other
individuals and organizations who contribute to the decision-making process. She added that the League of
Women Voters remains active in land use decisions, economic development, and environmental protection.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation: Commission on Children and Families.
Ms. Saphira Baker, Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families
(CCF), briefly described the Commission’s Second Annual Report (on file in the Clerk’s office). She then
introduced Dr. Michael D. Dickens, who thanked the Board for its support. Dr. Dickens then introduced Mr.
Jack Gallagher; Ms. Katherine A. Ralston, Director of Social Services; Ms. Jackie Bryant; and Mr. James R.
Peterson, Chairman of the Commission; and Mr. Richard Meriwether, the Commission’s Vice-Chair.
Mr. Bowerman said that since some of the sustainability accords relate to work being done by the
CCF, it would be helpful if the Commission assisted with some of the measuring and tracking that must be
done. Mr. Peterson agreed that this would fit in with the Commission’s work, and they would be happy to do
what they can to assist.
Mr. Dorrier asked if arrest statistics are rising. Mr. Peterson said the number of arrests in the
County is not rising. The number of arrests in the City is higher than the state average, but those statistics
are improving.
Ms. Humphris said that when she read the report, it was obvious that a great deal of work had been
accomplished over the past two years. Mr. Meriwether said this is due to the efforts of many talented
people.
_______________
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation: Farm Tour Resolution.
Mr. Martin read the following resolution recognizing September 30, 2000 as Farm Tour Day and
presented it to Ms. Marsha Joseph, who has helped develop the Farm Tour Day concept. Ms. Joseph said
two farms have committed to be part of the tour. Mr. A. C. Shackleford, President of the Albemarle County
Farm Bureau, said the Bureau works with the Piedmont Environmental Council to support agriculture in the
County.
Mr. Shackleford distributed a report that showed statistics on Albemarle County’s agricultural
production, which was prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture. Mr. Dorrier asked why
grapes did not on the report. Mr. Shackleford said they probably should have, since grapes are a rising
commodity in the County.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM TOUR DAY
WHEREAS,the Comprehensive Plan gives highest priority to agriculture and forestry as a land use in the
Rural Area; and
WHEREAS,the citizens of Albemarle County in the 1994 Albemarle County Planning Needs Survey rated
“preserving natural resources and open space” and preserving farmland and forested land”
as the fourth and fifth most importuned goals out of a series of twenty-five broad goals for the
future; and
WHEREAS,Albemarle County is among the top 27 counties in Virginia for the market value of agricultural
products sold; and
WHEREAS,it is the land resource which provides the true value of agriculture and forestry to this
community, with related benefits of open space for cleaner air, watershed protection, and
wildlife habitat, scenic, rural and historic landscapes which encourage tourism; and quality of
life for all residents; and
WHEREAS,maintaining agriculture and forestry also enables the County to grow at a measured and
deliberate pace, and to better plan for services; and
WHEREAS,the loss of the agricultural and forestal resource base would permanently damage the County’s
economic base and natural environment; and
WHEREAS,the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee recommended that educational
programs be developed for the public, such as:
·
Improving both the County officials’ and the general public’s understanding of agriculture;
·
Promoting appreciation of the rural area by the community, and emphasizing the
importance of agricultural and forestal lands to them;
·
Supporting agricultural education in the classroom, and implementing a farm day for
school children; and
·
Implementing an educational tour of County farms for the general public, County officials
and decision-making staff; and
WHEREAS,the future of agriculture and forestry in Albemarle County depends on the actions of the farm
and forest owners, but also on the support of elected officials and other citizens;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles Martin, Chairman, Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby
proclaim
September 30, 2000 as:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM TOUR DAY
and commend the Albemarle Farm Bureau and the Piedmont Environmental Council
for helping to educate the citizens about the importance of farming to our community.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve items 10.1 through
10.9, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No. 10.1. SP-00-17. CFW Intelos – CV201 (Rt 676), Ivy Creek Methodist Church, (Sign #26),
conditions of approval (deferred from July 12, 2000).
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
The executive summary states that the Board reviewed this special use permit and held a public
hearing on July 12, 2000. The Board deferred action to allow staff time to amend the recommended
conditions.
Condition #1 was amended with language offered by Mr. Greg Kamptner on July 12, 2000.
Mr. Kamptner amended condition #7 with language that replaces that offered on July 12 which would have
required repair or replacement of damaged trees. Considering the height and maturity of these trees,
replacement with “a tree of like height and screening” would not be practical. The replacement language is
intended to be preventative.
(Ms. Humphris mentioned two typographical errors in the executive summary. She pointed out that
the numbers SP-00-11 and SP-00-17 were both used, but SP-00-11 is the correct number. Additionally,
condition #7 should read “…shall not remove existing trees within of the tower…”
five-hundred (500) feet
Finally, condition #5A1 should read, “…requesting locate on the tower…”.
to
Ms. Thomas said it was her understanding that if the trees were removed, the tower would have to
be lowered, since future homeowners would have to depend on six trees to hide the pole from their view.
Mr. Benish said the Zoning Administrator always ensures that towers are lowered whenever needed to be
sure towers are lower than neighboring trees. Mr. Davis said that interpretation is derived from condition #1.
This is an ongoing requirement, not just of the trees in place whenever a permit is established.
Mr. Bowerman suggesting amending the condition to specifically state that the requirement is for the
present and the future. Ms. Humphris said adding the word “ever” to condition #1 would be sufficient to
ensure that neither the antenna nor tower shall ever extend more than seven feet above the trees. It was
the consensus of the Board to revise this condition.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved SP-00-17, CFW Intelos – CV201 (Rt. 676),
Ivy Creek Methodist Church, with the 14 revised conditions.
Conditions are as follows:
1.Antennas shall not extend above the height of the tower. Neither the tower nor the
antennas shall ever extend more than seven (7) feet above the tallest tree within fifty (50)
feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the
tallest tree.
2.The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a.The tower shall be of wood;
b.Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c.The tower shall have no lighting; and,
d. All equipment mounted to the pole shall be painted or otherwise treated to match
the pole in color;
3.The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled “Lease Parcel &
Ingress Egress Easement” dated January 28, 2000 (on file in the Clerk’s office);
4.Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. The Antennas shall be limited to those shown in a plan titled “CFW Wireless Route
676 CV201” (on file in the Clerk’s office);
b. Antennas shall be flush mounted to the pole; and,
c. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other
wireless telecommunications providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate
antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions:
(1) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site
plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that
it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in
good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the
site; and,
(2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable
evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location.
Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to,
evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate
on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site
owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County.
6. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the
luminaire. For 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. Outdoor lighting shall
be limited to periods of maintenance only. A lighting plan must be provided with the
building permit application;
7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or
installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan developed by a
certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any
existing trees to be removed on the site outside the access easement and tower lease
area, shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for
approval. All construction or installation associated with the tower and equipment building,
including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this
tree conservation planExcept for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of
.
Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees
within five- hundred (500) feet of the tower and theequipment building;
8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
9. Fencing of the lease area shall consist of a wooden fence of wood color, which is limited to
a ten (10)-foot by ten (10)-foot area and six (6) feet in height;
10. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
11. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later
than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify
each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider;
12.No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created
that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization
measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed;
13. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; and,
14.The access road shall disturb no more than seventy-five (75) feet in cross section.
_______________
Item No. 10.2. Resolution to comply with new legislation regarding membership composition on the
Thomas Jefferson Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB).
The executive summary states that on September 30, 1994, the Virginia General Assembly
enacted the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act to establish community criminal justice boards for
participating localities. The Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Goochland, Green, Louisa, Madison, Nelson,
Orange, and the City of Charlottesville elected to form and appoint members to the Thomas Jefferson
Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) in accordance with Virginia Code Section 53.1. This board
provides oversight to programs and services such as community corrections, pretrial services, and public
inebriate services that are provided in this area.
Effective October 1, 2000 and retroactive to July 1, 2000, the General Assembly passed a new law
that requires Community Criminal Justice Boards to include a local government official from each
participating locality. The law states that the government official must be a member of the Board of
Supervisors, the County Executive, or the Assistant County Executive.
Albemarle County, serving as the fiscal agent, has recently received a grant award in the amount of
$564,442.00 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). This grant will provide funds for
OAR and Central Virginia Regional jail as they provide pretrial services in the counties served by the board
and the Mohr Center through Region Ten Community Services Board that provides public inebriate services
for Charlottesville.
As a condition of the grant, DCJS requires that the CCJB comply with this new law. DCJS requires
the board to obtain revised resolutions from each of the localities it serves which identify the local
government official who will represent each locality on the board by October 1, 2000.
Staff recommends that the Board accept the following resolution to (1) continue participation on the
Thomas Jefferson Community Criminal Justice Board, and (2) appoint Mr. Thomas C. Foley to the board
as Albemarle County's representative.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the Comprehensive Community Corrections Act on
September 30, 1994 establishing community criminal justice boards for participating localities; and
WHEREAS, the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Goochland, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Nelson, Orange and
the City of Charlottesville elected to form and appoint members to the Thomas Jefferson Community
Criminal Justice Board; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 53.1-183 sets forth the mandatory composition of the membership on these
criminal justice boards; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly, during its 2000 session, amended Virginia Code Section 53.1-183
to include “a member of each governing body or a city or county manager, county administrator or
executive, or assistant or deputy appointed by the governing body”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle agrees to:
1.Continue participation on the Thomas Jefferson Community Criminal Justice Board; and
2.Appoint Mr. Thomas C. Foley, Assistant County Executive, to fulfill this legislative requirement.
_______________
Item No. 10.3. Appropriation: General/CIP (purchase of property on Polo Grounds Road),
$485,014 (Form #20003).
The executive summary states that, as a result of recent difficulties in acquiring land in the
development areas for public facilities, the County has begun to consider “land banking” for future public
facilities needs. “Land banking” helps ensure that public facilities can be sited in more desirable locations,
hopefully before land cost becomes a limiting factor.
The Board is aware that property on Polo Grounds Road recently became available at an attractive
price. This land is located in an area that will require future public facilities to serve the County’s growing
population within the designated Development Areas. The recommended appropriation request represents
the final action needed by the Board to carry out its intent to purchase the property for future public facilities.
Staff requests approval of the appropriation in the amount of $485,014 for the purchase of 27.482
acres on Polo Grounds Road (Tax parcel #46-26).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
NUMBER: 20003
FUND: GENERAL/CIP
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ON POLO GROUNDS
ROAD.
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 9010 11010 800750Purchase of Land $485,014.00
TOTAL$485,014.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 9010 51000 510109Transfer in$485,014.00
TOTAL$485,014.00
TRANSFERS
1 1000 93010 930018Trs.-Polo Grounds Property$485,014.00
2 1000 51000 510100Fund Balance$485,014.00
_______________
Item No. 10.4. Appropriation: Comprehensive Services Act, $50,000 (Form #20004).
The executive summary states that during the FY01 budget process, the School Division’s
recommended budget included a $50,000 increase in funding to their Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)
special education needs, with an additional $50,000 as one of their unfunded priorities. The School Board
has funded the additional $50,000 in their final adopted budget, although it was not included in the CSA
Fund appropriation that was part of the Annual Resolution of Appropriation approved by the Board in June.
This request appropriates the additional $50,000 and transfers it from the School Fund to the CSA
Fund for special education services.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #20004 transferring $50,000 from the School Fund to
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
the CSA Fund.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
NUMBER: 20004
FUND: C.S.A.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL SCHOOL FUNDING FOR
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT.
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1551 53120 581401Mandated Spec. Ed. Resid. $31,087.40
1 1551 53120 581601Spec. Ed. Private 16,805.30
1 1551 53120 581602Spec. Ed. Public 2,107.30
TOTAL$50,000.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
2 1551 51000 512001Transfer from School Fund$50,000.00
TOTAL$50,000.00
_______________
Item No. 10.5. Request to amend County of Albemarle Personnel Policy P-81 (Holidays) and Policy
P-84 (Annual Leave).
The executive summary states that currently, County employees are granted annual leave using
the following method:
A. One day per month for each month employed during the first five (5) years of continuous
employment.
B. One and one-quarter days for each month employed during the sixth through the tenth (6-
10) year of continuous employment.
C. One and one-half days for each month employed during the eleventh though the fifteenth
(11-15) year of continuous employment.
th
D. One and three-quarter days for each month employed during the sixteenth (16) and
succeeding years of continuous employment.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has recently increased annual leave for their long-term employees.
That amendment is as follows:
th
Two days for each month employed during the 21st through 25 year of continuous
v
employment.
Two and one-quarter days for each month employed during the 25th and succeeding
v
years of continuous employment.
In addition, the State has also adopted a twelfth holiday which is added to the calendar year and
recognizes Lee/Jackson Day as the Friday preceding the third Monday in January. The third Monday in
January will commemorate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution regarding the County’s Personnel Policy
which reflects the state’s annual leave and holiday policy increasing annual leave for years of service
beyond twenty years and increasing paid holidays from eleven to twelve.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO AMEND
PERSONNEL POLICY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has adopted the to
County of Albemarle Personnel Policy
establish policies and procedures in regard to the employment of County employees; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that policy P-81 and policy P-84 should be amended to
conform County policies to changes in State law and State personnel policies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
amends the by amending policy P-81 and policy P-84, such
County of Albemarle Personnel Policy
amendments being attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
§P-84
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§P-84ANNUAL LEAVE
All permanent employees of the County shall be granted annual leave by the County as follows:
A.One day per month for each month employed during the first five (5) years of continuous
employment.
B.One and one-quarter days for each month employed during the sixth through the tenth (6-
10) years of continuous employment.
C.One and one-half days for each month employed during the eleventh through the fifteenth
(11-15) years of continuous employment.
D.One and three-quarter days for each month employed during the years of continuous
employment.
E. Two days for each month employed during the twentieth through twenty-fifth (20-25) years
of continuous employment.
th
F.Two and one-quarter days for each month employed during the twenty-fifth (25) and
succeeding years of continuous employment.
The maximum accumulation for annual leave is 320 hours.
Upon termination of employment, the employee will be paid for his accumulated but unused annual
leave.
Employees are required to arrange use of paid annual leave in advance with their department head
or designee. In case of a conflict because of the work schedule in a particular department, leave will be
granted at the discretion of the department head or designee. In the interest of fostering wellness and
relaxation for County employees, those employees with five or more years of service must take at least five
(5) days of annual leave per fiscal year.
§P-81
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§P-81 HOLIDAYS
All permanent employees are allowed twelve paid holidays per year:
1.New Year’s Day – January 1
2.Lee-Jackson Day - The Friday preceding the Third Monday in January
3.Martin Luther King, Jr. Day – Third Monday in January
4.President’s Day (Washington’s Birthday) – Third Monday in February
5.Jefferson’s Birthday – April 13
6.Memorial Day – Last Monday in May
7.Independence Day – July 4
8.Labor Day – First Monday in September
9.Thanksgiving Day – Fourth Thursday in November
10.Friday after Thanksgiving
11.Christmas Eve – December 24
12.Christmas Day – December 25
Other holidays are granted by special proclamation of the Governor and/or Board of Supervisors.
Permanent employees are eligible for holidays with pay as soon as they begin work. If a holiday falls on a
Sunday, the following day will be observed as a holiday. If a holiday falls on a Saturday, the previous day
will be observed as a holiday. If a holiday falls within the employee’s vacation, it is not charged to that
employee’s annual leave.
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Holiday Pay
Employees who are terminating employment with the County will not qualify for holiday pay unless
they work the next working day after the holiday.
Note:The above-noted holidays, while being followed by the majority of employees, are not guaranteed
as to specific dates. Under some situations, due to coverage requirements, the holidays for an
individual employee or group of employees may be scheduled by the department head on
alternate dates as long as the total number of holidays per fiscal year is granted to the
employee(s).
(Mr. Perkins said he supports the state’s lead on this item because it brings the County in alignment
with the nation. He asked about costs, since the amount of leave time an employee can “carry over” has
been changed. Mr. Tucker said the amount of time that can be “carried over” used to be higher; the County
reduced its ceiling to avoid costs when an employee terminates employment.
Ms. Humphris said this would increase the morale of employees. Mr. Martin said he thought items “e” and
“f” are a little on the high side, and should be examined as part of the County’s total compensation
package.)
_______________
Item No. 10.6. April, 2000 Financial Report.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the report, which is on file in the Clerk’s
office.
(Mr. Bowerman said the reports are not user-friendly. Mr. Tucker said staff is currently designing a
new format for the reports. Mr. Bowerman said it would be helpful if the last line, which reads, “Percent
year-to-date versus budget” included the figures for the past five years in order to show the trend.
Mr. Perkins said the Audit Committee would review proposed format changes. Mr. Dorrier suggested
adding bar graphs as well.)
_______________
Item No. 10.7. May, 2000 Financial Report.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the report, which is on file in the Clerk’s
office.
_______________
Item No. 10.8. Lease for temporary space for the Department of Social Services.
The executive summary states that due to the critical space needs facing the County Office Building
in the next five years, the County plans to temporarily house the Department of Social Services in off-site
space for a period of approximately five years until new space can be built or renovated. Staff has been
through an extensive search over the past six months to secure a location that will provide adequate space
and parking for over 70 employees, plus clients and visitors.
The proposed resolution would approve the County Executive to sign a five-year lease with the
Millmont Professional Office Land Trust for the Garnett Medical Building property on Millmont Street, which
is located behind Barracks Road Shopping Center. The County will be renting approximately 16,000
square feet at a cost of $15.00 per square foot, with the major portion of the rent paid by the state.
Additional costs for the telephone and WAN connections will be brought back to the Board with the annual
reappropriations in the fall.
Staff recommends approval of the following resolution authorizing the County Executive to sign the
lease with the Millmont Professional Office Land Trust effective October 1, 2000.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution authorizing the
County Executive to sign the lease with the Millmont Professional Office Land Trust effective
October 1, 2000.:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Millmont Professional Office Land Trust, the owner of certain property located in the City of
Charlottesville and known as Garnett Medical Building, desires to lease the property to the County
for use by the Department of Social Services for office space.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
authorizes Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, to execute the attached lease agreement.
The agreement is as follows:
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, made by and between MILLMONT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE LAND
TRUST (hereinafter the “Landlord”) and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter the “County” or “Tenant”).
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
SECTION 1
This Section 1 is an integral part of this Lease and all of the terms hereof are incorporated into this
Lease in all respects. In addition to the other provisions that are elsewhere defined in this Lease, the following,
whenever used in this Lease shall have the meaning set forth in this Section, and only such meaning, unless
such meanings are expressly contradicted, limited or expanded elsewhere in this Lease:
1.1Date of Lease. October 1, 2000.
1.2Premises. That certain lot or parcel of land, known as the Garnett Medical Building property,
located at 1023 Millmont Street in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (hereinafter the “Premises”
or “Property”). The Premises shall include the front parking lot as well as the gravel parking lot
adjacent to the buildings and measuring approximately 96’ by 61’.
1.3Commencement Date. October 1, 2000.
1.4Term. A period of five (5) years following the Commencement Date, subject to earlier termination
by Tenant upon providing six (6) months advance written notice in accordance with Section 15.1
of this Lease.
1.5 Option to Renew. Tenant shall have the option to renew the Lease for three (3) additional terms
of three (3) years each. Tenant shall exercise this option to renew by providing written notice in
accordance with Section 15.1 of this Lease at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of the
original and any renewal term(s). The renewal term(s) shall be on the same terms and conditions
of this Lease, except as expressly agreed to by the parties. The rent to be paid by Tenant during the
renewal term(s) shall be calculated according to Section 1.7 of this Lease.
1.6 Rent. Tenant agrees to pay the sum of $20,522.50 as monthly rent during the first year of the Term,
from October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001. This monthly rent amount shall be payable in
advance on the first day of each month during the term of this Lease, commencing on October 1,
2000.
1.7Rent Adjustment. For each of the lease years two, three and four and five for the original and any
renewal term(s) as set out in Section 1.5 of this Lease, the rental payment shall be increased
annually, each year above the preceding year, by an amount equal to the annual percentage
increase in the CPI Index, as defined herein, for the preceding lease year. The CPI Index shall be
the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, but if the CPI Index shall be
discontinued, Landlord and Tenant shall designate by mutual agreement an appropriate substitute
index or form having the same general acceptance as to use and reliability as the CPI Index and
such substitute shall be used as if originally designated herein, but no retroactive adjustments shall
be made.
1.8Permitted Uses. Tenant may use the Premises as office space for the operation of its Department
of Social Services and other related public uses. Landlord agrees to maintain in good condition
and repair (including replacements when necessary) all fire alarms and extinguishers as required
by current local zoning and building authorities, to be inspected at least annually and recharged
as necessary, and to bear a tag indicating the date of each such inspection and servicing.
Tenant agrees to immediately clean up any spillage of trash or debris that shall occur in connection
with the use of any dumpster or other trash collection container. Tenant shall maintain all
sidewalks adjacent to the Property in a broom-clean condition at all times, and shall promptly
arrange for the removal of snow or ice on such areas.
SECTION 2
Grant and Term
2.1Grant. In consideration of the rents agreed to be paid and of the covenants and agreements made
by the respective parties hereto, Landlord demises and leases to Tenant and Tenant hereby leases
from Landlord the Premises, upon the terms and conditions herein provided, subject to the terms
and conditions of this Lease.
2.2Term. Subject to the terms, covenants and agreements contained herein, Tenant shall have and
hold the Premises for the entire Term, and any subsequent term(s) as provided by Section 1.5,
subject to termination by Tenant in accordance with Section 12.5.
SECTION 3
Utilities and Taxes
3.1Utility Charges. Tenant shall be responsible for and pay when due all charges for heat, water,
gas, electricity, water, sewer, telephone, janitorial, garbage disposal service or any other utility
services used or consumed in the Premises by Tenant.
3.2Taxes. During the term(s) of this Lease, Landlord agrees to pay the real estate taxes assessed
against the Premises, if applicable, and Tenant agrees to pay any personal property taxes
assessed against its property located in or on the Premises.
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
3.3Net Lease. This is a net lease (except as provided for herein) and the rent, utilities and all other
sums payable hereunder by Tenant shall be paid without notice, demand, set-off, counterclaim,
deduction, or defense and, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, without abatement or
suspension.
SECTION 4
Subletting and Assignment
4.lConsent. Tenant will not sublet the Premises or any part thereof or transfer possession or
occupancy thereof to any person, firm or corporation, or transfer, assign, mortgage, pledge or
encumber this Lease, without the prior written consent of Landlord, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. However, this shall not apply to Tenant’s right to assign space within the
Premises to other departments or agencies of the County.
SECTION 5
Use and Upkeep of Premises
5.1Use. Tenant shall use and occupy the Premises for the purposes specified in Section 1.9 and only
in accordance with applicable Federal, state and local regulations. Landlord shall, prior to
occupancy by Tenant, ensure that all applicable local zoning regulations of the City of
Charlottesville are satisfied, including but not limited to any site plan amendment(s) or permits that
may be required to expand the parking lot(s). In the event that Landlord is unable to comply with
such requirements, Tenant may terminate this Lease without penalty and the parties shall have no
further liability to each other.
5.2Maintenance and Upkeep. Tenant shall keep the Property clean, neat, orderly, presentable and
in good repair at all times. During the term of this Lease, Landlord shall be responsible for all
repairs and maintenance of the Property and the improvements located thereon, except as
provided below, whether ordinary or extraordinary, structural or non-structural, foreseen or
unforeseen, including, but not limited to, roof, exterior walls, plumbing, heating, electrical, air
conditioning plate glass and windows. Tenant shall be responsible for routine repairs and
maintenance (excluding repairs or maintenance of the building and structural components
identified above), except that Tenant's obligation hereunder shall not exceed $2,000.00 in any one
year of the initial or subsequent term(s). It is understood that Landlord's obligation to pay for repairs
shall only apply to repairs to the building and its structural components and not to any equipment
provided by Tenant in the building or to the grounds.
Tenant’s obligation to pay for repairs is subject to and contingent upon appropriation of funds by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. If funds for such repairs are not appropriated, Tenant
agrees that its sole remedy shall be to elect to terminate this Lease and further agrees that it shall
not be entitled to any damages of any kind.
Prior to the Commencement Date, Landlord agrees to undertake the following construction item
or repairs: expand existing front parking lot and provide an additional sixteen (16) paved parking
spaces; expand adjacent gravel lot located to the side of the building for Tenant’s use as parking
spaces; install exterior security lighting for the front and rear parking lots; provide all exterior
building and roof repairs as needed; and paint the interior of the Premises and replace carpet as
outlined in Exhibit A. These repairs shall be completed and ready for Tenant use on or before the
Commencement Date.
5.3Tenant Installation and Upkeep. During the term of this Lease, Tenant may, at its own expense,
and with Landlord's prior written consent, make or cause to be made any interior alterations,
additions or improvements that do not damage the structures located on the Property, and/or alter
or remodel the exterior landscaping, provided that Tenant shall obtain all required government
permits for such alterations, additions or improvements.
Tenant shall undertake at its expense the following specific improvements to the Property: rework
the entrance foyer to provide public/employee separation; change locks and modify door closures;
modify bathrooms and convert to storage space as needed; install a telephone and computer
network system, including wiring and other telecommunications infrastructure.
5.4Tenant Signs. Tenant may, at its own expense, subject to the Landlord's prior written approval
and local signage ordinances and other applicable laws and regulations, install a business sign on
the Property.
5.5Tenant Maintenance and Condition of Premises Upon Surrender. Tenant will keep the
Premises and the fixtures and equipment therein in good order and condition (defined as at least
the same state of repair and condition as existed as of the Commencement Date), will suffer no
waste or injury thereto, and will, at the expiration or other termination of the term thereof, surrender
and deliver up the same in like good order and condition as the premises shall be at the
commencement of the term of this Lease, ordinary wear and tear excepted.
5.6 Tenant Equipment. Maintenance and repair of Tenant-supplied equipment, or Tenant rugs,
carpeting and drapes within the Premises installed by Tenant shall be the sole responsibility of
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Tenant, and Landlord shall have no obligation in connection therewith.
5.7Illegal and Prohibited Uses. Tenant will not use or permit the Premises or any part thereof to be
used for any disorderly, unlawful or extra-hazardous purpose.
5.8Title and Covenant Against Liens. The Landlord's title is and always shall be paramount to the
title of the Tenant and nothing contained in this Agreement shall empower the Tenant to do any
act that can, shall or may encumber the title to the Landlord. Tenant covenants and agrees not
to suffer or permit any lien of mechanics or materialmen to be placed upon or against the Premises
or against the Tenant's leasehold interest in the Premises and, in case of any lien attaching, to
immediately pay and remove same.
SECTION 6
Access
6.1 Landlord's Access. Landlord, its agent or employees, shall have the right to enter the Premises
during regular business hours accompanied by a representative of Tenant in order to (a) make
inspections or make such repairs and maintenance to the Premises or repairs and maintenance
to other premises as Landlord may deem necessary; (b) exhibit the Premises to prospective
tenants during the last four (4) months of the term of this Lease; and (c) for any purpose
whatsoever relating to the safety, protection or preservation of the Premises.
SECTION 7
Liability
7.1Personal Property. All personal property of Tenant in the Premises shall be at the sole risk of
Tenant. Landlord shall not be liable for any damage thereto or for the theft or misappropriation
thereof. Tenant hereby expressly releases Landlord from any liability incurred or claimed by
reason of damage to Tenant's property, except as may be caused by to Landlord’s negligent or
intentional acts.
7.2Public Liability. Landlord assumes no liability or responsibility whatsoever with respect to the
conduct and operation of the business to be conducted upon the Premises. Landlord shall not be
liable for any accident to or injury to any person or persons or property in or about the Premises
that is caused by the conduct and operation of said business or by virtue of equipment or property
of Tenant in the Premises.
7.3Insurance. Landlord agrees that it will, throughout the Term, insure and keep insured, for the
benefit of Landlord and its respective successors in interest, all buildings and improvements on the
Property. Such policy shall contain coverage against loss, damage or destruction by fire and such
other hazards as are covered and protected against, at standard rates under policies of insurance
commonly referred to and known as “extended coverage,” as the same may exist from time to time.
Landlord agrees to name Tenant as an additional insured on such policy, as its interest may
appear.
Tenant agrees that it will, throughout the Term, keep in full force and effect a policy of
comprehensive general liability insurance insuring Tenant against liability arising out of the
ownership, use, occupancy or maintenance of the Premises and all areas appurtenant thereto with
initial basic limits of not less than $2,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence. Upon request,
Tenant will furnish Landlord satisfactory evidence of insurance showing limits of liability. The limits
of all insurance required herein shall be increased from time to time to reflect the increase in the
consumer price index and as required by good business practice. Tenant reserves the right to add
the Property to its existing policy of comprehensive general liability insurance, and Landlord agrees
that Tenant will thereby satisfy the requirements of this provision.
SECTION 8
Damage
8.1Damage. If all or any portion of the Property shall be damaged or destroyed by fire or other
casualty, this Lease shall not be terminated or otherwise affected unless Landlord elects not to
rebuild in accordance with the following provisions. In the event of any damage to the Property by
fire or other casualty that renders the Property untenantable in whole or in part, there shall be an
abatement of the rent payable hereunder during the period of such untenantability but only if and
so long as Tenant is not engaged in the conduct of its business operations in the Property and only
to the extent which the Property is rendered untenantable, prorata.
If all or any portion of the Property is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, then all
insurance proceeds under the policies referred to in the preceding sections hereof that are paid to
Landlord on account of any such damage by fire or other casualty shall be paid to the Landlord or
made available for the payment for repair, or replacing, or rebuilding, and the Landlord may elect
as soon as practical after the damage has occurred (taking into account the time necessary to
adjust the loss with the insurance company or companies) whether or not to repair or rebuild the
Property or any such portion thereof to its condition immediately prior to such occurrence, provided,
however, that the foregoing provisions do not require the Landlord to repair or rebuild any part of
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
the Property, or of Tenant's fixtures, equipment, or appurtenances not constituting a part of the
Property owned by Landlord. If an election to replace or rebuild is made by Landlord, than this
Lease shall remain in full force and effect. If an election not to rebuild is made by the Landlord or
if no election is made within ninety (90) days after such damage has occurred, then the Lease shall
be deemed terminated ninety (90) days following the occurrence.
SECTION 9
Events of Default and Remedies
9.1Events of Default. Any of the following occurrences or acts shall constitute an event of default
under this Lease: if Tenant, at any time during the Term, shall (i) fail to make any payment of rent
or other sum herein required to be paid by Tenant for a period of ten days after delivery by Landlord
of written notice to Tenant that any such payment has become due, or (ii) fail to cure, immediately
after notice from Landlord, any hazardous condition that Tenant has created or suffered in violation
of law or this Lease, or (iii) fail to observe or perform any of the covenants in respect to assignment,
subletting and encumbrance set forth in Section 5; or (iv) fail to observe or perform any other
provision hereof for thirty days after Landlord shall have delivered to Tenant written notice of such
failure (provided that in the case of any default referred to in this clause (iv) that cannot be cured
by the payment of money and cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty-day period, if Tenant
shall commence to cure the same within such thirty-day period and thereafter shall prosecute the
curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time within which such failure may be cured
shall be extended for such period not to exceed sixty days as may be necessary to complete the
curing of the same with diligence and continuity).
The occurrence of any of the following shall also constitute an event of default: (a) the
appointment of a receiver or trustee to take possession of all or substantially all of the assets of
Tenant; (b) a general assignment by Tenant for the benefit of creditors; (c) any action or
proceeding commenced by or against Tenant under any insolvency or bankruptcy act, or under any
other statute or regulation having as its purpose the protection of creditors and not discharged
within ninety (90) days after the date of commencement, shall constitute a breach of this Lease by
Tenant. Upon the happening of such event, this Lease shall, at Landlord's option, terminate ten
(10) days after written notice from Landlord to Tenant.
9.2Remedies. In each and every such event set forth in Section 9.1 above, from thenceforth and at
all times thereafter, at the option of Landlord, Tenant’s right of possession shall thereupon cease
and terminate, and Landlord shall be entitled to the possession of the Premises and to re-enter the
same without demand of rent or demand of possession of said premises and may forthwith
proceed to recover possession of the Premises by process of law, any notice to quit being hereby
expressly waived by Tenant.
9.3Rights Cumulative, Non-Waiver. No right or remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to
Landlord is intended to be exclusive of any other right or remedy, and each and every right and
remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to any other right or remedy given hereunder or now
and hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. The failure of Landlord to insist at any time
upon the strict performance of any covenant or agreement or to exercise any option, right, power
or remedy contained in this Lease shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment thereof for
the future. The receipt by Landlord of any rent or any other sum payable hereunder with
knowledge of the breach of any covenant or agreement contained in this Lease shall not be
deemed a waiver of such breach, and no waiver by Landlord of any provision of this Lease shall
be deemed to have been made unless expressed in writing and signed by Landlord. In addition
to other remedies provided in this Lease, Landlord shall be entitled, to the extent permitted by
applicable law, to injunctive relief in case of the violation, or attempted or threatened violation, of
any of the covenants, agreements, conditions or provisions of this Lease, or to a decree compelling
performance of this Lease, or to any other remedy allowed to Landlord at law or in equity.
SECTION 10
Quiet Enjoyment
10.1 So long as Tenant shall observe and perform the covenants and agreements binding on it
hereunder, Tenant shall at all times during the term herein granted, peacefully and quietly have
and enjoy possession of the Premises without any encumbrance or hindrance by, from or
through Landlord, except as provided for elsewhere under this Lease.
SECTION 11
Successors
11.1All rights, remedies and liabilities herein given to or imposed upon either of the parties hereto, shall
extend to their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. This provision
shall not be deemed to grant Tenant any right to assign this Lease or to sublet the premises without
Landlord's prior written consent.
SECTION 12
Miscellaneous
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
12.1Use of Grounds. Tenant is responsible for the upkeep of the grounds of the Property, including,
but not limited to, grass cutting and snow removal.
12.2Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, or the application thereof, to any
person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease,
or the application of such term, covenant or condition to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term,
covenant or condition of this Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted
by law.
12.3Effect of Sale of Property. This Lease shall continue in full force and effect in the event Landlord
sells or otherwise transfers its interest in the property to a third party. The parties agree that a
Memorandum of Lease shall be recorded in the land records of the Circuit Court for the City of
Charlottesville on or before the Commencement Date.
12.4 Nonappropriation of Funds. The continuation of the terms, conditions and provisions of this
th
Agreement beyond June 30 of each calendar year during the original and subsequent term(s) is
subject to the approval and ratification of this Agreement by Albemarle County and the
appropriation by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors of the necessary money to fund this
Agreement for succeeding fiscal years. Should the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors fail to
appropriate necessary funding, Tenant may delay such payment until funds have been
appropriated or terminate this Agreement, or any unfunded portion of this Agreement, without
incurring any penalty, liability or additional costs whatsoever. Tenant is not required to make any
payment to Landlord that is otherwise required by this Agreement if the Board of Supervisors has
not appropriated and made available sufficient funds for such payment.
SECTION 13
Governing Law
13.1This Lease shall be in all respects governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
SECTION 14
Entire Agreement
14.1This Lease, and the exhibit attached hereto, set forth all the covenants, promises, agreements,
conditions and understandings between the parties concerning the Property and there are no other
such covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and understandings, either oral or written,
between them other than herein set forth. Any former lease is hereby expressly canceled and
terminated. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent modification, alteration,
amendment, change or addition to this Lease shall be binding upon Landlord or Tenant unless
reduced to writing and signed by them.
SECTION 15
Notices
15.lAddresses for Notices. All notices required or desired to be given hereunder by either party to
the other shall be personally delivered or given by certified or registered mail and addressed as
follows:
If to the Landlord:If to the Tenant:
Millmont Professional OfficeRobert W. Tucker, Jr.
Land TrustAlbemarle County Executive
195 Riverbend Drive401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911Charlottesville, VA 22902
Either party may, by like written notice, designate a new address to which such notices shall be
directed.
15.2Effective Date of Notices. Notice shall be deemed to be effective when personally delivered
or when sent by registered or certified U.S. mail, postage prepaid, unless otherwise stipulated
herein.
_______________
Item No. 10.9. Resolution to designate Nelson County as Lead County for Nelson-Fluvanna-
Albemarle MicroLoan Program.
The executive summary states that nelson County, in cooperation with the counties of Albemarle
and Fluvanna, and with the assistance of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC),
submitted a grant application to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)
for support of the Nelson-Fluvanna-Albemarle Microenterprise Program. The TJPDC has been operating a
similar micro business loan program, and this grant was initiated to expand this comprehensive service to
small business entrepreneurs within these counties. The grant has been awarded by DHCD.
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
In December 1999, TJPDC transferred the program management of their microloan programs to
the Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA). The Alliance is currently negotiating the contract with DHCD for
CDBG assistance for the microenterprise assistance program.
Nelson County has offered to act as the lead county for the purposes of managing the grant. As
part of the pre-contract activities, the Piedmont Housing Alliance is required to submit resolutions from the
counties of Fluvanna and Albemarle that designate nelson County as the lead county for the grant.
Albemarle County appreciates the willingness of Nelson County to act as the lead county and the
designation of one county will provide more efficient management of the grant. PHA’s intent is for the
services provided by the grant to be equitably divided among the constituents of the three counties.
Staff recommends the Board adopt the proposed resolution which authorizes nelson County to act
as the lead county for purposes of accepting the CDBG grant from DHCD for he Nelson-Fluvanna-
Albemarle Microenterprise Program. Nelson County will provide Albemarle County copies of the quarterly
reports provided to DHCD as a means of communicating the progress of the grant.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle joined with the Counties of Fluvanna and Nelson for the purposes of
securing Community Development Block Grant Funds to continue and expand the MicroLoan Program
in the three counties; and
WHEREAS, the grant was awarded by the Department of Housing and Community Development; and
WHEREAS, Nelson County has offered to act as the Lead County for the purposes of managing the grant; and
WHEREAS, the designation of one County to act as the lead will provide more efficient management of the
grant;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle appreciates the willingness of Nelson
County to act as the Lead County and concurs in the designation of Nelson County as the Lead; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle requests quarterly reports to
DHCD be copied to the County of Albemarle as a means of communication on the progress of the
grant.
_______________
Item No. 10.10. Letter dated July 11, 2000 from Ms. Carol E. Comstock, Director of Constituent
Services, Commonwealth of Virginia, to the Honorable Charles S. Martin, re: Senate Bill 148, enhanced
public safety telephone services legislation, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 10.11. Letter dated July 17, 2000 from Mr. Robert O. Cassad, Department of
Transportation, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., providing notice that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
did not approve Albemarle County’s application for funding from the Enhancement Program, was received
for information.
_______________
Item No. 10.12. Notice from the State Corporation Commission of a petition filed by Virginia Electric
and Power Company for approval of the sale of an undivided ownership interest in a natural gas pipeline,
was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 10.13. Copy of letter dated July 14, 2000, to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA),
from Ms. Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administrator, re: Notice of Official Determination of Violation
(TM73, P28), was received for information.
“You are hereby notified that, after an investigation of the above-described property, the
Deputy Zoning Administrator has determined that the following constitutes a violation of Section
36.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance:
The site is not in compliance with the approved site plan and a building has been installed
without a permit. The following lists the individual deficiencies and discrepancies:
1) Two buildings are onsite (a hazardous waste structure and a “classroom” on skids) and are not
shown on your approved site plan;
2) We have no record of a building permit for the “classroom” structure above;
3) A trash compactor is on the site and not shown on the site plan;
4) A “pad” is under construction (to be used for a drainage tank) and is not shown on the site plan;
5) A storage area for trailers used in the transfer station is on the site and is not shown on the site
plan;
6) In addition, there are several areas not in compliance with what is shown on the plan. These
include:
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
A. the Encore Area has items displayed in parking and grassed areas;
B. there are fewer truck loading spaces in the transfer station area, and
C. various areas of landscaping are incomplete (some of which was required by the
Board of Supervisors).
Section 36.1 states: ‘“Any building erected contrary to any of the provisions of this
ordinance or contrary to any condition imposed upon any conditional rezoning, issuance of a
special use permit or approval of a site plan, and any use of any building or land which is
conducted, operated or maintained contrary to any of the provisions of this ordinance or any
condition imposed upon any conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use permit or approval of a
site plan, shall be a violation of this ordinance and the same is hereby declared to be unlawful. The
Zoning Administrator may initiate injunction, mandamus, abatement, criminal warrant or any other
appropriate action to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove such erection or use in violation of any
provision of this ordinance.’
You are hereby ordered to cease and desist from the above-described use or activity not
th
later than August 15. Your failure to comply with this order may result in legal action being taken
against you.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30)
days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the
Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and
unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board
of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal
application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice of this
determination was given in specified above.”
(Ms. Thomas said at a recent meeting, the RWSA said they would be getting an internal
compliance officer. She suggested that person be responsible for site plan and zoning requirements too.
She also said when the site plan was approved, the Board was told it would receive a report within 18
months, and that the site plan would come back to the Board. Mr. Tucker said he talked to Mr. Art Petrini
recently, who said the report is forthcoming.)
_______________
Item No. 10.14. 2000 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning
and Community Development, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 10.15.Letter dated July 24, 2000, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, to
Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding transportation matters discussed at previous Board of Supervisor
meetings, was received for information.
“We offer the following comments regarding outstanding transportation matters
that were discussed at the above referenced Board meetings.
·
We have discussed details of the proposed cul-de-sac petition on Morgantown Road
9Route 738) with County staff. The east, not west, end of Route 738 is proposed to be
closed due to the residents’ perception of too much traffic. Preliminary data does not
indicate that a cut-through traffic problem exists, however, VDOT is assisting County
staff in preparing an executive summary to be shared with the Board this fall.
·
A speed study was conducted on Route 680 between Route 240 and 810. The speed
limit has been lowered to 45 mph and additional signs have been posted.
·
The Department is awaiting environmental clearance prior to placing large rock for
protection of the abutments on the Advance Mills Bridge on Route 743. A multiple
bridge painting contract will allow this bridge and others to be painted next year. It is
expected that the road will need to be closed while this work is underway.
·
The Rivanna Trails Foundation is interested in information on old VDOT bridges to be
used as pedestrian bridges. I will forward this information as soon as it is available.
·
We have recently completed most of the trimming needed along Route 680 and 693.
The work should be completed by the end of the month.
·
Please find enclosed a copy of the construction project monthly status report (on file in
the Clerk’s office) as requested.”
_______________
Item No. 10.16. Update on process and timeline for Strategic Plan for Total Compensation was
received for information.
_______________
Item No. 10.17. Proposed Capital Improvements Program Process Change, was received for
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: March 1, April 12, April 18 (A), April 19 May 3, May 17,
June 14 and June 21, 2000.
Ms. Humphris said she read the minutes of March 1, 2000, and approved them with a couple of
typographical errors noted.
Mr. Martin approved the minutes of June 21, 2000 as read.
Ms. Humphris approved the minutes of April 19, 2000 as read.
Mr. Bowerman moved to approve the minutes of March 1, 2000 with corrections, and
June 21, 2000 and April 19, 2000 as read. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Transportation Matters.
Item No. 12.a. Update on regional transportation planning activities, Ms. Hannah Twaddell.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:18 a.m. and returned at 10:20 a.m.)
Ms. Twaddell, Assistant Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC),
said the Board had already been provided a copy of the Thomas Jefferson Rural Area Transportation
Study, Year 2015 (copy on file in the Clerk’s office). She made a brief presentation and asked that the
Board adopt a resolution of intent to support the study.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the relationship between this initiative and the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), and how they flow together to create a 20-year road plan. Ms. Twaddell said the MPO
initiated the study because of the congestion east of the city. Results of the study will examine impact on
growth on Greene, Louisa, and Fluvanna counties. Information will be included in the CATS update next
summer.
Mr. Dorrier asked about Route 15. Ms. Twaddell said only that stretch of Route 15 that passes
through Louisa and Fluvanna counties is involved. Mr. Dorrier said he heard rumors that the road would be
made a four-lane road. Ms. Twaddell said she has not heard that rumor. Ms. Humphris asked how Route
15 will be incorporated into the study. Ms. Twaddell said the final decision would be up to the entire region,
since the transportation model is a regional one. Land use and transportation plans must mesh.
Mr. Perkins asked if the other members received information from the Thomas Jefferson Institute
of Public Policy. When they said they had not, he said he would provide copies to the other members. Ms.
Humphris said the Institute is a political “think tank” that tried to get the Virginia Association of Counties
(VACO) to join with them, but VACO decided not to.
Mr. Dorrier said the town of Scottsville is trying to develop a regional base, and he noted that the
area is on the edge of two planning districts. Town leaders are planning a symposium, and he asked that
this group address citizens of that area. Ms. Twaddell said it is easy for planning districts to work together.
Ms. Twaddell then introduced Mr. William Wanner, also with the TJPDC. He asked the Board to
support the study as a guide for rural transportation planning. It is important to understand how land use
and transportation matters relate and how they should be coordinated. One goal is to coordinate urban and
rural transportation issues.
Ms. Humphris said the Board should , not the report. It was the consensus of the
acceptadopt
Board to do so.
_______________
Item No. 12.b. Discussion: Through-Truck Restriction on Dickinson Road between Route 649 and
Route 743.
Mr. Benish said that on June 7, 2000, the Board held a public hearing to restrict through-trucks on
Earlysville Road (Route 743). Concerns were raised as to the impact of this restriction on farm-related
truck traffic going to and from the northwestern part of the County. Therefore, it was determined an
alternate restriction should be considered on Route 606 between Route 649 and Route 743. Staff was
given direction to review VDOT’s criteria for this alternative restriction.
The proposed truck restriction would eliminate truck traffic between Rio Road and Airport Road
(Route 649) via Earlysville Road (Route 743). While this restriction will allow other trucks coming to and
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
from the northwest part of the County (i.e., farm-related trucks going to and from Earlysville and Advance
Mills area) to continue to use Earlysville Road (Route 743), those same trucks will not be able to access
Route 29 via Dickinson (Route 606) and Airport (Route 649) Roads.
According to staff review, the new proposed through truck restricted area could meet three of
VDOT’s five criteria. Based on review of the through truck restriction criteria, this request appears to be a
reasonable and justifiable request for the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s (CTB) consideration. If
authorized by the Board, staff will take the necessary steps to officially request that VDOT restrict through-
trucks on Route 606 between Route 649 and Route 743. This will first necessitate a County public hearing,
followed by an evaluation by VDOT and, ultimately, approval by the CTB.
Staff recommends the Board authorize a public hearing on September 20, 2000 for this new
proposed through-truck restriction.
There was no discussion by the Board since the item had been discussed previously.
Ms. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to set a public hearing for
September 20, 2000, on through-truck restriction on Dickinson Road (Route 606). Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No. 12.c. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned a copy of a letter the Board received from Ms. Christine Stacy to
Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering, pertaining to a water runoff issue on Wakefield Road (on file in the
Clerk’s office).
Mr. Mawyer said he has been working with VDOT and homeowners on this matter for many
months, trying to provide VDOT the flow-through for drainage of water from the road, with little success.
They have reached an agreement regarding the removal of trees, but they have not been able to agree on
a drainage easement between Wakefield and Dellwood Roads. One homeowner, Mr. Faulconer, wants it
to go down the property line, but the other residents, the Dunstans, are unwilling to have it moved to their
property.
Ms. Humphris asked why the Board should change something that has been in place for 40 years.
Mr. Mawyer said this is purely a political issue, not an engineering problem, since the water will go in the
same existing swell. The issue is the legal easement. If the discharge pipe is on the property line, it will go
onto the Dunstan property. The easement is to allow repairs to the channel if necessary in the future.
Mr. Martin agreed with Ms. Humphris that something that has worked well for 40 years should not
be abandoned. He added that there is another issue regarding stage two of the project.
Mr. Mawyer said the Board had decided to conduct Phase I now, but not Phase II, due to financial
constraints.
Mr. Davis said that at this time the Board simply needs to let staff know whether the Board wants to
put the pipe where recommended by staff. If there is no agreement on the easement, staff can present a
resolution of condemnation.
It was the consensus of the Board to have the pipe placed where recommended by staff, and to
proceed with condemnation, if necessary.
_______________
Ms. Angela Tucker, VDOT Resident Engineer, informed the Board that the trimming of trees near
Chiles Orchard has been done. She is willing to meet with residents if they have additional concerns.
_______________
Ms. Tucker said VDOT is replacing a pipe on Canterbury Road.
_______________
Mr. Dorrier thanked Ms. Tucker for meeting with citizens in the Route 20 South area.
_______________
Ms. Tucker advised the Board that there would be a transportation study on the signals at
Huntington Road.
_______________
Mr. Perkins asked whether VDOT will replace stones at the Advance Mills bridge. Ms. Tucker said
the project would have to go through the normal application process. VDOT’s intent is to replace riprap
before painting the bridge. She added that other bridges will be painted too.
_______________
Mr. Dorrier mentioned that the entrance near Monticello will soon be under construction, and he
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
asked how the detour will function. Ms. Tucker said VDOT must maintain two lanes of traffic whenever
possible.
_______________
Ms. Thomas said Ms. Pat Cutright, a County citizen, asked that VDOT revisit a right-of-way issue
since there are new homeowners along Route 760 to Red Hill School. Ms. Cutright would like to have
Route 760 added to the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan to be paved. She added that her right-of-way
should be counted as “available”. Ms. Tucker said she would contact Ms. Cutright. She will also send a
mailing to landowners to see if they are willing to discuss dedication of rights-of-way.
_______________
Ms. Humphris said she was displeased with the citizens information meeting conducted by VDOT
on June 19, 2000. It was to have been held to discuss the widening of Route 29, yet the issue of adding
lanes and parallel roads to Route 29 was not mentioned. VDOT has not cooperated with citizens and local
government as promised. At his presentation to the Board on October 6, 1999, Mr. Bill Mills said VDOT
would work with the Board on matters relating to the Route 29 north corridor, and the Board requested a
presentation be made before plans became public. Mr. Mills said simple diamond interchanges would be
considered in some locations to provide a good level of service until the year 2022, but the Board said it
needed to see the list of alternatives and traffic counts. None of this happened. At the meeting on June 19,
Ms. Humphris asked where the Western Bypass would be located and where the Meadow Creek Parkway
would intersect with the parallel roads. She was told that was not part of the study, which is ridiculous.
Mr. Martin said local government has not been given a chance to be part of the process. At the
June 19 meeting, it became apparent that things are set in stone, which is an adversarial position for the
Board and the public to be in. This does not create a good working environment, and it puts the County in a
position of opposition.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not hold residents of the Culpeper District responsible for VDOT’s
actions.
Ms. Humphris asked why this has come up so suddenly, since the Meadow Creek Parkway is a
County priority. Money set aside to fund VDOT’s plan could be better used to fund the Parkway. Mr. Martin
said he sees the Parkway as part of the plan, but it does not connect anywhere.
Ms. Humphris said someone from Culpeper said they heard that VDOT’s August meeting on the
location and design of the widening of Route 29 North has been postponed. Ms. Tucker said the
environmental document cannot be approved until it is determined the widening of Route 29 will not be
connected to the bypass litigation. Ms. Humphris said the Board should be apprised of such things.
Mr. Martin said the Board needs to schedule a work session to discuss its stance on how that
section of the County develops, and to address the process. Mr. Bowerman said the Board should also
invite the Secretary of Transportation to meet with them. Ms. Humphris added that the Board should
receive maps, as well.
Ms. Humphris asked if this project could be part of an MPO fund program. Ms. Tucker said she did
not know what funds would pay for it.
It was the consensus of the Board to ask VDOT to hold a public meeting to discuss parallel roads
along Route 29, and to invite the Secretary of Transportation to attend the meeting.
_______________
Ms. Humphris said she has been following a request for a communications tower on a hillside
where a turkey house is located in Rockbridge County (inside a VDOT right-of-way). In May, VDOT
produced guidelines that indicate that a tower can be built in the interchange without input from Rockbridge
County. The County says if VDOT has the right to do so, it is in violation of a county’s rights. Mr. Davis said
he has been following that as well, and that the case will be litigated. It is his opinion that VDOT’s decision
is in violation of state law and that VDOT will have to receive local government approval. Mr. Davis asked
Ms. Tucker about locating towers in Albemarle County. Ms. Tucker said half a dozen towers requested to
be located on interstate corridors last year are on hold. She added that she has not seen the new
guidelines either, but would try to get a copy to the Board.
(Note: The Board took a break at 11:13 a.m. and reconvened at 11:27 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Minimum In-Stream Flow – Moormans River.
Mr. Jack Marshall, Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) said the Authority
faces conflicting obligations. It needs to be able to consistently provide water, as well as meet its obligation
to maintain the ecological health of the region. Historically, the first obligation has always taken precedence.
However, due in large part to citizen input, the RWSA now sees a need to better balance those obligations.
Not every drop of water in the Moorman’s River can be set aside in reserve to avoid conservation measures
during a drought. The RWSA has previously been paralyzed by its unwillingness to risk losing water for
humans. With the City and County’s willingness to share the risk, the RWSA is willing to add water to the
Moorman’s River, with a recommendation that when the reservoir drops down to 80 percent, water to the
Moorman’s be cut off to reduce the risk of running out of water.
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Bowerman asked how much of the water would reach the South Fork of the Rivanna River if
400,000 gallons of water are released daily. Mr. Art Petrini, Executive Director of the RWSA, said there is
no engineering answer, due to ground water recharging. However, a significant amount of water may be
stored in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. Marshall said the amount of water taken out would depend on when rains come, and whether
there would be a significantly different environmental element in the Moorman’s whether 400,000 or
800,000 gallons are released. Ms. Thomas said this should, then, be treated as an experiment. There are
lots of unanswered questions. The system worked well when it was installed, but the RWSA needs the
ability to fine tune the amount of water put into different locations. Therefore, she suggested the Board
recommend that a percentage of the water flowing into the reservoir be released, as opposed to the
number of gallons.
Mr. Bowerman said historical rainfall data should be used to calculate the average rainfall.
Mr. Petrini said he does not believe such records have been kept. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that rainfall
and snowfall are higher in that location than in other areas of Charlottesville. Therefore, if the reservoir is
“drawn down”, it will be more likely that there will be an isolated water shortage in that area than in others.
Mr. Tucker said the RWSA Board consensus is 4.4 million gallons should be released per day. Mr. Petrini
said on the average, once in every ten years there has been a drought having a significant impact on the
entire area. Mr. Tucker said this could be something staff looks at in the experiment.
Ms. Thomas said dams hurt the environment. If the RWSA raises the water level in the Rivanna
Reservoir, some damage will occur.
Mr. Perkins said this matter can be made as complex or as simple as the Board wants. There is
less moisture-holding strata in that location, so any increased rainfall may be negated. Dams do damage,
but they do a lot of good too, by providing water aquifers and flood control. He said he was surprised at the
consultants’ conclusions, such as the one that said the environment is not damaged during a drought. He
suggested that a well be dug so that ponds do not dry up. Mr. Marshall said the RWSA is still looking for
other water resources. The recommended release would take care of the Moorman’s situation, so he
would not advise digging a well.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the timetable. Mr. Marshall said some recommendations would require a
lot of effort, and others could happen soon. However, a recent ruling said that if the RWSA puts in pilings
or a bladder, and this results in spilling, the County will have to meet the same standards as those set for
wetlands.
Mr. Bowerman asked if putting a bladder on the South Fork would involve as much as putting in a
dam. Mr. Petrini said, “No.”
Ms. Thomas said since this is an experiment only, the Board should take a vote. Charlottesville City
Council meets next week, and after both the Board and Council have voted, meetings could begin. She
moved to authorize a release of 400,000 gallons per day for an experiment to study the benefits and
problems, recognizing it is only to proceed until the reservoir system reaches 80 percent capacity.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Ms. Lois Rochester, representing the League of Women Voters, suggested the Board consider
releasing 800,000 gallons per day instead of 400,000. The more water in the river, the better for the
ecology. This is taking a first step to implement stability accords.
Mr. John Martin said he was asked to read a statement prepared by Dr. Bennett. However, he
decided not to read the statement, but said that none of this would have occurred without the leadership of
the Board and Mr. Jack Marshall. He added that Dr. Bennett recommended releasing 800,000 gallons per
day, since the area is ahead on rainfall.
After a brief discussion, Ms. Thomas amended her motion to authorize a release of 800,000
gallons per day, but Mr. Perkins did not second the amendment to the motion, so it died.
The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion to authorize a release of 400,000 gallons per
day for an experiment to study the benefits and problems, recognizing it is only to proceed until the reservoir
system reaches 80 percent capacity. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Bowerman noted that Ms. Thomas’ and his votes against the motion had to deal with the
volume of water to be released, not the concept itself.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Report on Foxfield, report by Sheriff Ed Robb and Chief John Miller.
(Sheriff Robb could not be present.) Chief Miller said no one will ever change the congestion
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
caused by the races. Over 20,000 people attend the races, and the road was not built to accommodate
that volume of traffic. He suggested that the University of Virginia utilize more buses to transport students,
but the school told him there is a shortage of buses. Traffic is worst post-event, because everyone wants to
leave at the same time. Alcohol comes into play at that time because people get out of the cars to relieve
themselves.
The County Police Department works outside of the grounds because Foxfield is private property.
Foxfield hires a security force to work on the grounds since they have an alcohol license. This year the
Sheriff’s Department assisted outside the gates with traffic issues, and a small number of officers helped
with problems inside the gates. County Police will go onto Foxfield grounds only as a public service,
handling a problem and then withdrawing. Vandalism is also a problem, but there has never been sufficient
manpower to react to all the complaints. If an officer is handling a problem, that effectively pulls him for
most, if not all, of the day. Chief Miller said Sheriff Robb and he agree that this fall they will put together a
contingency of officers to handle nothing but criminal and traffic enforcement.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much it would cost to have ten officers at the event. Chief Miller said each
officer earns $23.00 per hour, which is paid for by the County. He added that it is hard to get volunteers to
work. Mr. Dorrier asked if Foxfield should defray some of the expense. Chief Miller said he would discuss
this with Mr. Tucker, but if Foxfield pays the officers, they may feel they also have the right to direct them.
Ms. Humphris said it is her understanding that the Police Department is going to make a big effort
to publish new strategies and may install a sobriety checkpoint. Mr. Perkins suggested making the event
alcohol-free. Chief Miller said alcohol is, in his opinion, the main attraction for the University students and
other colleges. Foxfield has benefited financially from ticket sales, and it is not likely organizers will make it
alcohol-free.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the number of arrests made this year. Chief Miller said three people were
arrested. The problem is that there are only enough officers available to direct traffic; making an arrest ties
them up too long. Ms. Humphris said at a meeting with Mr. Benjamin Dick, from Foxfield, she was told
Foxfield had hired 32 security officers to handle the last event.
Mr. Bowerman asked how best to handle drunk drivers. Chief Miller said they have tried everything.
They may have a magistrate on-grounds to streamline the process this fall.
Mr. Perkins asked about obtaining assistance from the State Police. Chief Miller said he might look
into this in the future. Mr. Dorrier asked about using University of Virginia Police. Chief Miller said he could
look into that too.
Mr. Martin said that since the event only takes place on two days out of a year, this is not a huge
problem. Everyone needs to keep the event in perspective. Ms. Humphris said she is concerned about
drunk driving and destruction of property along Owensville Road.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: CPA-2000-01, Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy.
Mr. Bill Fritz, Development Process Manager, said the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy at its meeting on July 18, 2000. The Board was
provided a copy of the policy (on file in the Clerk’s office). The policy for the accommodation of personal
wireless facilities is a recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan and has been under development since
August of 1996.
Mr. Bowerman said he is astounded at how far the County has come since work first began in
March of 1996 after the Telecommunications Act was signed. Mr. Davis said Albemarle County is ahead of
most other localities.
Mr. Bowerman said some of the graphics were hard to read once they were reduced on the copier.
He also asked that staff begin using a color printer when color is used for clarity.
Mr. Benish said staff’s intent is that the document be adopted under separate cover to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Thomas said on page 44, photographs of a monopole and mast are shown. Since visibility is
an important issue, the policy should state that public communications are to be included in these
conditions, to the extent possible. Mr. Fritz said the Board could state that mast is preferred over monopole.
Ms. Thomas asked if police radios would follow this policy. Mr. Fritz said that would be a different
type of facility, but it would be recommended that, wherever possible, the County follow the policy to the
extent that it can. There are alternatives to large towers, but there are all sorts of legal implications, and
fiber optics are expensive. Mr. Martin said the Board should know about costs involved before it says a
particular system will be adopted. Mr. Tucker said if the County increases the costs of the police radio
system, the City and University might not be willing to participate. Mr. Bowerman asked when an update
would be provided on police radio recommendations. Mr. Tucker said it would be several months.
Mr. Fritz said staff is also focusing on the visibility of satellite dishes.
Mr. Bowerman asked about a tower located near Boyd Tavern where backfeeding is happening.
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Staff should encourage land lines to reduce that problem.
Mr. Tucker asked when the Zoning Ordinance amendments that implement Tiers I, II, and III will be
ready. Mr. Benish said they will be ready after the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Ms. Thomas said balloons are being used more often to show the visible impact of towers, and
companies can do this with little advance notice. She asked that this be encouraged. Mr. Fritz suggested
adding that to the minimum submittal standards where tree canopy permits.
Ms Thomas asked how technical help fits in the process. Mr. Fritz said staff had looked at a zoning
text amendment to increase fees in order to hire an outside engineer, but the Board set that
recommendation aside. With the way the current policy exists, that is no longer needed. If a tower is not
visible, it is not a problem. If a specific tower is visible, the County may have to hire an outside person to
study that request.
Mr. Benish asked how staff should proceed regarding the statement on public safety
communications. Mr. Martin said the other Board members were against it, and he would need to see more
information to determine if it is necessary, since the costs are dramatic. Mr. Tucker said staff would get
more information and present it to the Board.
Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to set a public hearing on the
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy, for October 11, 2000. Roll was called and the motion passed
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. School Board Presentation.
This item was removed from the agenda due to time constraints.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Public hearing on Compensation of Boards and Commissions/Equalization of
Pay Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and 24, 2000).
In the interest of time, Mr. Martin dispensed with opening remarks and opened the public hearing.
The executive summary states that the County Code sets compensation for members of County
boards and commissions which are authorized by state statute. County Code Section 2-401 sets an annual
salary of $3,300 for all members of the Planning Commission (except for the non-voting representative of
the University of Virginia), and authorizes an additional stipend of $1,200 per year for the Planning
Commission chairman. Additionally, the "Equalization of Pay" provision in the County Code (Section 2-
1105) specifies that all members of the following citizen appeal boards receive $35 for each regularly
scheduled meeting attended: the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the Building Code Board of Appeals
(BOCA), the Board of Equalization, the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals and the Land Use Tax
Advisory Board.
School Board salaries are set by State Code (Section 22.1-32) at $3,300 per year for each
member. The School Board chairman also receives an additional $1,100 per year, the maximum allowed
by the State Code.
There have been no changes to the compensation rates for Planning Commissioners, School
Board members, or the other boards and commissions listed above since 1990.
In 1990, the General Assembly approved an increase in School Board salaries from $2,400 per
year to $3,300 per year, based on a the 38 percent calculated increase in salary received by the Board of
Supervisors from 1978 to 1990. That same year, the Board approved an increase in the annual salary of
Planning Commission members from $2,400 per year to $3,300, to maintain planned commonality with
School Board members.
Additionally, in 1990, the Board approved a pay increase for members of boards and commissions
subject to the County's Equalization of Pay ordinance. The per meeting rate was increased from $25 to
$35, based on the same 38 percent cost of living increase applied to School Board and Planning
Commission member compensation.
Since compensation rates for boards and commissions have not been increased since 1990, staff
is requesting a cost of living adjustment to current compensation rates for members of the Planning
Commission and the boards and commissions covered by the County's Equalization of Pay ordinance. As
before, this cost of living increase would be based on the cumulative percentage increase in Board of
Supervisor salaries, which have grown by 24 percent since 1990 (from $8,688 in FY 90/91 to $10,777 in FY
00/01.)
Based on this cost of living adjustment, Planning Commissioner salaries would increase from the
current rate of $3,300 to $4,100 per year, and the Planning Commission chairman's stipend would increase
from $1,200 to $1,500. Similarly, the per meeting rate set by the Equalization of Pay Ordinance would
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
increase from $35 to $45.
The 24 percent proposed compensation increase is consistent with inflation, which is projected to
have grown by approximately 30.3 percent since 1990. Additionally, the $4,100 proposed salary for
Planning Commission members is consistent with the average rate of pay for Planning Commissioners
from neighboring localities and localities of a similar size or growth rate. The average annual salary among
these localities is $4,020 per year, which compares favorably to the $4,100 proposed base salary for
County Planning Commissioners. (A comparison of Planning Commissioner salaries is on file in the Clerk’s
office.)
Based on this review, staff recommends that the compensation for Planning Commission members
be increased from $3,300 per year to $4,100, and that the Chairman's stipend be increased from $1,200 to
$1,500 per year. Additionally, staff recommends that the per meeting rate set out in the Equalization of Pay
Ordinance be raised from $35 to $45, based on the cumulative increase in Board of Supervisor salaries
since FY 90/91. Staff also recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) be added to the citizens
board list identified in the Equalization of Pay Ordinance.
The first ordinance amendment amends section 2-401 of the County Code to increase the salary of
Planning Commission members. The second ordinance amendment amends section 2-1105 of the County
Code to increase the per meeting compensation set out in the Equalization of Pay ordinance.
With no one rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt an ordinance to amend
Section 2-401 of the County Code to increase the salary of Planning Commission members, and an
ordinance to amend Section 2-1105 of the County Code to increase the per meeting compensation set out
in the Equalization of Pay ordinance. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 00-2(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE IV,
PLANNING COMMISSION, AND ARTICLE XI, PERSONNEL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article IV, Planning
Commission, and Article XI, Personnel, of Chapter 2, Administration, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-401, Composition;
appointment, terms and compensation of members; quorum, and Section 2-1105, Enumerated, as follows:
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE IV. PLANNING COMMISSION
Sec. 2-401 Composition; appointment, terms and compensation of members; quorum.
A.. The planning commission shall be composed of eight (8) members
Composition
appointed by the board of supervisors. All members of the planning commission shall be residents of the
county, qualified by knowledge and experience to make decisions on questions of community growth and
development, and at least one-half (1/2) of the members shall be freeholders.
B.. One member of the planning commission shall be appointed by
Appointment and terms
the board of supervisors with the advice of the president of the University of Virginia for a term of one year,
to serve in an advisory capacity without voting rights. Of the seven (7) voting members, one shall be
nominated from each of the six (6) magisterial districts by the board member representing that district, and
one shall be nominated to serve at-large. Three (3) of the members appointed from specified magisterial
districts shall be appointed in each even-numbered year following county elections, by nomination of the
newly elected board members and for terms coextensive with theirs. The at-large member shall be
appointed each even-numbered year following county elections for a two-year term. Vacancies occurring
due to resignation or other causes shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired term only.
C.. All members of the planning commission, except the nonvoting member
Compensation
appointed with the advice of the president of the University of Virginia, shall receive four thousand one
hundred dollars ($4,100.00) per annum, to be paid in monthly installments. The chairman of the planning
commission shall receive an additional one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500.00) per annum, to be
paid in monthly installments.
D.. A majority of the voting members shall constitute a quorum, and no action of the
Quorum
planning commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting.
(4-21-66, § 1; 2-15-68, § 1; 1-16-69; 10-16-69; 1-21-71; 7-19-73; 4-17-75; 1-15-76; 4-21-76; 1-3-77; 5-2-
79; 2-13-80; 12-10-80; 2-10-82; 6-13-84; 11-14-84; 3-12-86; 9-10-86; Ord. of 8-1-90; Code 1988, § 2-4;
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-2(2); 8-2-00)
State law references--Composition, terms etc., of planning commissions, Va. Code § 15.2-2212;
quorum §15.2-2215.
ARTICLE XI. PERSONNEL
DIVISION 2. EQUALIZATION OF PAY OF CERTAIN
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Sec. 2-1105 Enumerated.
Each member of the following boards and commissions duly appointed by the board of supervisors
shall be paid forty-five dollars ($45.00) for each and every regularly scheduled meeting of the board or
commission actually attended, as set forth in the rules and regulations of that board or commission: board
of zoning appeals; building code board of appeals; board of equalization; fire prevention code board of
appeals; land use tax advisory board, and architectural review board.
(6-20-74; 3-20-75; 10-16-75; 10-10-84; 4-13-88; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 7-17-91; Ord. of 12-11-91; Code
1988, § 15-2; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-2(2), 8-2-00)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Public hearing to amend Chapter 16 of the County Code to add Section
15-500, Conservation of Water During Emergencies. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and
24, 2000).
In the interest of time, Mr. Martin dispensed with opening remarks and opened the public hearing.
The executive summary states that in September of 1999 the Board considered the adoption of
emergency water conservation restrictions to address a water shortage in the drinking water reservoirs
caused by the 1999 drought. Although such restrictions were not required to be implemented in 1999, the
Board requested that a standing ordinance be developed that would be available for implementation in the
future if a water shortage again occurred.
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) recommends the ordinance. The City of
Charlottesville adopted a similar ordinance in June of this year. The ordinance requires the Board to
declare an emergency whenever there is a water supply emergency. Once declared, the ACSA can
implement the restrictions set forth in the ordinance. The ACSA is responsible for the administration of the
restrictions.
After the public hearing is held, staff recommends adoption of the ordinance.
Ms. Judy Bancroft, a County resident and past Chair of the Rivanna River Roundtable, said she is
happy to see the draft of the ordinance, which is so important to the County’s water needs. She provided a
statement (on file in the Clerk’s office), with recommended changes in the language. Mr. Bowerman asked
if she had had the opportunity to provide input into the ordinance. Ms. Bancroft said she had not, and that
she welcomed the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Martin suggested delaying the Board’s decision for now. Ms. Thomas said the Board does not
have the ability to tell people what to do with their well water, so it has to declare a state of emergency in
order to put water restrictions into effect. Mr. Davis agreed, saying that enabling legislation only allows
localities to put restrictions into effect when an emergency exists.
Ms. Lea Gropin, representing the League of Women Voters, said the League supports the Board
having the authority to invoke emergency restrictions. She asked what the Board could do to reduce the
shortages in the future. She suggested considering a Drought Management Plan to study this issue. This
would also help to achieve unification of water resource programs. Up until now, conservation measures
were linked only to reservoir levels. Procedures should be established for evaluating drought throughout
the watershed. She suggested developing a Watershed Management team using both County and RWSA
staff. People should also be asked to voluntarily conserve water and to use it efficiently.
With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Davis said water conservation is a larger undertaking and RWSA will address this as part of its
permitting process. This ordinance is simply to codify those procedures that would be enacted if there were
a water emergency. This was recommended by the Albemarle County Service Authority, and was based
on ordinances enacted in other localities. There is no requirement to have such an ordinance on the books;
it is simply to give people the opportunity to plan ahead for an emergency.
Ms. Thomas said the Board should share its comments with the Ground Water Advisory Committee
that is being formed to look at a ground water ordinance and put it into a drought management plan. She
noted that if a drought occurs at a time when the Board is not meeting, it would eliminate debate about what
steps would be taken. The Board would still need to declare an emergency. Mr. Davis said if the Board
found there was an emergency, the City and County would have to declare emergencies separately. Ms.
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Thomas said residents living near reservoirs said at times water treatment plants may need to be shut
down, so it is necessary to be able to react immediately.
Mr. Dorrier offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt an ordinance to amend
Chapter 16 of the County Code to add Section 15-500, Conservation of Water During Emergencies. Roll
was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 00-16(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 16, WASTEWATER AND WATER SYSTEMS OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY ADDING ARTICLE V, CONSERVATION OF WATER.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 16 of the
Code of the County of Albemarle, Wastewater and Water Systems, is amended by adding Article V,
Conservation of Water, as follows:
By Adding:
Article V.Conservation of Water.
Sec. 15-500.Conservation of Water During Emergencies.
Chapter 16. Wastewater and Water Systems
Article V. Conservation of Water
Sec. 15-500. Conservation of Water During Emergencies.
A.Should the board of supervisors, at any time, declare there to be an emergency in the county
arising wholly or substantially out of a shortage of water supply, the Albemarle County Service Authority (the
“authority”) and its Executive Director (the “executive director”) are hereby authorized during continuation of
the water emergency to order the restriction or prohibition of any or all of the following uses of the water
supply:
1.Watering of outside shrubbery, trees, lawn, grass, plants, home vegetable gardens,
or any other vegetation, except from a watering can or other container not exceeding three (3) gallons in
capacity. This limitation shall not apply to commercial greenhouses or nursery stocks, which may be watered
in the minimum amount required to preserve plant life before 7:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m.
2.Washing of automobiles, trucks, trailers, or any other type of mobile equipment,
except in licensed commercial vehicle wash facilities.
3.Washing of sidewalks, streets, driveways, parking lots, service station aprons,
exteriors of homes or apartments, commercial or industrial buildings or any other outdoor surface, except
where mandated by federal, state, or local law.
4.The operation of any ornamental fountain or other structure making a similar use of
water.
5.The filling of swimming or wading pools requiring more than five gallons of water, or
the refilling of swimming or wading pools which were drained after the effective date of the declaration of
emergency, except that pools may be filled to a level of two feet below normal, or water may be added to
bring the level to two feet below normal, or as necessary to protect the structure from hydrostatic damage, for
pools constructed or contracted for on or before the effective date of this ordinance.
6.The use of water from fire hydrants for any purpose other than fire suppression,
unless otherwise approved by the executive director.
7.The serving of drinking water in restaurants, except upon request.
8.The operation of any water-cooled comfort air conditioning that does not have water
conserving equipment in operation.
The above restrictions, or any of them, shall become effective upon their being printed in any
newspaper of general circulation in the county, or broadcast upon any radio or television station serving the
county.
B.Upon implementation of subsection A, above, the authority shall establish an appeals
procedure to review customer applications for exemptions from the provisions of subsections A on a case by
case basis and, if warranted, to make equitable adjustments to such provisions. The authority shall also be
empowered to establish regulations governing the granting of temporary exemptions applicable to all or some
of the uses of the water supply set forth in subsection A. The authority shall, in deciding applications, balance
economic and other hardships to the applicant resulting from the imposition of water use restrictions or
allocations against the individual and cumulative impacts to the water supply resulting from the granting of
exemptions.
C.Should measures taken pursuant to subsection A of this section prove insufficient to preserve
sufficient supplies of water for the citizens of the county, the authority and its executive director are hereby
further authorized to impose temporary rate increases or surcharges on the consumption of water, to restrict
or discontinue the supply of water to any industrial or commercial activity which uses water beyond the
sanitary and drinking needs of its employees and invitees, to declare a moratorium on new water connections
to buildings issued a building permit after the date of declaration of emergency, and to restrict water use to
basic human needs only.
D.Any person violating any provision of this section, or any order of the executive director of the
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
authority issued pursuant to the authority granted hereunder shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. In
addition, the executive director of the authority is hereby authorized to terminate the water service, for the
duration of the emergency, to any person convicted of such violation.
E.Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the authority and its executive director
from rescinding any orders issued thereunder when the conditions creating the need for such orders have
abated.
(Ord. 00-16(1), 8-2-00)
State law reference--Va. Code §15.2-924.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Appeal: Greenbrier Office Space. Official Determination of Proffer #2 from
ZMA-96-22.
Ms. Sprinkle summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk’s office and a permanent part
of the record. She said storage is not an “independent use”; it can only be an “accessory use”. She added
that the builder could build a warehouse, which would be impractical and render the proffer totally useless.
Mr. Robert Hauser, President of Robert Hauser Homes, Inc., said Mr. Frank Stoner generally
handles most of this part of the business. When he proffered 43,520 square feet during rezoning, the
proffer was based on four buildings. Square footage was limited by parking. He has built the project
consistent with the plans. Concurrent with the submittal, he was also building a 10,000 square foot building
at Sachem Village. The building included 3,000 square feet of storage area in the basement. When the
proffer was submitted, he said he wanted to limit it to office only, but he expected to build a building with a
partial basement to serve as office space. The plans showed a full basement, and he was issued a building
permit. He expected it would be only partially finished as office space, and the tenant wants to store files in
the basement.
Mr. Bowerman said Ms. Sprinkle’s analysis is correct. Even concrete walls between units are
counted as “space” in the footprint of a building. He does not think use will be intensified if it is used as
storage, because there is no parking for commercial use. The remedy is to go through a proffer change.
Mr. Davis said Ms. Sprinkle’s interpretation is correct. “Total” means “gross” development space.
Mr. Bowerman said this is not an intensification of use, but Mr. Hauser should resubmit the proffers.
Mr. Davis said staff has tried to work with Mr. Hauser, and reduced the impact on the developer by
considering the addition a crawl space so that the project could proceed until the process to amend the
proffers is complete.
Ms. Thomas asked how the building permit was issued in the first place. Ms. Sprinkle said the site
plan shows a partial basement. When the inspector went out with the site plan, he saw that it was being
constructed as a full basement.
Ms. Humphris said she was disappointed that the County was being blamed, because the applicant
knew he was supposed to construct the building according to the proffers. Staff did not make a mistake.
After what the Board went through with the neighbors to reduce any negative impact, it is daunting to have
nearly 5,000 square feet added. The applicant applied for a rezoning amendment to ask that an additional
47,000-48,000 square feet be added to provide additional storage space.
Mr. Hauser said when he approached the Zoning Department, staff said they would shut down the
project. He said he thought he was building a building with a full basement, but that it would be only
partially finished. He was not trying to “slip one by”. Mr. Hauser said pushing construction back would be a
bit of a setback.
Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to deny the appeal of the official
Determination of Proffer #2 from ZMA-96-22 issued by the Zoning Administrator, and to direct staff to
expedite rezoning ZMA-00-06. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Closed Session: Property and Personnel Matters.
At 12:55, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant to
Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees, and commissions; and Under subsection (7) to receive legal advice regarding a specific
matter. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Certify Closed Session.
At 2:05 p.m., motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that
the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or
considered in the closed session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
(Note: At this time, the Board moved to the following item.)
Agenda Item No. 23. Work Session: CPA-2000-04 - Historic Preservation Plan.
Ms. Margaret Pickford, Senior Planner, said the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee
was appointed by the Board in May, 1995 to develop a preservation plan and provide recommendations on
a regulatory ordinance. The Committee presented recommendations to the Board on October 6, 1999.
The Board then adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to add the Historic
Preservation Plan component, and forwarded the proposed Historic Overlay District Ordinance to the
Planning Commission for its recommendation.
The Planning Commission held work sessions on the plan on November 23, 1999 and
January 11, 2000. At the November session it was noted that the proposed ordinance would be addressed
separately after review and action on the plan. At the January session, the Commission asked the Historic
Preservation Committee to address comments made by staff, and to return with a revised plan for public
hearing. The plan was revised to address staff comments and issues raised by the Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Foundation, the Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition, and the Farm Bureau.
The Commission held a public hearing on May 30, 2000, and recommended, by a vote of 6:1,
approval of adoption of the Historic Preservation Plan as a component of the Comprehensive Plan as
presented, and amendment of Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan to correspond to the updated text in
the Historic Preservation Plan by making the staff-recommended text changes. The Committee has
continued to discuss plan-related issues with the Farm Bureau since the May 20 public hearing.
One goal of the current Comprehensive Plan is to protect the County’s significant historic and
cultural resources. The proposed Historic Preservation Plan recommends a comprehensive program of
education, regulation, voluntary action, owner participation, and incentives to achieve that goal. As
requested by the Commission, the Historic Preservation Committee addressed staff’s comments and made
appropriate revisions and additions to the proposed plan. The revised plan, dated May, 2000, and an outline
of the changes, together with a “Frequently Asked Questions” handout, were previously sent to the Board.
No changes have been made to the Plan since the May 30 Commission public hearing. However, the
Historic Preservation Committee has continued to discuss the plan with the Farm Bureau. The Committee
anticipates that work sessions on the proposed historic overly district ordinance will be held later this year,
followed by separate public hearings and that those sessions will provide ample opportunity to discuss in
detail the questions and concerns that have risen regarding the proposed ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Plan be scheduled for public hearing.
Ms. Bessie Carter said the plan includes changes recommended by many groups, which are
consistent with the Board’s charge. The Committee seriously considered every suggestion and made
changes consistent with its charge to produce a plan and make a recommendation on an ordinance to
protect the County’s historic resources. The proposed plan balances education, regulation, voluntary
action, owner participation, and incentives, all of which work together to form a comprehensive, integrated
preservation program. The Committee continues its discussions with the Farm Bureau, and has invited two
people, Mr. Robert A. Carter, Director, Community Services Division from the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources, and Mr. Gordon Lohr, Director of the Association for the Preservation of Virginia
Antiquities, to address their group.
Mr. Carter said the committee asked him to provide a state-wide perspective on the importance and
significance of the plan, which the Planning Commission approved at its meeting on
May 30, 2000.
He said the Commonwealth of Virginia strongly encourages local governments to develop sound
preservation plans as vital components of their community comprehensive plans. This is accomplished by
offering financial assistance to localities to share the costs of preservation surveys and comprehensive
preservation plans, and by offering technical assistance, training and models for localities and citizens on
how to develop a comprehensive preservation plan. There are economic benefits of increased tourism,
the benefits of new job and business creation, and stable property values through leveraged reinvestment in
old buildings and rural neighborhoods. Cultural and patriotic benefits are derived from teaching children
and residents about their rich heritage through the experience and interpretation of historic places.
Mr. Carter said the most effective way for a community to maximize those benefits is to put historic
resources to work as a major community goal and strategy, and to fully incorporate historic resources into
the vision and plans for the future. Adoption of a sound, comprehensive County-wide preservation plan is
an effective way for the County to respond to the strong directive in the Code of Virginia that local
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
governments address historic resources and areas in planning for current and future community needs.
He said the plan exemplifies all the model elements of a sound local preservation plan, as
recommended by the Commonwealth, and by professionals in the planning and preservation field. Its
greatest strength is that it is tailored to the special circumstances of Albemarle County and is
comprehensive in its scope.
Mr. Carter said his department continues to be ready to assist the County in any way needed to
help it reach the goals and objectives of the plan that is adopted.
Mr. Dorrier asked if a list of historic structures exists. Mr. Carter said he has worked with the
committee to make sure the information his department has is readily available to the County and public.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many localities have developed such a plan. Mr. Carter said Mary
Washington College maintains such a list on their website, but there are about 25 cities and counties who
have such a plan. He added that the state does not track or monitor these plans.
Ms. Thomas said the plan neither requires nor recommends maintenance. Mr. Carter said the
department helps administer two tax-incentive programs, one state and one federal.
Mr. Dorrier asked if its designation as a Certified Local Government status qualifies the County for
incentive programs. Mr. Carter said he met with staff to make sure that criteria for participation in the
program were realistic. He added that having an ordinance in place is an advantage. He also said that a
number of rural counties are now participating. Adopting a preservation ordinance and a plan, which is
optional, shows that counties have sound programs. The County must be listed on the state register in
order to participate.
Mr. Gordon Lohr, said the revolving fund helps to preserve properties by placing historic
preservation easements on them. These properties are a tangible connection to the past, so they are
purchased to be resold with preservation requirements, saving the property forever. This can provide great
economic benefits since donated easements can be a tax write-off. Properties must be eligible for the
historic register in order to get tax credits. Technical assistance can be provided to set up a revolving fund
to assist with other historic properties, and to assist the County in advertising the properties.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much money is in the revolving fund. Mr. Carter said there is $1.5 million set
aside by the General Assembly. Mr. Davis questioned whether any counties have a revolving fund, since he
did not think they had enabling authority. Mr. Carter agreed with Mr. Davis’ statement.
Ms. Thomas said since the easements are restrictive, some people say the properties are hard to
sell. Mr. Carter said easements could be tailored to any property, so changes may be permitted. Larger
changes are generally arbitrated, and there is a market for these properties.
Mr. Dorrier said the plan is a good one, because recommendations are broad in both scope and
perspective. He said the Farm Bureau feels some language in the plan is subject to interpretation, and he
suggested that some changes be made in order to reach out to the farm community. Mr. Martin suggested
that Board members forward any recommended changes to Mr. Carter.
Mr. Dorrier asked about penalties. Mr. Davis said that under the Zoning Ordinance, a violation is
subject to a civil penalty and fine. A violation of Architectural Review Board standards would be a civil
violation. The County could make this a criminal violation if it chose to, under the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman said he preferred incentives over penalties.
Mr. Davis noted that the County cannot having a revolving fund.
Mr. Dorrier said the Farm Bureau is concerned about buildings used by farmers. They should be
able to perform similar tasks without having to get permission. He suggested dropping the word “farm”,
noting that agriculture should be assisted, not impeded.
Mr. Dorrier said the ordinance was discussed about 22 years ago, and that all properties more than
100 years old were considered; this has now dropped to 50 years. He said the Farm Bureau wants to know
how properties are classified. He suggested the Commission recommend an age, but he added that the
national standard is that a building should be at least 50 years old.
Mr. Martin said other people were concerned about the plan being disconnected from the
ordinance, but he could not see any difference if that occurs. Ms. Thomas said the second paragraph is a
statement of fact, but she would agree to say that paragraphs number four and six were the committee’s
findings. Mr. Martin said they were simply put in as part of a commentary introduction. Ms. Humphris
disagreed, saying this is major to the plan, since it explains what the committee based their decisions and
recommendations upon.
Mr. Dorrier said this is simply an opinion without any backup information. Others have said that
voluntary ordinances do not work. Mr. Davis said there is no such thing as a voluntary ordinance. Under
Virginia zoning law, State Code specifies how a Zoning Ordinance can be amended. When a property is
designated to be part of a historic district, it is an amendment of a Zoning Ordinance. How the Board is
going to handle it is a policy decision. Ms. Humphris said she does not like the term “voluntary ordinance”,
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
and she suggested it read “voluntary program” instead.
Mr. Davis said it is inherent that a Zoning Ordinance implements the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Thomas recommended stating that “…from looking at other localities… voluntary plans are not
sufficient”. Mr. Bowerman said he would prefer that language because it lets the public know an ordinance
would follow. Mr. Dorrier said if the ordinance is going to be that carefully scrutinized, it should go along
with the plan.
Mr. Martin said since the ordinance is not in front of the Board, the two items should be divorced.
Mr. Bowerman said that would be fine, as long as there is an understanding that an owner knows he can do
what he wants with an old building. Mr. Davis said it is not unusual to include in the recommendations,
language to say that an ordinance should be developed. Mr. Martin said if the Board removed the three
paragraphs in question, it could state that the committee is working on an ordinance.
Ms. Thomas said all 58 recommendations should be discussed.
Mr. Dorrier said staff’s recommendation is that there be a partial real estate tax reduction on historic
properties. He asked how much that would cost, and for how long would the tax reduction be granted, as
this would have a big impact on the local tax base. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Dorrier was talking about local
incentives, which is not part of the ordinance. Mr. Dorrier said it would still cost people tax dollars.
Ms. Thomas said the Comprehensive Plan would be worked on in the future; the Board does not
have to have all the answers now. Mr. Dorrier asked if that meant the Board is simply asked to endorse the
spirit of the recommendation and work on it in the future.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left at 3:28 p.m. and returned at 3:30 p.m.)
Ms. Humphris said this could be a significant financial bonus to the County. Mr. Dorrier asked that
staff work with the committee to examine the recommendations.
Mr. Davis suggested the Board state that it’s goal is to adopt an ordinance to implement the plan,
and stating that the findings of the committee are included.
Mr. Bowerman offered the motion to set a public hearing on the Historic Preservation Plan for
October 18, 2000. Staff was directed to bring back amended language to the proposed Comprehensive
Plan Amendment text. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dorrier asked that the motion include that the Historic Preservation Committee bring incentives
forward to the Board. Mr. Martin said he did not want to direct the committee to do anything new. Mr.
Dorrier then said the committee could simply research them and bring them back to the Board. Mr. Tucker
said staff would provide a list of incentives on a new page for discussion at the
September 6, 2000 Board meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Appointments.
Ms. Humphris moved that:
·
the following people be appointed to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements Committee, with said
terms to run from August 2, 2000 to August 1, 2003: Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Ms. Judy K. Dunscomb,
Mr. Bill Edgerton, and Mr. Joseph H. Jones;
·
the following people be appointed to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements Committee, with said
terms to run from August 2, 2000 to August 1, 2002: Ms. Marcia Joseph, Ms. Ann H. Mallek, and
Mr. Steve McLean;
·
the following people be appointed to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements Committee, with said
terms to run from August 2, 2000 to August 1, 2001: Mr. Joe Samuels, Mr. A. C. Shackelford, Jr., and
Mr. Tim Tigner. (Mr. Walter Perkins will be Board’s liaison.);
·
the following people be appointed to the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee II (length of
terms not yet determined): Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Ms. Marilyn Gale, Ms. Kathy Galvin, Ms. Katie Hobbs,
Ms. Tracey Hopper, Mr. Tom Loach, Mr. Steve Runkle, Mr. Eric Strucko, Mr. Bob Watson, and
Mr. Jeff Werner; and
·
Mr. Mark Reisler be reappointed to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, with said term to run from
10/21/00 to 10/20/02.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she spoke at a meeting of the City, Counties and Towns Committee of the
General Assembly. They were excited to hear that enticing jobs into a community with low unemployment
brings additional families into the community.
_______________
Ms. Thomas said she also attended the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee meeting on
State funding of public education. Ms. Humphris and Mr. Koleszar addressed those present. She said staff
had provided useful facts and figures.
_______________
Ms. Thomas said she would be speaking to the High Growth Coalition soon to discuss what growth
management tools the County is now using.
_______________
Ms. Thomas said she visited with Mr. J. P. Woodley, Secretary of Conservation and Natural
Resources, who asked that the Board make recommendations for incentives for people to put land into A/F
districts. She said it would be helpful if the A/F District Advisory Committee provided suggestions to the
Natural Wildlife Resources Department. It was the consensus of the Board to ask them to do so.
_______________
Ms. Thomas said she received an interesting report from the RWSA, which included alternatives
and responses from a federal regulatory agency. Mr. Tucker said he would send copies to other Board
members.
_______________
Ms. Humphris asked if the Board should respond to a “Letter to the Editor” in The Daily Progress
which stated that the Board should adopt an ordinance against the use of handheld phones by drivers. It
was the consensus of the Board to have Mr. Tucker draft a letter of response.
_______________
Mr. Bowerman said he had provided other Board members a letter from a County resident,
Ms. Mary Anne Nolan”, regarding JAUNT. He asked to be advised on the issues. Staff will prepare
information for the Board.
“Thank you for getting the “auto sticker” mess corrected. However, I would like to
request the Board’s assistance regarding transportation fees. As you know, I use JAUNT.
Last week, I wanted to go to Aldersgate Methodist Church, across the street from where I
live. Usually, someone picks me up for Sunday Services. However, this past Sunday, I
had to use JAUNT. It cost me $6.00. $3.00 each stop.
Now, if I wanted to attend the Sunday evening event, it would be another $5.00. Or
if I wanted to have dinner at a friend’s house it would be an additional $6.00. I was
discussing this with my Pastor. He mentioned that two other persons had recently
contacted him to ask about transportation to the church. They wanted to attend a special
Bible Study group, but were unable to because of the cost of JAUNT.
The handicaps in this community want to participate in religious services, just as
any other able body individuals. Yet, most of us are in limited disability incomes, or Social
Security retirement, we cannot afford $12 or more dollars to participate in church services.
Yet, religious participation is most important to many disable, pray may be the only thing
that sustains us. Also, our Church is where we obtain the support of friends and our
religious authorities. It does not have to be a “regular Church”. Many persons receive
comfort from support groups in homes, or other forms of religious affairs. Yet, we cannot
participate because of the cost.
One of the ladies in our church would like to sing in the Choir but is unable to
because she can’t get transportation to the church practice on Sunday afternoon. The cost
is far too much for her. Some of the larger churches have vans or bus service, but that is
only a very few. Most of the religious services are held in smaller churches, home or other
facilities.
JAUNT had to lower Saturday rates, because the bus operation. However, I
understand that the bus service does not operate on Sunday, which is also poor planning
for the County. However, JAUNT is different, it is for the handicapped and it should
operate on a seven day basis, for the same charge of $1.50 per trip. There is such a thing
as folks working on shift hours, and some employees might like to earn extra income by
working on Sunday. There is plenty of business, for the to operate, and JAUNT receives a
substantial amount of Federal, Local and State subsidies.”
_______________
Mr. Martin said he received a letter from the Chairman of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors,
who said that International Cold Storage is planning on relocating soon. Nelson has applied for the
Governor’s Opportunity Fund to secure funds to lure them to that county. He had asked the Albemarle
August 2, 2000 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
County Board of Supervisors to support the application since some of the employees are County residents.
It was the consensus of the Board to have Mr. Tucker draft a letter.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date 10/04/00
Initials LAB