2004-06-02
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 1
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 2,
2004, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Sally H.
Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: Mr. Dennis S. Rooker.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Peter Kleeman said he represents a group of citizens concerned about the paving of Blenheim
Road (Route 795). He updated the Board on the progress of the project to date. He said VDOT promised
to use all prevailing standards (known as the RRR for resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation). At the
time the project was approved by this Board it had logical termini (at Route 708 and at Route 712). Within
that section there is a substandard bridge over the Hardware River (12 1/2 feet wide, weight limited to
seven tons). According to the RRR standards any substandard bridge within the logical termini of an RRR
project would have to be reconstructed, or rehabilitated to have a width of bridge deck equal to the bridge
approaches. The surface on that road is proposed to be nine feet of pavement, so that would be a
minimum of 18 feet. Now VDOT is proposing that the project be broken into two phases in an effort to not
expend money to upgrade the bridge. Currently, the project will be divided into two phases. He and his
clients believe this is a serious safety consideration that needs to be reviewed. He attempted to bring his
concerns to the prevailing authority, but has not been able to ascertain who that is. He spoke with County
Engineering staff and was told this is a VDOT project. He spoke with Mr. Proctor at VDOT and he said it is
a County project. There seems to be no one who is concerned about these issues. He asked the Board to
reconsider its approval of the paving project, review the project to see if it then is a safety issue, and work
with VDOT to determine who will maintain control over the project. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board will discuss this concern later when it discusses transportation matters.
__________
Mr. Tom Loach said a short time ago the Board decided to stop the sidewalks along Jarmans Gap
Road at the Gray Rock subdivision. He said there are 24 homes in Jarmans Gap Estates past that point.
He asked that the Board carry the sidewalks to the first section of the 24 homes. There is an internal path
and this would allow children to use that internal path rather than walking along the road to visit friends. He
said there are more than 250 new homes being built on Jarmans Gap Road, plus a golf course and a
winery. Second, regarding the update of water supply (Item 8 on the agenda), he asked why the
population figures for demand were not based on the DISC figures for the population that would be within
the growth areas. That is the area in which the RWSA operates. Why were they extrapolated out? He
wondered if the demand side of this could be discussed.
_________
Ms. Liz Palmer urged the Board to consider the Comprehensive Plan in decisions concerning the
future of the County’s watershed. Yesterday, Mr. Mark Graham explained to her that his department is
working to ensure that the County’s management of the watershed is consistent with the Natural
Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan. This means the County is moving toward integrated
resource planning. Later today the Board will hear from the RWSA on their water supply plan. She asked
that the Board think not only about how much water we will get for each dollar spent, but also the big
picture. How will the water supply plan match with the Comprehensive Plan? County staff has no
mechanism built into the system to coordinate their efforts with RWSA. RWSA’s charter and board
structure not only creates stalemates between the County and the City, but also leaves no obvious pathway
for coordination between County watershed planning and Rivanna’s water supply planning and
implementation. This summer RWSA will be meeting with regulators to talk about implementation of some
portion of the water supply plan. A water supply plan cannot be developed without making sure it is
coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan. If we are buying into integrated resource planning, water supply
planning cannot be separated from watershed management. The County’s only real voice in water supply
planning is through its elected officials. Attempts have been made in the past to bridge the gap. The
decision to have County staff present at the first round of negotiations with regulators is a first step. But,
until a structural or policy change is developed that permanently integrates the goals of the County with
those of RWSA, this Board is responsible for making sure the water supply plan is consistent with the
Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan. She would like to say to Mr. Wyant that this
disconnect is the reason for the state of the Moorman’s River for the three miles below the Sugar Hollow
dam.
_________
Mr. John Martin said he is a resident of Free Union. He has been asking questions about the
Moorman’s River for six years as have many other citizens. There has been no answer yet, and he does
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 2
not believe there will be an answer today from the RWSA people. He said County government has put
many important pieces in place with a view toward addressing this question. He said the Natural
Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan is an excellent statement of policy and values. The
Strategic Plan addresses an integrated resources plan (IRP), and the County has embraced the concept of
addressing environmental protection and water supply in the same conversation. There is an excellent
County staff, technically competent. The County has a strong County Executive. The Board has a lot of
citizen support on this issue. Also, the Supervisors are sensitive to the issue. He thinks it needs a solution.
Recently another piece was put into place; the Nature Conservancy has come forward and offered its
services to do a study and help RWSA. The Conservancy has world-wide scientific credibility. Not only
has it offered to help, but it has $50,000 that it is willing to contribute toward this work. Yet, there is no
agreement. Despite these pieces being in place, there is still a total disconnect between what the County
wants to accomplish and what RWSA is willing to accomplish. What is the reason for this disconnect? He
said the RWSA is controlled by three Board members. The three do not include Mike Gaffney or Bob
Tucker. The three Board members who control the RWSA are the retail representatives. Of those retail
representatives, two of them are from the City. He believes County government is under-represented on
the Rivanna Board. It does not have the power on that Board to accomplish what it needs to accomplish.
Since County government is under-represented, so are County citizens. Until this problem is resolved, it is
difficult to see how the County, despite its objectives and its wonderful statements in the Comprehensive
Plan, will accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
_________
Mr. Jeff Werner, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council and several residents of the
Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District and the Southwest Mountains Coalition spoke next. He said
residents of the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic have been asking for some time that VDOT restrict
unnecessary truck traffic on Routes 22/231 between Gordonsville and Route 250. Recently VDOT posted
signs in the area soliciting public comment regarding this issue. The public has until June 17 to make its
comments. He urged the Board to offer comment to VDOT in support of the community’s concerns.
Mr. Werner read from a statement (on file in the Clerk’s Office) concerning the Southwest
Mountains Rural Historic District. He said Routes 22/231 is one of the most scenic roads in the country.
The corridor has established its importance in a landscape that sets the standard for a rural area in
Albemarle County. The width, curvature, lack of shoulders and limited sight distance make this a difficult
road for trucks to traverse. These trucks present a danger to residents and farmers who use the road daily.
He asked that the Board support the residents of the Southwest Mountains by urging VDOT to designate
the Routes 22/231 corridor as a roadway within the Commonwealth that prohibits through-truck traffic.
_______________
Motionseconded
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. was offered by Mr. Boyd, by Mr. Wyant,
to approve Items 5.1 through 5.6 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for information
Note
(: Discussion concerning individual issues will be shown along with other information about that item).
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
__________
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: December 18(A), 2003, and January 7, 2004.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of December 18(A), 2003, and found a couple of typos.
Mr. Tucker said he talked with Mr. Rooker who is not present today because there was a death in
his family. He told Mr. Tucker he had read the minutes of January 7, 2004, Pages 1 - 15 ending at Item
14a, and had faxed a list of typos to Ms. Carey.
Mr. Wyant said he had read the minutes of January 7, 2004, Pages 15 (beginning at Item 14a) to
the end, and had given a list of typos to Ms. Carey
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes listed on the consent agenda were
approved.
__________
Item 5.2. Proclamation recognizing June 3, 2004, as National Hunger Awareness Day.
NATIONAL HUNGER AWARENESS DAY
WHEREAS
, the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank Network was established in 1981 to obtain and
efficiently distribute nutritious foods and other products to member agencies while
developing programs and partnerships to help eliminate hunger. Since its
establishment the Food Bank has distributed over 86 million pounds of food
throughout the service area; and
WHEREAS
, the Food Bank provides food for 18,000 different people each week; and
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 3
WHEREAS
, the Food Bank will distribute over 8 million pounds of food in 2003-04, equivalent to
over 6 million meals, to citizens of Albemarle County, nine cities and twenty-four
other counties; and
WHEREAS
, 31 percent of the members of households served by the Food Bank are children
under the age of 18, 19 percent are senior citizens, and 40 percent are the working
poor; and
WHEREAS
, for every dollar donated, the Food Bank is able to distribute $17 worth of food, or $1
will provide a meal for a family of five; and
WHEREAS
, often people who find themselves in the position of need are forced to make choices
between shelter, utilities, health care/medicine, transportation and food; and too
frequently adequate nutritious food is the casualty of these choices;
NOW, THEREFORE, I,
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby designate
JUNE 3, 2004 as
NATIONAL HUNGER AWARENESS DAY
In Albemarle County and urge all our citizens to commit to increasing awareness and
understanding of the faces of hunger, and commit to assist in eliminating it from our
community.
By the recorded vote set out above, the proclamation was approved.
Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation into the record and then presented same to Mr. Mark Hackney
and Ms. Montie White of the Thomas Jefferson Area Food Bank.
__________
Item 5.3. Adopt Resolution of Appropriations for FY 2004-2005 Budget and Resolution of Official
Intent for use of VPSA Bond Proceeds.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the County’s FY 2004-2005 Operating and Capital
Budgets were adopted by the Board on April 14, 2004, for a total estimated amount of $241,073,047. The
Annual Resolution of Appropriations for the Fiscal Year ending on June 30, 2005, provides the authority
from the Board for the County to spend those funds, effective July 2, 2004. This Resolution is a
comprehensive Resolution which appropriates the total County budget, including both operating and capital
funds in a single resolution, and includes many of the initial Special Revenue Fund appropriations that in
the past were not included in the operating appropriation resolution.
Since April, adjustments have been made to the adopted budget as updated information became
available. These adjustments have resulted in a revised net total appropriation amount in this resolution of
$241,138,729, a difference of $65,682. The change is due partially to an increase in Special Revenue
Funds. The remainder of the adjustment is a result of having a more detailed picture of the many inter-fund
transfers included in the various accounts.
The 2004 Virginia General Assembly, acting in special session, did not pass a budget for the 2004-
2006 biennium until May 7, 2004. That budget is currently before Governor Warner for his action and will
not be finalized until mid-June. As such, specifics of the State budget are still unknown. Albemarle County
Schools anticipate an increase of approximately $2.6 million in additional revenue from the State over the
amount approved by the School Board. Local government does not anticipate any increases over what
was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 14, 2004. This appropriation resolution withholds $2.6
million from the approved local transfer to the School Division and the recognition of the additional $2.6
million in State revenues in the School Division. Once the impact of the State budget is fully known and the
alternatives for the uses of the anticipated additional State revenue are discussed, the Board may choose
to appropriate an additional amount to the School Division.
General Fund - $159,847,660. The appropriated amount for the General Fund decreases by $2.6
million from what was approved in April. This is a result of a decrease in the transfer to the School
Division.
School Fund - $114,456,037. Overall, the School Fund increases by $2,940 over the adopted
Budget due to a technical modification adjusting the amount of the transfer from the General Fund to the
School Division for Human Resources. The $2.6 million decrease in the school transfer is offset by a
corresponding increase in State revenue.
School Self-Sustaining Funds - $12,829,917. There are no changes to the School Self-Sustaining
Funds budget adopted in April.
Special Revenue Funds - $14,865,591. The Special Revenue Funds budget increases by $23,961
over the amount adopted in April. This is due to a $16,791 increase in the United Way Day Care Fund, a
$4,500 decrease in the Metro Planning Grant Fund, and an inter-fund transfer adjustment of $11,400 in the
Vehicle Replacement Fund.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 4
General Government Capital Improvements Fund - $16,476,135. There are no changes to the
General Government Capital Improvements Fund budget adopted in April.
School Division Capital Improvements Fund - $11,228,000. There are no changes to the School
Division Capital Improvements Fund budget adopted in April.
Stormwater Capital Improvements Fund - $400,000. There are no changes to the Stormwater
Capital Improvements Fund budget adopted in April.
Debt Service Fund - $13,092,256. There are no changes to the Debt Service Fund budget adopted
in April.
Staff recommends approval of the Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 2004-2005 that
allocates a total of $241,138,729 to various General Government and School Division operating, capital
improvement, and debt service accounts for expenditure in FY 2004-2005. Also recommended for
approval is a Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with the Proceeds of a Borrowing.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the Annual Resolution of
Appropriations of the County of Albemarle for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2005, and a
Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing, all as
follows:
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 5
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 6
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 7
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 8
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 9
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 10
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 11
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 12
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 13
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 14
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 15
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 16
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING
WHEREAS,
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the “Borrower”), intends to
acquire, construct and equip the items and projects set forth in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the “Project”);
and
WHEREAS,
plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its own
funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring indebtedness and to
receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax-exempt bonds or taxable debt, or both;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the “Bonds”) or to incur
other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed $16,646,000.
2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrower
for Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior to
the date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the
Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt.
3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either (a) of
a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in
each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a
nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not
related to or an agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition
(directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the Borrower.
4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by
the Borrower that evidences the Borrower’s use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no
later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in
service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is
paid. The Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs of
issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance and
not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five years.
5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the “official intent” within
the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 17
Exhibit A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED PROJECTS
FY 2004-05
Description Amount
1. ADA Structural Changes $ 50,000
2. Hollymead Elementary Building Renovations $ 757,000
3. Scottsville Elementary Construction $ 420,000
4. Southern Elementary School $ 1,625,000
5. Henley Middle School Building Renovations $ 2,833,000
6. Albemarle High School Construction $ 649,000
7. Murray Education Center Building Renovations $ 1,024,000
8. Maintenance Projects $ 2,273,000
9. Fire/Rescue Building Equipment $ 5,451,000
10. Volunteer Fire Department Fire and EMS Equipment $ 1,564,000
$ 16,646,000
__________
Item 5.4. Revisions to Personnel Policies (P-02, P-63, P-88 and delete P-64 [content included in
P-63]).
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Human Resources Department, assisted by the
County Attorney's Office, has been reviewing the County's Personnel Policy Manual in order to update
existing policies in a number of areas. There are no substantive changes in these policies, they are simply
clarifications of existing policies and changes to reflect commonality with existing School Board policies. At
this point, staff is proposing revisions to the following specific policies: Employee Status (P-02), Retirement
(P-63 and P-64) and Emergency Leave (P-88).
P-02/Definition of Employee Status: The definition of "classified employee" is revised to reflect the
at-will status of County employees under Virginia law. In addition, the term "regular" replaces "permanent"
in the definitions section in order to clarify the status of County employees under state law. Other changes
reflect the different lengths of the workday applicable to public safety personnel and regular classified
employees.
P-63/Retirement: The amendments reflect several changes as follows:
1. Policies P-63 and P-64 (both of which concern retirement) are combined into a single policy
(policy P-64, which addresses certain retirement payments and payments upon death of County
employees, is incorporated into the revised policy P-63 as a new section III). In addition, the former
requirement that years of service be continuous to receive the $200 per year payment has been eliminated.
2. The Regular Retirement provision in revised P-64 (section I) clarifies the requirements
pertaining to eligibility of retiring County employees and Board members for coverage under the County's
health insurance plan.
3. Specific language is added in section II addressing the "Longevity Incentive Program" which has
been in effect since the 1980's but which has never been formally incorporated into the retirement policy.
This program provides eligible part-time employees with an annuity based upon years of service as well as
life insurance benefits.
4. Section IV reflects changes to the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (VERIP) that have
previously been adopted by the School Board relating to retirees who return to work with the County;
clarifies the method by which benefits for part-time employees eligible to retire under VERIP are calculated;
and clarifies that the retirement benefits are subject to modification and annual appropriations by the Board
of Supervisors.
P-88/Emergency Leave: Changes have been made to clarify the limited nature of the Emergency
Leave provision in light of certain situations in which employees have been allowed to use emergency
leave for non-emergency purposes. The changes clarify that up to two (2) days per fiscal year may be
utilized for urgent personal or other emergency situations, and that emergency leave is not to be used as a
substitute or alternative to annual or other types of leave that may be more appropriate under the
circumstances.
Staff recommends adoption of a Resolution which will approve the proposed changes to personnel
policies P-02, P-63, P-88 and the deletion of P-64.
Discussion
(: Mr. Wyant said he noticed that employees retiring received $250.00 for each year of
service, but if the employees dies, the spouse or estate does not receive that amount as it has in the past.
Mr. Tucker said that provision will not change. Mr. Davis noted that it is set out at the bottom of page 4.)
By the adopted vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution approving of
the proposed changes to personnel policies P-02, P-63, P-88 and the deletion of P-64:
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 18
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS,
the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the
Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS,
the proposed Personnel Policy Manual changes clarify 1) the definition of
Employee status; 2) entitlement to retirement and early retirement; and 3) emergency leave.
WHEREAS
, the Board of Supervisors desires to adopt these Personnel Policy revisions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby amends the following sections of the County of Albemarle Personnel
Policy Manual:
By Amending:
Section P-02 Definition of Employee Status
Section P-63 Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (VERIP)
Section P-88 Emergency Leave
By Deleting:
Section P-64 Retirement Pay/Payment upon Death
Section P-02 DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE STATUS
The Board will maintain standard definitions of employment and will classify employees in
accordance with these definitions. To aid in continuity and ease of reading, masculine pronoun will
be used throughout our policies to denote both male and female employees.
A. Classified Employees – A classified employee is defined as any County employee. All
County employees are employees at-will and may be dismissed from employment at any
time, for any reason, or for no reason. Regular full-time or part-time employees who have
completed all probationary periods, and are eligible to grieve, may grieve such actions
according to the grievance procedures set forth in Section P-03 of this Policy Manual.
B. Definitions of Employment
1. Regular – Employment in an approved budgeted full-time or part-time position that
is meant to be part of the regular County work force. The term “permanent” shall
have the same meaning as “regular” as these terms are used throughout this
Policy Manual.
a. Full-Time: Employment in an established position for not less than 40
hours per normal workweek (Saturday at 12:01 a.m. to Friday at midnight)*
and 52 weeks per fiscal year.
b. Part-Time: Employment in an established position requiring less than 40
hours per normal workweek.
c. Probationary: The first six (6) months (12 months for certain positions) of
employment with the County are considered a probationary period. This
time is used by both the employee and the County to determine whether
the position and the employee are suited for each other. An employee’s
progress will be evaluated throughout the probationary period, as required
by Section P-23 of this Policy Manual.
2. Salaried Board Members: Members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning
Commission are paid an annual salary as established by county ordinance and
state law.
3. Temporary: Employment that meets one or more of the following criteria:
a. Employment in a position established for a specific period of time.
b. Employment for the duration of a specific project or group of assignments.
c. Employment as a temporary in the absence of the incumbent in a position
classified as full-time or part-time, as defined in Section B.1 above. This
shall not include regular employees who are serving in another position on
a temporary basis (see P-60).
*NOTE: Schedules other than those noted may be established by Department Heads provided that the alternate
schedules are in writing and provided to the employees and to the Department of Human Resources.
C. Extent of Participation in and Eligibility for Benefits
1. Full-Time Regular: Eligible to participate in all benefit programs.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 19
2. Part-Time Regular: Must be at least half-time (4.0 hours per day) to be eligible to
participate in prorated medical benefits, leave benefits, and applicable retirement
and life insurance programs. County employees hired prior to the implementation
of this policy (i.e. October, 1985) and who received benefits, will not lose such
benefits.
3. Temporary: Ineligible to participate in benefit programs.
4. Salaried Board Member: Eligible to participate in all medical and dental insurance
programs.
In order for a new employee to be paid by the end of the month in which they are hired,
th
paperwork must be received in the Department of Human Resources by the 15 of the
th
month. If the 15 falls on a weekend, paperwork must be received the workday prior to the
th
15.
th
For new employees who begin employment on or prior to the 15 of a month, the County’s
contribution toward medical/dental insurance may begin the first of the following month.
th
For new employees who begin employment after the 15 of a month, the County’s
contribution toward medical insurance may begin the first of the month following the first
full month of employment. In this instance, employees may purchase medical insurance
during the first full month of employment by paying for both the employer and employee
share of the cost.
Medical/dental insurance ceases at the end of the month following the month of
termination. Employees who are married to another County employee will be eligible for
two Board contributions toward medical/dental insurance. Employees married to each
other who elect the same medical/dental plan will not be required to pay the employee
contribution. It is the responsibility of the employee to notify the Department of Human
Resources of this situation and, upon notification, the change in contribution will be made
with the next payroll. In no event will the County be responsible for retroactive payments to
employees who fail to provide this notification.
D. Continuous Service is defined as: Uninterrupted employment while a regular employee
with the County of Albemarle. Continuous service is broken by termination of or
resignation from employment, voluntary or involuntary.
E. Throughout the policies, the word “Day” shall be defined as: the number of hours an
employee is identified on the Employee Personnel System as working. It is not
necessarily the number of hours the employee actually works per day. It is calculated by
taking the number of hours the employee works per year, and dividing it by 260 (the
number of days per year in the system).
Full Time Classified (other than those noted
below) 2080 hrs/year a day = 8 hours
Police Patrol 2071 hrs/year a day = 8.1 hours
Fire & Rescue Day Personnel 2600 hrs/year a day = 10 hours
Fire & Rescue 24-hr Personnel 2912 hrs/year a day = 11.2 hours
Part Time Classified Prorated based
on hrs worked Prorated
Amended: August 7, 1996; June 2, 2004
Section P-63 RETIREMENT
I. REGULAR RETIREMENT
Retirement shall be at the discretion of the employee. Full-time regular employees of
Albemarle County who qualify are eligible for the benefits of the Virginia Retirement
System (“VRS”). Additional information describing VRS benefits is available on-line at
varetire.org.
All employees retiring under VRS and/or the County’s VERIP policy are eligible for
continuous participation in the group medical and dental insurance plan until they are
eligible for Medicare coverage.
Salaried Board Members and full-time or part-time regular employees who are not retiring
under VRS and/or VERIP, are eligible for continuous participation in the County’s group
medical and dental insurance plan until they are eligible for Medicare coverage, provided
that they meet the following requirements:
1. be 55 years of age or older;
2. retire from service or separate from employment in good standing after four (4) or
more years of continuous service or employment; and
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 20
3. be participants in the County’s Group medical and dental insurance plan on the
day prior to separation from the County.
Individuals eligible to participate in the County’s group medical and dental insurance plan
shall pay the full cost of health coverage, including any applicable administrative expenses.
II. LONGEVITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM
The County values the service of all of its employees, both full-time and part-time. Since
part-time employees are not covered by VRS, the County has elected to establish a
Longevity Incentive Program (the “Program”) and thereby provide eligible part-time
employees with certain benefits as more fully explained in this section.
A. Scope of Program
All regular, part-time employees of the County will be covered by the Program
provided that they work the minimum number of hours necessary to establish
eligibility for County benefits. Salaried Board Members are not eligible for
participation in this program.
B. Benefits
The following benefits will be provided to eligible part-time employees under the
Program:
1. Life Insurance: A term life insurance policy will be provided equal to twice
the employee’s annual salary with double indemnity for accidental death
and dismemberment payments for the accidental loss of one or more limbs
or of eyesight.
2. Annuity Program: Based on length of service in the County, part-time
employees will be provided with an annuity program. The Board will
contribute an annual amount according to the following formula:
a. 5 - 9 years of County service - five percent of annual salary.
b. 10 - 14 years of County service - seven percent of annual salary
c. 15 - 19 years of County service - nine percent of annual salary.
d. 20+ years of County service - eleven percent of annual salary.
III. Retirement Pay/Payment upon Death
In recognition of employee service to Albemarle County, regular full-time and part-time
employees who meet the age and service criteria for retirement under VRS and have been
employed a minimum of five (5) years with Albemarle County shall be paid upon their
retirement or death in service $200 per year for each year of service to the County as a
regular employee up to a maximum payment for 25 years of service, less any years
previously paid for under this policy. Years of service do not have to be continuous.
IV Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (VERIP)
A. Eligibility
Participants in the Albemarle County VERIP must be regular full-time or regular
part-time employees eligible for benefits as defined in P-02, Definition of Employee
Status and meet the following additional requirements:
1. Full-time employees must be eligible for early or full retirement under the
provisions of VRS. Part-time employees must meet the same age and
service criteria as if they were full-time employees covered under VRS.
2. Have been employed by Albemarle County for 10 of the last 13 years prior
to retirement.
3. Employees retiring under the disability provisions of VRS and/or Social
Security shall not be eligible for the VERIP.
4. VERIP benefits will cease if the retiree returns to work in a regular full-time
or regular part-time position with Albemarle County.
5. VERIP benefits will continue if the retiree returns to work in a temporary
part-time or temporary full-time position with Albemarle County.
B. Benefits
1. VERIP benefits shall be paid monthly for a period of five years after
retirement or until age 65, whichever comes first.
2. Benefits under VERIP will be calculated as follows:
a. Compute the annual VRS benefit. This computation shall include
any reductions for early VRS retirement if appropriate;
b. Recompute the annual VRS benefit with the addition of five more
years service or the number of additional years needed to reach
age 65, whichever is lesser;
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 21
c. The difference between these two calculations shall be the annual
VERIP benefit to be paid on a monthly basis.
d. Benefits for part-time employees who are eligible to participate in
VERIP shall be determined as if the part-time employees are
eligible for an annual VRS benefit and the amount shall be
calculated in the same manner as benefits for VRS-eligible
employees under subsections (a) – (c) above.
3. The County Executive will recommend to the Board an annual adjustment
to the early retirement benefit after having been apprised of the VRS
adjustment for retirees.
4. The Board will pay to the employee an amount equal to the Board’s annual
contribution toward an employee’s health insurance as long as the
employee is covered by VERIP benefits.
C. Application
Applications for VERIP must be made to the Human Resources Department prior
st
to December 1 of the year preceding the fiscal year the VERIP takes effect.
D. Approval
All VERIP applications are subject to approval by the County Executive or
designee.
E. Duration
The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to modify this policy in its discretion,
and all benefits described in this policy shall be subject to future modifications and
annual appropriations by the Board of Supervisors.
Amended: August 4, 1993; April 19, 1995; June 2, 2004
Section P-88 Emergency Leave
Emergency leave is for urgent circumstances beyond the control of the individual and must be used
only for this purpose.
The department head or designee may grant up to two (2) days of emergency leave without loss of
pay to all classified and administrative employees during the fiscal year. These days do not carry
over or accrue year to year.
Examples of circumstances for which emergency leave may be granted are:
1. A disaster affecting the home or residence of the employee or his family.
2. Other urgent or emergency situations arising out of natural or man-made disasters.
Emergency Leave is not intended and may not be used for absences covered by other
types of Leave, such as Sick Leave, Sick Bank Leave, Family & Medical Leave, Military
Leave or Court/Jury Duty Leave. In addition, Emergency Leave is not intended and may
not be used as a substitute if other types of leave have been exhausted.
To the extent possible, employees should request Emergency Leave from the Department
Head or Designee. If the circumstances in a given case are unclear, the department head
shall confer with the Director of Human Resources before granting approval.
Amended: August 4, 1993; December 2003; June 2, 2004
_________
Item 5.5. Commonwealth’s Attorney Compensation – Salary Supplement.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that during this year’s budget review, the Commonwealth’s
Attorney requested that the Board of Supervisors consider a supplement to the State established salary for
the position. In addition, the Sheriff had submitted a request for the same consideration in his budget
submittal. After discussion, the Board directed staff to review compensation in other localities for the
Commonwealth’s Attorney, Sheriff and Clerk of the Circuit Court and report back with the findings.
A number of localities similar in population to Albemarle do provide a supplement to the State
approved salary. Among all localities with a population between 70,000 and 110,000, the average
supplement is $9,924.44. In this population bracket, five localities supplement and four do not.
Establishing a benchmark group and including each locality from that group in the analysis is similar to the
method currently used for the review of other positions. The County’s population falls roughly in the middle
of this bracket and staff believes that these localities are the most comparable to Albemarle due to their
size. While another method could be used to determine the amount of a supplement, staff felt this
approach was both reasonable and consistent with current practice. From the Board’s budget work
session this spring, staff was unclear whether or not the Board intended to provide a supplement in the
coming fiscal year or simply to prepare the information for the Board’s consideration in the FY 2005-06
budget process. Because Mr. Camblos has already completed a survey of other offices, he has requested
that this be brought to the Board for consideration at this time.
Based on staff’s understanding of the Board’s intent to supplement the salary of Constitutional
Officers and the data that has been collected, the Board may wish to consider a supplement to the
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 22
Commonwealth’s Attorney of $9,925 effective July 1, 2004. As the information collected indicates, the
State is due to provide an additional $3,260 increase to the Commonwealth’s Attorney effective December
1, 2004. The Board’s approval of this item would authorize this supplement and authorize that the funding
be taken from the Board’s reserve.
Discussion
(: Mr. Boyd said this seemed to be a little “open-ended.” He asked if staff purposely
did not make a recommendation. Mr. Tucker said it is a policy issue for the Board to decide. Staff did
make a suggestion on how to handle it, and the methodology used by staff to make a determination of the
amount.
Ms. Thomas said she only knows what she has read in the newspaper. She is not at all sure the
Board should raise the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s compensation until there is some sort of settlement
between the Judge and the Commonwealth’s Attorney as to whether there will be a sitting judge and a
Commonwealth’s Attorney who can work together. At this point, they are at loggerheads. The judge is
refusing to sit when Albemarle’s Commonwealth’s Attorney is presenting cases. She thinks this is not a
time and a situation when the Board should reward the Commonwealth’s Attorney.
Mr. Dorrier said he believes this matter is separate from that issue.
Ms. Thomas said she realizes that legally there is no connection, but the symbolism of the Board
taking this action while that is ongoing is not conducive to it being settled.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Mr. Dorrier that it is a separate issue. He thinks this is an equity issue and
not an reward issue.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board is approving this. Mr. Tucker said if the Board approves the Consent
Agenda, this item will be approved.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved a supplement of $9,925 to the
salary of the Commonwealth’s Attorney effective July 1, 2004, and authorized that funding for this
supplement be taken from the Board’s Reserve Fund.
__________
Item 5.6. Requested FY 2004 Appropriations.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as
shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must
be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the
budget. The total of these requested additional FY 2004 appropriations is $78,537.01, which is below the
threshold level for a budget amendment on its own. It is anticipated that a budget amendment will be
proposed in July 2004, and these appropriations will be incorporated.
This request involves the approval of three new FY 2004 appropriations: Two appropriations (Nos.
2004-079 and 2004-080) in the amount of $34,237.01, for various School programs and grants, and one
appropriation (No. 2004-081) in the amount of $44,300.00 for additional funding for the Circuit Court Clerk’s
office. Staff recommends approval of the FY 2004 Appropriations.
Appropriation No. 2004-079, $29,199.25. The following appropriations were approved at the
School Board’s April 22, 2004, meeting:
The Southern Poverty Law Center awarded Tracey Saxon, teacher at Jack Jouett Middle School,
with a $245.00 Teaching Tolerance Grant. This money will be used to purchase educational materials that
will help students move toward a better understanding of tolerance-related issues.
The Eckerd Corporation awarded a $500.00 grant to Yancey Elementary School through its “Give
A School a Grant” Program. These funds will be used to purchase books for literacy education.
The Albemarle County Public Schools received a Refugee School Impact Grant award from the
Office of Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the amount of
$6,493.00. These funds will be used to provide additional services for Albemarle County’s growing multi-
cultural population, which includes refugees. The grant program will run in conjunction with the evening
Adult ESL program, targeting K-12 “Limited English Proficient (LEP)” refugee students with special
emphasis on reading, writing and mathematical concepts.
The Baker-Butler PTO made a donation in the amount of $500.00 to the Sculpture Park Project
Grant. Also, fees in the amount of $40.00 were collected from a public workshop. These funds will be used
to support Phase II of the sculpture park on the land surrounding Baker-Butler Elementary School.
The Virginia Department of Education awarded Albemarle County Public Schools a Project
Graduation Regional Academy Grant in the amount of $11,421.25 and a Continuation Academy Planning
Grant in the amount of $10,000.00, totaling $21,421.25. The grants are State funded non-competitive
grants awarded to collaborative remedial efforts of two or more school divisions within each
Superintendent’s Study Group Region. In Region 5 only Albemarle County and Charlottesville City Schools
elected to participate together. Albemarle County is serving as the fiscal agent for these grants. Funds
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 23
from the Regional Academy Grant will be used to hold the Spring Academy that will target senior students
who have not yet passed the SOL end-of-course exam to earn a verified credit in reading. The
Continuation Academy Planning Grant funds will be used to prepare for a summer remediation program
aimed at serving two populations; a Continuation Academy serving seniors who should graduate in 2004
but have not obtained the appropriate verified credits in reading, writing and algebra, and a Project
Graduation Summer Regional Academy focusing on juniors who need verified credits in algebra. Grant
applications have been completed for both of these academies with award pending legislative action.
Appropriation No. 2004-080, $5,037.76. The following appropriations were approved at the School
Board’s April 22, 2004 meeting:
The Textbook Fund has collected $115.76 for textbooks sold. It is requested that this money be
appropriated for FY 03-04 to purchase replacement textbooks.
Western Albemarle High School and the Warrior Club received donations in the amount of
$3,856.68. Bruce and Melanie Snyder donated $300.00, Sally Valadez-Dyer donated $20.00, Michael and
Pamela Lutz donated $100.00, Thomas Keogh, Jr. donated $50.00, William and Barbara Benson donated
$100.00, Leslie Reed donated $500.00, Burger King Corp. donated $250.00, MusicToday LLC donated
$200.00, Western Albemarle High School Football Association donated $1,000.00, and Western Albemarle
High School Senior Classes of 1997, 1999 and 2002 donated $1,336.68. These donations will be used to
purchase weight room equipment for the new Weight/Wellness Room that is being constructed at the
school.
Albemarle High School received donations in the amount of $650.00. Century 21 Ray Caddell &
Associates donated $200.00, Expertise Painting Inc donated $150.00, and the Albemarle County Rotary
Club donated $300.00. These donations will be used by the Choir Department at Albemarle High to
purchase materials and supplies for the choir.
Albemarle County Schools received a check in the amount of $416.00 from the Greater Kansas
City Community Foundation and Affiliated Trusts on behalf of H&R Block clients who donated to the H&R
Block Education Fund. This donation will be placed in the School Board Reserve account for use to be
determined by the School Board.
Appropriation No. 2004-081,$44,300.00. The Circuit Court Clerk’s office will be receiving additional
funding in the amount of $56,997.00 from the State’s Technology Trust Fund. This funding will be used to
convert additional microfilmed historical data to the imaging system. Since FY ‘02, a total of $225,140.00
has been appropriated for this project of which $215,463.00 has been spent. With the additional
$56,997.00 in anticipated state funding, a supplemental appropriation of $44,300.00 is required. All funding
for this project has been provided through the State’s Technology Trust Fund.
Discussion
(: Mr. Boyd asked if the School’s $2.6 million hold-back is now part of this
appropriation. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of
Appropriation:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-079
DATE: JUNE 2, 2004
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND GRANTS
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3104 60212 601300 WOODBROOK-INST/REC SUPP J1 245.00
1 3104 60213 601300 YANCEY-INST/REC SUPPLIES J1 500.00
1 3123 61101 132100 PT WAGES-TEACHER J1 4,499.00
1 3123 61101 210000 FICA J1 344.18
1 3123 61101 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES J1 1,649.82
1 3104 60217 601300 BAKER/BUTLER-INST/REC SUPP J1 540.00
1 3217 61101 137100 PROJ GRAD-PT WAGES-BUS DVR J1 2,740.00
1 3217 61101 160300 PROJ GRAD-STIPENDS J1 11,380.00
1 3217 61101 210000 PROJ GRAD-FICA J1 1,089.75
1 3217 61101 312700 PROJ GRAD-PROF SVC CONSULT J1 5,811.50
1 3217 61101 420110 PROJ GRAD-SCHOOL TRANS J1 250.00
1 3217 61101 601300 PROJ GRAD-INST/REC SUPPLIES J1 150.00
2 3104 18000 181266 TEACHING TOLERANCE J2 245.00
2 3104 18000 189900 MISC REVENUE J2 500.00
2 3123 33000 330123 REFUGEE IMPACT GRANT J2 6,493.00
2 3104 18000 189900 MISC REVENUE J2 540.00
2 3217 24000 240296 PROJECT GRADUATION J2 21,421.25
3104 0501 EST REVENUE J 1,285.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 1,285.00
3123 0501 EST REVENUE J 6,493.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 6,493.00
3217 0501 EST REVENUE J 21,421.25
0701 APPROPRIATION J 21,421.25
TOTAL 58,398.50 29,199.25 29,199.25
_____
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 24
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-80
DATE: JUNE 2, 2004
EXPLANATION: EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND DONATIONS
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2301 61101 6301300 INST/REC SUPPLIES J1 650.00
1 9000 60302 800656 WEIGHT/WELLNESS J1 3,856.00
1 2410 60100 999981 SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE J1 416.00
1 2114 61101 602000 TEXTBOOKS J1 115.76
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J2 1,066.00
2 9000 18100 181123 WEIGHT/WELLNESS EQUIP J2 3,856.00
2 2000 19000 190214 TEXTBOOKS FUND J2 115.76
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J 1,181.76
0701 APPROPRIATION J 1,181.76
9000 0501 EST REVENUE J 3,856.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 3,856.00
TOTAL 10,075.52 5,037.76 5,037.76
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-081
DATE: JUNE 2, 2004
EXPLANATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE IMAGING AND INDEX SYSTEM
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 21060 800708 DOCUMENT IMAGING SYS J1 44,300.00
1 9010 24000 240800 CLERK TECH. TRUST FD J2 44,300.00
9010 0501 EST REVENUE J 44,300.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 44,300.00
TOTAL 88,600.00 44,300.00 44,300.00
__________
Item 5.7. Community Development Department Project Status Report.
It was noted in the Staff’s report that regular updates have been provided to the Board on the
status of the Neighborhood Model implementation and other major initiatives over the last two years.
Community Development expanded this update to include discussion of other projects. This update covers
the first five months of this calendar year.
The attached update provides a snapshot on the status of projects being managed by the
Department of Community Development. This period has seen considerable progress preparing projects
for consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board.
The following Comprehensive Plan projects are currently before the Board or are anticipated to
come before the Board in the next few months: Crozet Master Plan; Rural Area Plan; Community Facilities
Plan; and, Stormwater Master Plan.
The following ordinance amendments are currently before the Board or are anticipated to come
before the Board in the next few months: final Subdivision Ordinance changes proposed for
implementation of the Neighborhood Model; final Zoning Ordinance changes proposed for the
implementation of the Neighborhood Model including relegated parking; Groundwater program; Wireless
policy amendments; Sign policy amendments; "housekeeping" amendments to Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances primarily related to the department’s reorganization.
Discussion
(: Ms. Thomas said the third page of the report talks about items which are not high
priority items, but there is an ongoing “cleaning up” of the Zoning Ordinance. Item 5 in the list of seven is
“contractor’s office and equipment storage.” It has been almost two years since she asked that this be an
item. Things are moving so slowly it has become symbolic. Citizens in the Ivy community have spent over
$30,000 fighting over this very issue in the courts. She thinks a contractor’s office and equipment storage
should require a special use permit in the Light Industry District. She does not know why this should take
so long. If no other Board member joins her in this concern, this will probably remain a low priority item.
She is not a lawyer, but does not know why this should be so complicated. Mr. Tucker said he does not
know why this cannot be moved forward a little more quickly. Normally, staff tries to do a more
comprehensive review of amendments.
Mr. Boyd asked if the City View Program is in operation. Mr. Tucker said parts of it are being used.
Mr. Boyd asked if the part that will make it available to the public on line is available. Mr. Mark
Graham said that part of the program will not be available for at least another year. That is actually a
separate acquisition, and it has not been proposed at this time.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that when it is available, there should be some sort of training given for the
public, particularly for developers. Mr. Graham said a public terminal is being installed in the Community
Development Department now, and some easy to follow menus will be included on the computer.
Ms. Thomas said the Integrated Water Resources Plan is one of the items moving forward.)
This report was received for information only.
_________
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 25
Item 5.8. Copy of letter dated April 27, 2004 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Tara Rowan Boyd, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax
Map 103, Parcels 1, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F and 1G (property of University of Virginia Foundation) Section
was received for information.
10.3.1,
_________
Item 5.9. Copy of notice from the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance
Abuse Services, re: Application of Addiction Recovery Systems, LLC, to license opiate replacement
Notice was
service (methadone maintenance) at 1575 State Farm Blvd., in Albemarle County, Virginia.
received for information.
_________
Item 5.10. Update on Total Rewards Strategy.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Board of Supervisors, on June 26, 2003, directed
staff to begin the review of a total rewards strategy so that compensation and performance systems are
aligned with high performance. To achieve the strategic goal and objective, the human resources systems
must reward, motivate, and sustain customer service focused behaviors. To develop and implement a total
rewards strategy to support that goal, current compensation and performance management systems must
be reviewed, employees’ perceptions about current systems must be assessed, and changes that would
support pay and performance philosophy must be evaluated. This report provides an update on the
development of the Total Rewards Strategy (The School Division decided not to participate in the
development of a total rewards strategy at this time).
An RFP for consulting services was issued in July. Five bids were received and evaluated based
on defined criteria (direct related experience of staff that would be assigned to this project and experience
with public sector, ability to build relationships and facilitate communication, cost and availability to begin
the project). After thorough review, reference checking and interviews with a cross departmental team,
Segal Consultants were selected.
A cross-departmental team was formed in January. The team has met over the past months and
as part of the process of evaluating options, the following steps occurred:
?
Communication about the total rewards initiative was sent to all employees;
?
Segal worked with the team to provide information of the basic concepts of total rewards,
information on new trends and best practices, and the advantages and disadvantages of
different reward programs;
?
Information was reviewed from previous studies of compensation and performance
management systems to include Hendricks & Associates, Slabaugh Morgan & White, and
Palmer & Cay;
?
Current compensation and performance management systems were evaluated;
?
Interviews were conducted with key executives, managers and several members of the Board
of Supervisors to ascertain their perspectives on the current systems; and,
?
Best practices of other public sector organizations were reviewed.
Key issues that have been identified are as follows:
?
The current system does not adequately provide mechanisms for rewarding employees;
?
The current system does not adequately link performance and compensation;
?
The potential for recognition and rewards are limited;
?
The current merit pay system is confusing for staff to understand and does not allow for
adequate differentiation among performance levels; and,
?
One strength of the current system is that the pay ranges and benefits are market competitive.
As the team designs the total rewards strategy, these issues are considered and each aspect is
reviewed in terms of the ability to support the strategic goal of providing customer-focused service delivery,
the value to employees, and the budgetary implications. As employee input is critical to the success in
designing a total rewards program, a survey will be distributed to all employees and focus groups will be
conducted in June. In July, the team will meet to review that feedback and incorporate it into the plan
design.
The team has evaluated the following total rewards programs (more details are set out on
Attachment 2 to the Executive Summary:
1. Ad-hoc Cash Recognition: Bonuses awarded to individuals or teams for extraordinary
performance.
2. Ad-hoc Non-Cash Recognition: Rewards such as plaques, gift certificates, time off, awarded to
individuals or teams for extraordinary performance.
3. Skill and Competency Differentials: Stipends for employees who attain job-related skills, such
as licensing, certifications, or completion of formalized training.
4. Broadbanding: A compensation and classification system that provides greater flexibility for
career and skill development by grouping jobs into wide pay bands.
5. Merit Pay: Considering options to replace the current merit formula.
6. Gainsharing: Distributing cost savings that are generated by employees/teams back to those
employees/teams.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 26
Based on this evaluation, the team identified priorities and recommends a phased approach to
implementation. Recommendations will be presented to the Board in August with targeted implementation
dates as follows:
Recognition program (cash, non-cash) – Mid FY ‘04-05 or FY ‘05-06
Skill and competency differentials – FY ‘05-06
Broadbanding – FY ‘06-07 (possible pilot in FY ‘05-06)
Merit Pay - FY ‘06-07
Gainsharing - team agreed this not a priority at this time.
For the Total Rewards Strategy to be successful, managers and employees will need to
understand the programs so that clear consistent communication and comprehensive training will occur on
an ongoing basis. Based on the targeted implementation dates for the total rewards programs, managers
will be provided the flexibility to reward and value excellent performance and customer service identified in
a strategic objective.
This report is provided for the Board’s information and does not require any action at this time. A
recommendation for the Total Rewards Strategy will be presented to the Board in August.
This report was received as information only.
_________
Item 5.11. Copy of letter dated April 29, 2004 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Tara Rowan Boyd, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax
Map 17, Parcels 22A, 22E and 22F (property of Mariah II LLC c/o Thomas A. Saunders III) and Tax Map
was received
17, Parcels 21 & Tax Map 29, Parcel 33B (property of Melissa Lynn Bailey) Section 10.3.1,
for information.
__________
was received for information.
Item 5.12. VDOT Monthly Report for June, 2004,
______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Adopt resolution to appoint Richard Wiggans as Director of Finance.
Mr. Tucker recognized Mr. Richard Wiggans who will be the County’s Director of Finance effective
July 1, 2004. Mr. Wiggans has an extensive background in financial management. He will be taking over
the position Mr. Melvin Breeden held for many years and in which he did an excellent job. Mr. Breeden is
now Director of the Office on Management and Budget. He requested that the Board adopt a resolution
appointing Mr. Wiggans as Director of Finance.
Mr. Wiggans said he looks forward to meeting and working with all of the Board members in the
future. His family is excited about moving here. They had visited Charlottesville and Albemarle County on
several occasions. When the position came open, they were excited about seeking it and then being
offered the position. He said he worked for the city of Dallas for three years and the city of Arlington for 17
years in the financial management arena. Most recently he worked in a suburb of Austin, Texas.
Mr. Dorrier welcomed Mr. Wiggans and said the County has a AAA bond rating which it wants to
preserve.
Motionseconded
was offered by Mr. Wyant, by Ms. Thomas, to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, upon the
recommendation of the County Executive, that Richard Wiggans is hereby appointed the Director
of Finance of Albemarle County effective July 1, 2004. Richard Wiggans, as Director of Finance,
shall serve at the pleasure of the Board and have all those powers and duties set forth in Section
15.2- 519 of the Code of Virginia and as otherwise provided by general law.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7.1. Transportation Matters: Overview of VDOT Subdivision Street
Requirements.
Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said he has worked as a representative of this Board on a
VDOT committee looking at changes to subdivision street regulations. That work was undertaken in
support of the Neighborhood Model recognizing that existing VDOT regulations are not flexible in that
regard. There are a number of improvements that are needed for implementation of the Neighborhood
Model and also to address urbanization of the County.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 27
Mr. Graham said the biggest change proposed is that Design Standards be moved from the
regulations to become a VDOT policy issue. Previously, any change wanted in a design standard had to
go all the way to the Highway Commissioner for approval. By having these in a policy document, they can
be handled at the District level or by the Resident Engineer. However, having this out of the regulations
means VDOT could change the design guidelines at any time without consulting anybody. Staff is taking a
leap of faith with VDOT that they will continue to work with staff.
Mr. Graham said a big change has to do with Underground Utility Placement. It is important to the
Neighborhood Model to get the infrastructure integrated into the street. VDOT will now allow for sewer and
water lines to be within the pavement section of the street, and allow the manholes to be located in the
centerline of the street or off to the side of the street in parking areas. This change will take an action by
this Board to set the design standards for urban streets.
Mr. Graham said sidewalks and bikeways are another change. Until now VDOT has limited its
responsibility with maintenance of sidewalks to particular areas, basically locations to central business
districts and schools. VDOT now says that as long as those facilities are built in the right-of-way and are
built to their standards, they will accept them for maintenance. He said VDOT gets no more money for
maintaining these facilities, but they are taking over responsibility for maintaining them. He sees this as a
long-term issue for the County in the way of level of services.
Mr. Graham said there is also a change in the authority of the Resident Engineer. This change in
the regulations has given authority to the Resident Engineer to make changes on local streets. That is an
important initiative because it means all the decisions that used to take months to get approved can
probably be done during the meeting. This is a big change.
Mr. Graham said there are a number of remaining issues that were not set out in the Executive
Summary. There will be difficulties in fully implementing the Neighborhood Model. Street widths are one of
the biggest issues. The County did not get the flexibility he had hoped could be written into the design
guidance. The Resident Engineer can allow flexibility on local streets on a case-by-case basis. If not, staff
will be looking to private streets in a number of circumstances for implementation of the Neighborhood
Model. That is why there is an issue with the Subdivision Text amendment.
Mr. Graham said he thinks VDOT has shown a lot of flexibility and willingness to work with local
communities. However, he does not think VDOT understands the street design from a local perspective.
VDOT does have a split mission; to maintain the State highway system and then to maintain the local street
section and the two conflict in some ways. Mr. Graham showed the Board a copy of the Policy Guidance
for Design of Streets and Highways used by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. He said in 44 out of the 50 states, the state highway agency does not maintain
local streets. VDOT is the exception to the rule. Even looking in this document points to some of the
problems VDOT has. The two primary factors for designing a street section are: the traffic volume and the
design speed. Looking at the Policy Guidance for urban and local streets, it says design speed is not a
major factor for local streets. Second, it says traffic volume is not usually a major criterion in determining
geometric values when designing residential streets. He said designs are still being based on design
speed and traffic volumes, and the Policy says that is not the right way to design local streets, but is the
right way to design highways. There is a conflict which he does not think will be resolved in the near future.
He said there is a 60-day comment period on these regulations running through the end of June. He has
not recommended sending a resolution to VDOT as he does not think it is necessary. He thinks VDOT has
already given the County the changes that are needed.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board needed to say that to VDOT. Mr. Graham said there would be no
harm in expressing the County’s thanks to VDOT staff.
Ms. Thomas said the CTB will have to adopt these recommendations and the County does not
want them to “back pedal”. Mr. Tucker suggested that the chairman address a letter to the County’s
members on the CTB.
Mr. Wyant asked the meaning of “process mapping”. Mr. Graham said process mapping is from
the point where construction starts to when VDOT accepts the road into the State system. A lot of the
development community does not understand what they have to do to get the road turned over to VDOT
and get their bonds released. VDOT has done a great job of putting those process maps together.
Ms. Thomas said Albemarle County and the High Growth Coalition were instrumental in getting this
started. A few years ago the Coalition was looking for something the homebuilders and developers would
be in favor of, and it hit upon these road standards that are burdensome. She said Mr. Graham has put in
a lot of work on the committee and the Board needs to thank him. Also, if the County did not have a
Resident Engineer who was easy to work with it would be nervous about what has come up. She said
there are several people in the room today who have been instrumental in bringing about these changes.
This report was received as information only.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7.2. Transportation Matters: Update on Key West Dam.
Mr. Tucker said The Ridge Homeowners’ Association of Key West subdivision has expressed their
concerns for the safety and potential failure of one of the dams in the Key West subdivision in a letter dated
May 3, 2004, as well as in person at the Board’s meeting on May 5. This specific dam is traversed by the
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 28
privately maintained portion of Key West Drive (north of the Key West Drive/Northwest Lane intersection).
It serves as the primary means of access to 20 dwellings and the recreation center. In the Spring of 1997
the Engineering Department responded to a similar complaint by the residents, conducted an inspection
and provided the homeowners’ association with a letter report dated March 6, 1997 (A copy of that report
was forwarded to the Board).
Mr. Tucker said due to the public safety concerns for access by the residents, fire and rescue and
school buses, County staff conducted an inspection of this dam on May 6, 2004. A copy of that report was
also forwarded to the Board members. He noted that there are legal options regarding repair, maintenance
and liability which the Board could discuss in closed session. He said the report does make some
recommendations, basically that the improvements would be fairly significant and costly to remediate the
years of neglect. It is noted that if the County did these repairs removing the pond this dam impounds now,
it would be easier, less costly, and most likely VDOT could take the road into the system.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the financial figures for this work. Mr. Tucker said staff did some
preliminary work but did not submit that to the Board. Detailed engineering work is needed to arrive at
specific costs.
Mr. Dorrier asked how this project would fit into the County’s priorities. He asked if this is the only
dam in the County with such a problem. Mr. Tucker said there are other private roads that could come up
as projects need upgrading. He said that years ago the Board was very careful about private roads. With
some of the subdivision regulations the County is about to enter into, the subject of private roads may
come up again. He thinks the Board needs to be cautious about private roads. From his experience, when
private roads are approved they are great; people think they want to maintain these roads forever because
they are less restrictive because they did not like the broad grading required for VDOT roads. So, years
ago, the County allowed private roads to be built and maintained privately. As the years go by and
maintenance becomes more of a problem, people want the locality or VDOT to take over the roads. He
does not believe the people in Key West thought about the dam that could impact the improvement of a
road. He said that in Hollymead, VDOT only took in the road itself, but not the dam, so if anything happens
to the dam, it is the County’s responsibility to replace the dam.
Mr. Dorrier said it seems there should be a sharing of costs between the County, the homeowners
and VDOT.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is expensive for staff to come up with costs for two different types of repairs or
is that the next logical step. He has difficulty making a decision without attaching a dollar figure to the
problem. If the pond were drained, does that create a stormwater type problem?
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, said he conducted the inspection and prepared the report.
Staff has not done a detailed estimate of what construction would cost. That would require a detailed
design plan. Repairs to the dam would probably cost $250,000. To simply drain the pond and put in a
culvert would be somewhat cheaper than that. Whatever is done, it is going to be costly. As to stormwater
management, when this subdivision was built, there was no stormwater management requirement. He
understands this was an existing farm pond.
Mr. Boyd asked if the legal issues should be discussed in closed session. He would like to do that.
He thinks that may be the way to deal with the precedent setting of the whole issue. He understands this
goes back to some old ordinances and regulations between the City and the County.
Mr. Davis said he actually has several legal issues to discuss with the Board and it would be
appropriate to do it in closed session regarding ownership issues and liability issues.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board has done other things with homeowners in other subdivisions, but
not on roads.
Mr. Boyd said there is another issue. If the County fixes the dam, who will maintain the dam?.
Also, he understands that to the center of the pond is owned by the property owners who own property
around the pond. That is another issue to deal with.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board will consider these legal issues in closed session later today.
Mr. Boyd said there was a person present from the homeowner’s association. He asked if the
Board would take comments.
Mr. Dorrier asked that the problem be summarized.
Mr. Mike Cronk said he has lived on Key West Drive for 20 years. Shortly after they moved in, they
established the homeowner’s association in order to maintain a tar and gravel road the County and
developer had agreed upon doing. Prior to that time, there was no association. This is not a homeowner’s
association, but one formed to maintain the surface of the road. They pay annual dues for that purpose.
The dam never came into play at all. Of the 20 homeowners, 19 joined; one refused to join. Any future
homeowners in the neighborhood will have to join. He said that now they are interested in having water
found on sites before being able to build a home; something the County is looking at. He does think that
any “fix” done now should be done based on only immediate needs. What is needed is to project this into
the future as to who is responsible and who will provide maintenance. He understands the dam is weak
now because trees have been growing in it. There must be ongoing annual maintenance so someone
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 29
comes in and cleans up the embankment so it does not happen again. The person responsible for doing
this need to understand there is a future financial investment required. When he bought his home, he
never thought he would have to come up with a good percentage of money for repair of the dam. He said
the people who live on the road do not have property that circles the pond although it is circled by seven or
eight homes. Speaking on behalf of his association, if they looked at a creek bed with trees in it, they
would be just as happy doing that as having a pond they have to pay money each year to maintain
because of the dam and the road.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7.3. Transportation Matters: Guidelines for Enhanced Speeding Fines on
Morgantown Road, Discussion of (deferred from May 12, 2004).
Mr. Tucker said on May 12, 2004, staff requested the Board to adopt a resolution requesting that
VDOT designate Morgantown Road for enhanced speeding violation fines and that signage be installed
alerting motorists that there would be a fine of up to $200 for exceeding the established speed limit. The
Board requested staff to provide additional background data on this road and VDOT’s guidelines for
designating such areas. In addition, the Board requested that staff examine whether a local policy
establishing criteria for recommending such areas is needed.
Mr. Tucker said for a County to request VDOT to install signs as provided in Section 46.2-878.2 of
the Code of Virginia, a resolution must be adopted by the local governing body. If the Board adopts such a
resolution, it will be forwarded to the local VDOT Resident Engineer along with the appropriate supporting
data. If the Resident Engineer finds that all criteria have been met, he will forward the request to the
District Administrator. The District Administrator will have the signs installed within 60 days of the date the
request was approved.
Mr. Tucker said staff has determined that Morgantown Road meets the criteria for signage alerting
motorists there would be a fine of up to $200 for exceeding the established speed limit. Staff recommends
that the Board adopt the resolution. In addition, if the Board feels that a local policy is necessary to
establish criteria different than VDOT’s criteria, staff recommends that the Board direct it to bring a
proposed policy back to the Board for consideration.
Ms. Thomas said she e-mailed the Board members a suggestion for a local policy. That would be
for the Board to direct staff to always verify that other methods have been tried and have not been effective
to take care of the speeding problem. Lots of things have been tried on Morgantown Road and nothing has
worked.
Mr. Boyd wondered if this request is approved, how many more similar requests will be presented.
He asked if the County goes through this process and puts up the speeding signs, will VDOT come back a
few months later and retest that road to see if anything has been corrected.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the local police would do that since they are the ones who initially
identified the problem. She said Morgantown Road could be a test case, and the Board could have the
police department do the same study in nine months.
Mr. Jim Bryan said what is happening on Morgantown Road is a grassroots thing. It is not being
driven from the top. This came from the citizens. If other neighborhoods want to do it, that is a good sign.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees, but does not want anybody to get a false sense of security that this will
solve the problem. Mr. Bryan said he thinks it will be a while before the problem is solved.
Mr. Wyant asked if this $200 is over and above what would be paid for a speeding ticket. Mr. Davis
said there is new legislation effective July 1. Normally for a speeding violation, the offender could prepay
the fine with the court. With this particular fine, there is no prepayment schedule. After July 1, there is
going to be one that can be established by the court.
Mr. Wyant said Morgantown Road is only a short section of road. What if the Board were dealing
with a longer section? He said the Board is setting a precedent here, and he thinks there needs to be
some defined parameters. Mr. Tucker said he believes the legislation says “at the board’s discretion.”
Motionseconded
was then offered by Ms. Thomas, by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following
resolution. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS
, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors finds that a speeding problem exists on
Morgantown Road (SR 738) and that it creates a potential hazard for the motorists and
residents that live and work along that roadway; and
WHEREAS
, the residents of Morgantown Road, the County, and the Virginia Department of
Transportation have taken many steps to reduce the speeding problem but find that the
speeding problem persists; and
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 30
WHEREAS,
the residents of Morgantown Road have petitioned the County to request VDOT to
designate Morgantown Road as a special speeding zone so that speeding violations are
a traffic infraction punishable by an enhanced maximum fine of not more than $200.00;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
requests that VDOT designate Morgantown Road to be a road subject to enhanced
speeding violation fines pursuant to Virginia Code Section 46.2-878.2 and that it install
appropriate signage on Morgantown Road designating the maximum speed limit and the
enhanced penalty for exceeding the posted maximum speed on Morgantown Road.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7.4. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Wyant said he would like to suggest that signs be installed at the Millington Bridge that the
surface of the bridge is rough.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Wyant is urging that the surface of the Millington Bridge be improved. Mr.
Wyant said it is rough and dangerous as it is. Some of the joints have eroded. He is not sure what kind of
surface could be put on it.
Ms. Thomas said that not too long ago she told Mr. Bryan she had heard from people who lived
near the bridge who appreciate the fact that it now feels like the rural bridge that they battled so long to
keep it, and they do not want it to get a smooth surface. It acts as a nice traffic calming measure, and feels
appropriate for the rural area.
Mr. Bryan asked if this is the bridge on Route 678 with the special guard rail. Mr. Wyant said “yes.”
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are holes in the surface. Mr. Wyant said there were problems with the
surface that was put on the bridge leaking down into the Moorman’s River. It eroded at each one of the
joints on the surface. A sign should be erected saying it has a rough surface so vehicles slow down. He
thinks it will knock vehicles around.
Mr. Dorrier said it is acting as a speed bump. Mr. Wyant said it has performed as a speed bump,
but there is a sharp curve coming to the south. Ms. Thomas said the neighbors worked for years to
preserve that sharp curve. It went all the way up to the Governor to preserve that bridge. Mr. Bryan said
his staff will look at the situation.
__________
Mr. Wyant said he has discussed some drainage issues in Crozet and Earlysville with Mr. Bryan.
He thinks County staff looked at the one in Earlysville and the culvert underneath the road.
__________
Ms. Thomas said some residents approached her and mentioned that when coming onto Fontaine
Avenue from the Route 29 Bypass traveling north, it is very confusing. They do not know how to handle
the weave pattern. It was suggested putting some markings on the road prior to reaching the intersection
to indicate which lane people should get into.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned a recent accident on Tilman Road where a death occurred. She has talked
with Mr. Bryan and shared condolences with his staff.
__________
Ms. Thomas said there is a four-way stop sign request for Redfields Subdivision.
__________
Ms. Thomas thanked VDOT for removing the ugly dead trees from Route 250 West.
__________
Ms. Thomas thanked VDOT for paving Whippoorwill Hollow Subdivision roads without a centerline.
She hopes there will be a note put in the file for next time that the centerline was only put on the road at the
request of one resident. It caused a great deal of anger among the residents.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he would like to mention for Mr. Werner that this is not the first time the Board has
held a hearing on the Route 22/231 issue. He wonders if the Board needs to readopt the resolution it
adopted a couple of years ago. Mr. Bryan said it would not hurt to send the resolution to him again before
June 17.
Mr. Boyd asked if VDOT is just going to continue to have hearings on this request, or will it come to
some resolution. Mr. Bryan said he gets a letter each day about this issue, and on June 17 he will send all
materials to the Culpeper Office where it will be analyzed, and then forwarded to the CTB with a
recommendation. The CTB should make some decision within 90 days thereafter.
Mr. Tucker said he had just sent Mr. Bryan a letter about this request. The Board could readopt the
previous resolution.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 31
Motion
was then offered by Mr. Boyd to readopt the resolution it had adopted in December, 2003.
second
Mr. Bowerman gave to the motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS
, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, received a
request from a group of citizens/residents along Routes 231/22 to consider restricting through
tractor-trailer traffic on these routes as means to address various traffic concerns;
WHEREAS
, the Board held a public hearing on June 7, 1995, to receive comments from
citizens on this request;
WHEREAS
, the Board adopted a resolution on June 7, 1995, requesting from the Virginia
Department of Transportation a restriction on through-traveling tractor-trailers on Routes 231 and
22;
WHEREAS
, the rural character of Routes 231/22 consists of blind curves, hills, narrow
pavements with no shoulders serving local commuting traffic and farms;
WHEREAS
, the Code of Virginia was amended in 1995 and 1996 to increase the size of
tractor-trailers that may travel any road in the state from 60 to 65 feet long and from 8 to 8 ½ feet;
WHEREAS
, the geometric design and construction of the road combined with a travelway
of only nine feet creates an incompatible and unsafe situation between tractor-trailers and others
vehicles on the roadway;
WHEREAS
, the presence of tractor-trailers on Routes 231/22 creates an unsafe road for
the traveling public;
WHEREAS
, Route 231 was listed by Scenic America at the top of its list of the Ten Most
Scenic Roads in America;
WHEREAS
, County and State Law Enforcement officials have stated that safe and
effective enforcement of commercial vehicle regulations is impossible to conduct once tractor-
trailers are traveling on Routes 231/22.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
, that the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby renews their request to the Commonwealth Transportation
Board to restrict through tractor trailer traffic on Routes 231/22 in accordance with Section 45.1-
171.2 of the Code of Virginia; and
FURTHER RESOLVES
that because U.S. Route 15 between Gordonsville and I-64 is a
Federal Highway, is included within the STAA Truck Routing System, and is the chosen location for
several high volume truck-dependent businesses, it is therefore a reasonable alternative route to
tractor-trailers now traveling Routes 231/22.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he has talked to Mr. Bryan about Doctor’s Crossing. He thinks Mr. Bryan will have
something on it for the next Six-year plan.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Kleeman had mentioned the bridge on Route 795. He asked for an update on
the Blenheim Road project. Mr. Bryan said VDOT will issue a permit once it is satisfied that sufficient right-
of-way exists and the plans are sufficient according to VDOT standards. He said VDOT is still reviewing
the plans as they are submitted by the applicant. The applicant has given more than asked for so it is
taking longer than expected. The applicant had to acquire some right-of-way. Just south of the bridge over
the Hardware River he does not have right-of-way on Mr. Mellon’s land, so had to shift the road so it can all
stay on his right-of-way. To do that, he has to build a retaining wall. For part of the retaining wall, they
have to take bore samples and cannot get a firm to do that until September. Then VDOT has to review the
geometrics and the engineering of the retaining wall. That will take a good amount of time. Rather than
delay the project, VDOT has said it will give the applicant a permit broken into two phases. First will be
everything north of the river, and the second phase when the applicant is ready to do the project. He
emphasized that the applicant has given VDOT a lot more plans than normally required for a road project
like this, so it is taking longer for review of those plans.
Mr. Dorrier asked if VDOT would consider that the project is “on track.” Mr. Bryan said “yes.”
Mr. Bowerman asked if that includes widening of the bridge. Mr. Bryan said “no.” He thinks
everyone is one hundred percent in favor of not widening the bridge.
Ms. Thomas asked how VDOT will deal with safety issues because the road will be paved on one
side of the bridge, but not on the other side. Mr. Bryan said it not unlike other places in the County.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 32
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the public wants to be kept apprised of what is happening with this
project. Mr. Bryan said VDOT gets calls weekly from the owner inquiring why it is taking so long to get
approval. He said work on Route 708, which is a no-plan road, is moving along well.
Mr. Boyd said he has heard comments that nobody is overseeing this project, but it is obviously
being done by VDOT. Mr. Bryan said that is correct. The owner wrote the Secretary of Transportation a
letter and then wrote to the Highway Commissioner. Both of those letters have been answered. He said
VDOT will not issue the permit until they are sure everything is set and ready to go.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked about a schedule for installation of reflectors on Route 20 South. Mr. Bryan
responded that it will be done this summer.
_________
Mr. Dorrier asked about the schedule for work on Carter’s Bridge. Mr. Bryan responded that it is
scheduled for May, 2005.
_________
Mr. Bryan said installation of a guardrail on Route 20 North in a couple of areas where the road has
sharp curves has been a chronic request. By the end of this month VDOT will install some guardrail in
response to the requests.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation: Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) Update on Water
Supply.
Mr. Mike Gaffney said he is the current Chairman of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of
Directors. He said he represents both the citizens of the City and of the County, and believes that his vote
is equal to that of the rest of the members on that Board. He will give an update today on the water supply
status. This report was just received from RWSA’s consultants, Gannett Fleming. He said that in
conjunction with the rest of the report, they redid the demand curve. The last time he presented this report,
demand was similar although slightly higher. He had asked to see 2002 and 2003 data because RWSA
was 20 percent under the usage from the previous years. The consultants determined that both the
drought year and the rainy year that followed disqualified them from being applicable to the data. Although
the demand curve looks similar at 12.0 MGD of daily usage, usage is currently still below 10.0 MGD on the
average. He said the current demand curve crosses the safe yield in 2007 and 2008. It is a slight
improvement over the last consultant’s report, but it does not give much leeway.
Ms. Thomas said she was asked if the demand curve is based on the water users or the entire
county population. Mr. Gaffney said there were four parts to the analysis: the previous demand analysis,
the collecting of water usage from the City and the County, reviewing the Comprehensive Plans for the
County, the City and the University, and, projecting all of that data into the future. He then introduced Ms.
Jennifer Whitaker, Chief Engineer for RWSA.
Ms. Whitaker said the data from the previous demand studies ceased in 1995, and basically the
data was carried forward through to the current date using those same four methodologies. It is based on
a combination of historical water usage projected forward. To answer the question directly, it is based on a
future public water-using population. It does not account for the entire population in the County. It is
essentially in the urban service area.
Ms. Thomas said it then does not include Scottsville or Crozet. Ms. Whitaker said a separate
projection was done for Crozet, and it does not include Scottsville.
Mr. Gaffney said this is a fifty-year horizon. The previous study was to 2050, and this study is from
2005 to 2055. He said the demand in 2055 is projected to be 18.7 MGD. The safe yield from existing
supplies is projected to be 8.8 MGD, which leaves 9.9 MGD to make up over the next fifty years.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the safe yield is going down because sediment is building up in the reservoir.
Mr. Gaffney said that is correct. If nothing is done for the reservoir by 2055, it will essentially become a
stream.
Mr. Gaffney then showed a slide entitled “Source Water Components” and said it contains a list of
all items looked at by the consultants in past studies. There are a few new items on the list, such as: using
Beaver Creek Reservoir as a raw water source; raising Ragged Mountain Reservoir Dam; raising Ragged
Mountain Reservoir Dam and connecting it to a pumped storage reservoir; constructing a new pumped
storage facility at Wards Creek; regional cooperation with Fluvanna and Louisa counties; and, withdrawing
water from the James River.
Mr. Gaffney said Crozet was redone. The storage capacity of Beaver Creek Reservoir is 3.7 MGD.
Crozet is projected in 2055 to have 12,000 residents and that will use 1.1 MGD. So in 2055, Beaver Creek
will have excess capacity. He drew the Board’s attention to the column entitled “Increase 2055 SY” and
noted the projected gallons of safe yield for the 18 items on the list. He said 9.9 is listed for most of the
major projects because that is what is needed in 2055, although some of the options may yield more
gallons than that number.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 33
Mr. Dorrier asked if these priorities were set by the RWSA Board. Mr. Gaffney said the items listed
are in no particular order; it is not a priority list. Mr. Tucker said the RWSA Board hopes there will be a
priority listing from the consultants in July.
Mr. Boyd asked how they will prioritize the list.
Mr. Gaffney said one key has to do with the projected cost of the listed item. Second, how easy it
will be to get the project through the regulators. Third, the ramifications of trying to get certain items
through the regulators, and whether there would be additional requirements put on the authority. Fourth,
will be a timing issue. As the demand chart shows, there is a need in the short-term to address that lack of
storage in 2007 and 2008.
Ms. Thomas asked if for the 9.9 MGD safe yield the numbers shown on the chart make the
maximum assumption for downstream flow. Mr. Gaffney said that is what will be determined over the next
few months. He said if the level of the South Fork Rivanna Dam were raised four feet that would create a
projected 3.3 MGD assuming the same scenario as at present.
Ms. Thomas said when Mr. Gaffney listed the items on which the decisions will be based he did not
mention the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan as one of those items. She said all of these projects
will be located in the County, and everything the County has done for the past 25 years has been based on
the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir being the main water source. Making a major change will impact, and
be impacted by, the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gaffney said in this instance the RWSA Board actually
considers Albemarle County as one of the regulators.
Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Steven Bowler, who was a part of the team involved with development of
these options with the consultants, has now been made a permanent member of the team which will review
these items as well as determine how to work with the regulators.
Ms. Thomas said she asked that he be a part of the team. Mr. Tucker said he has always been a
part of the discussion, and while it is now official, he has been part of it from day one.
Mr. Wyant asked if the report will include the release rate from the different facilities. The big issue
at the Moorman’s River is the release downstream. Mr. Gaffney said the RWSA Board has directed the
consultants to arrive at the top five or six choices and then analyze all of them. The Authority has to know
what will be required of it both in time and money before it can more forward with any action.
Mr. Boyd asked if impact on groundwater will be part of the criteria used to select the best
approaches. Mr. Gaffney said the engineers will be taking that into consideration.
Mr. Gaffney went on with the slide presentation (copy on file in the Clerk’s Office). He said all of
the options meet the goal of providing a 2055 safe yield of 18.7 MGD, but few meet it with a single option.
Reasonable combinations have been identified, and they are also working on identifying necessary water
treatment plant improvements. The sheet entitled “Analysis of Alternatives” lists 21 different items with
related costs over the 50-year period along with other factors.
Ms. Thomas asked if Item 7 “Raise South Fork Rivanna Reservoir” raises the reservoir four feet or
eight feet, and does it include the cost of raising the bridges. Mr. Gaffney said that is actually listed as Item
6 under “Source Water Components” - Crest controls on South Fork Rivanna Dam to meet full deficit. It is
neither four feet nor eight feet, but is part of the solution to meet the 9.9 MGD need. He said the
consultants will come back with the top five or six with much more detail. He said there are new items on
the list such as: re-evaluate the Ragged Mountain dam. There is a possibility of raising the dam 25 or 50
feet to increase storage. There is the Beaver Creek Dam release, additional storage at Sugar Hollow Dam
by raising it, putting the new pumped storage dam locations (they are like mini-dams in many places so that
in times of high water, water could be pumped into these so they can maintain additional storage), and
regional cooperation. Those are new items on the list since 2001-02. He said adding the Beaver Creek
release pushes the demand curve to 2017. This is a pretty straightforward release and would not be
difficult to implement. One of the comments has been that this is the County’s water and it is earmarked for
Crozet for County residents. Releasing it so that it comes into the South Rivanna adds that to the
City/County supply, but the split of capital improvement expenses is really for the County, so as the South
Rivanna costs increase the County is picking up more of that cost because of growth. In essence, taking
water away from Crozet residents will be giving it to County residents in the urban area.
Mr. Tucker said that in all of the alternatives it is assumed that no new major water user will come
into Crozet. Any such use would change the dynamics of these recommendations.
Mr. Gaffney said a number of options where Beaver Creek Reservoir is included could be stand-
alone options for the 9.9 MGD. The reason Beaver Creek is included with those is that they would be
quicker to implement. If the James River intake is the chosen option, that would furnish all of the capacity
needed for the next 50 years.
Mr. Gaffney said for the “Action Plan”, the consultants are: waiting for feedback from the RWSA
Board, they will review the reformulated alternatives with the regulators in early July, they will complete
ranking of the alternatives, they will present the ranked alternatives to the RWSA Board and then get the
Board’s approval to present the highest ranked alternatives to the regulators on July 26, they will present
their findings to the regulators, and then continue analysis of the highest ranked alternatives and initiate
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 34
permit support documentation. He said until there is complete agreement from the regulators, the RWSA
cannot say one option is better than another.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Gaffney recommends holding another “water summit”. Mr. Gaffney said he
does not think the community understands why this matter is still being studied. One of the nice things is
that there has been plenty of water recently. A water summit might help the public understand the water
resources in the community.
Mr. Boyd asked if the meeting on July 26 could be a presentation to all of the regulators, at least to
the City and County. Mr. Gaffney said July 26 is a RWSA Board meeting, which is open to the public.
Mr. Tucker said when the RWSA Board receives the recommendations for the alternatives he
would like Mr. Gaffney to make another presentation to this Board, probably at the August meeting.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the RWSA had hired a new Executive Director. Mr. Gaffney said they have,
and this person will begin work on June 14.
Mr. Boyd said as a new member of the Board of Supervisors he feels that he has little input on the
water situation. Maybe that is by design, but he comes back to the idea of presenting six alternatives to the
regulators. Who ultimately makes that decision? How does this Board become involved in the decision
process? Mr. Gaffney said the RWSA Board has the ultimate authority. The Supervisors can give input to
their representatives on that Board.
Mr. Boyd said there will never be a time when the RWSA Board will present options to the
Supervisors and ask for a vote on which one to approve. Mr. Tucker said if this can be back on the agenda
for August 4 that would be the time he would looking to the Supervisors for directions.
Mr. Bowerman said he has never felt that this Board does not have access in the RWSA’s
decision-making.
Mr. Davis said once a decision is made by the RWSA Board, if it involves a new facility that is not
already shown in the County’s Comprehensive Plan that has to come before the Planning Commission and
then the Board of Supervisors for a Comprehensive Plan review to assure that the public facility is
consistent with the Plan. If the Board felt it was not consistent, RWSA could not go forward with that
alternative. This Board has an important regulatory role if a new facility is involved.
Mr. Boyd said he has heard talk about the three water authorities and whether they need to be
looked at in terms of combining them into a central authority. It seems to be a good idea, and he wonders
if anyone is interested in studying the question.
Mr. Dorrier said the League of Women Voters presented the Board with a recommendation
concerning this at the last water summit.
Ms. Thomas said the Darden Business School is having some of its faculty and students address
some of the issues of governance of the Rivanna Authorities. She does not know the time line for
completion of that study.
Mr. Gaffney said it is a Darden project being run by a couple of the students. They are actually
looking at this locality and how it operates, as well as looking at others throughout the country to see
whether other localities are combining their separate entities.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the new Executive Director has experience with other regional authorities. Mr.
Gaffney said he does.
Mr. Boyd said he is interested in seeing some operational review of whether it would make sense
to do that. He said he may be the only one who feels that way. Mr. Tucker said members of the Rivanna
Board have talked about this very thing. Since the League of Women Voters moved forward with their
proposal, they will not discuss it until they see those results.
Mr. Boyd asked if the League asked the Darden School to do the study. Mr. Gaffney said the
League proposed it to the Darden School and students are doing it as a project. He knows from past
experience that whenever the County and City has tried to combine and merge anything, it has been
difficult at best.
Mr. Boyd said he wants to clarify that he was not questioning anybody’s authority or vote. It may
be his insecurity as to how much input he personally has on water matters comes from being a new Board
member.
Mr. Wyant asked that as part of the next report, Crozet be shown as a separate item.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Gaffney for the report.
_______________
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 35
Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation of TJPDC Draft 2004 Regional Solid Waste Management Plan.
Mr. Bill Wanner, Senior Regional Planner from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission, was present to give a presentation on the region’s solid waste management plan. He said
two overriding principles were used to prepare the plan. First, they recognized that each locality’s
individual needs and issues are different. They also recognized the autonomy that much of the solid waste
management has at the local level. To that end, they were careful to incorporate all staff comments into
this document and to consider the voice of those residents who contributed to the plan. The other principle
is to recognize the issues which are regional in nature and from which a benefit can be derived. The most
aggressive issue on the regional level would be to try and piggyback the different contracts for waste
collection and disposal so that all localities in the region, including RSWA and the University, would
coordinate the timing of contracts, so they could put out RFP’s collectively even though the individual
contacts would be executed at the local level. If there were better contracts due to economy of scale, that
is something that would benefit all localities. However, if any locality wanted to pull out their contract and
have it bid separately, that would be an option.
Mr. Wanner said another thing that is significant at the regional level is to look at the feasibility of
having a materials recovery facility in the vicinity so that it could process a greater volume of recyclables.
Economies of scale would also benefit such a operation because markets are not good when there is only
a small volume of recyclables. Those are the key things being investigated at the regional level. They
understand Albemarle is now working on a strategic plan for its own waste management and hope this is
faithful to the beginnings of that. Should there be changes needed in the TJPDC’s document, they would
propose to amend the document through the Department of Environmental Quality. He asked for the
Board’s comments on the plan, and its adoption or endorsement of the plan.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the plan is well-written. He asked for comments from Board members.
Ms. Thomas said the Planning District Commission (PDC) did this some years ago. It is required
by State law to have an updated plan. Things have changed from years ago when the big issue was how
much could be buried at the Ivy Landfill. Now, nothing is being buried at Ivy. She finds this to be a good
attempt to get all to deal with the issue of solid waste in a regional manner. There are no “teeth” in this
plan which she feels is demonstrated by the fact that things are falling apart between the City and the
County. The City has gone off on its own. Whatever pressure this can put on them is for the good.
Mr. Wyant asked if the PDC is involved with Louisa. Mr. Wanner said they talked with their staff
and they do not know how they will proceed. They have ruled out sending an invitation to 30 different
localities for disposal of waste in Louisa. It was a cost-savings feature to provide for their residents at no
cost. He said it is an intriguing notion, but too early to know how it may evolve. The projected capacity for
a new cell in Louisa is very close to what the daily disposal rate is for the entire region. Politically, it is too
early to know if that can be done.
Mr. Boyd said he is not familiar with the politics of what is going on, but in the Executive Summary
it says the best result would be to not take a localized approach, but a regional approach. He asked if any
steps have been taken over the years to bring this about.
Mr. Tucker said they have talked with other localities over the years. There have been attempts
through the TJPDC to try and get other localities to join, but there was no agreement among those localities
to join. There are two elected officials from each locality who are members of the PDC, and they need to
foster that type of discussion.
Mr. Wanner said initially the way to do that would be to piggyback contracts. He thinks there is
broad support for that idea.
Mr. Boyd said he does not understand exactly what action the TJPDC wants from this Board. This
is just a conceptual plan. Mr. Wanner said the PDC is meeting a requirement of the DEQ and much of this
document follows the regulations for the things DEQ wants.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a motion of approval.
motion
Ms. Thomas offered to approve the 2004 TJPDC Solid Waste Management Plan as
presented to the Board this date, which may undergo some minor changes at the PDC. She and Mr.
Wyant, who are the Board’s representatives on the PDC will keep track of those.
seconded
Mr. Wyant the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
Note
(: At 10:40 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.)
_______________
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 36
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the
Albemarle County Code, to amend Section 2-202, Compensation of board of supervisors, to increase the
compensation of board of supervisor members by 3% effective July 1, 2004 from $12,104.00 per annum to
$12,467.00 per annum. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 17 and
May 24, 2004.)
Mr. Tucker said it has been the Board’s policy and practice over the last several years to hold a
public hearing under Section 2-202 of the County Code to increase the compensation of board of
supervisor members. This is done to stay abreast of the increase awarded to general government
employees. The proposed ordinance is calculated on a three percent increase effective July 1, 2004.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Ms. Katie Hobbs said she has recommended for a number of years that the salaries of the Board
members be increased. However, she recommended that the amount of the salaries be tripled so that an
ordinary citizen could use it as his/her primary income. If that were the case, there would be more people
in the County who could be on the Board or some other committee. Along with that, she suggests that the
Board change its meeting schedule to meet every week and get rid of day meetings. She said about 80
percent of the citizens cannot attend day meetings. A lot of important decisions are made without giving
citizens an opportunity to be present.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the part-time legislative process has been working well. He thinks the
proposed increases are fairly conservative and are in line with what the rest of the County employees
receive.
motion
Mr. Bowerman offered to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 2,
Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by
amending and reordaining Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors. The motion was
seconded
by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
ORDINANCE NO. 04-2(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE II,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-202, Compensation of Board
of Supervisors, as follows:
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors shall be twelve thousand four hundred sixty-seven
dollars and no cents ($12,467.00) for each board member effective July 1, 2004. In addition to the
regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and
every meeting chaired and the chairman shall receive an annual stipend of one thousand eight
hundred dollars ($1,800.00).
(6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91;
Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988, § 2-2.1; Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. No. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. No. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord. 01-2(2), 6-6-01; Ord. 02-2(2),
5-1-02; Ord. 03-2(1), 6-4-03; Ord. 04-2(1), 6-2-04)
State law reference--Compensation of board of supervisors, Va. Code § 15.2-1414.3.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2004.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: Proposed FY 2005 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 23, 2004.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Office of Management and Budget, said this is a request from the School
Board to amend the FY ‘2005 budget in the amount of $614,600. This is a request to use their Fund
Balance primarily to fund a number of capital items. Namely the request is for the following items:
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 37
Bus Replacement - $250,000. Use money from the Fund Balance for FY 2004-05 and for FY
2005-06 to address a two-year bubble in bus replacement.
Automated External Defibrillators - $6,600. This initiative provides funding to purchase automated
external defibrillators for each of the high schools as recommended by the Division’s Health Advisory
Committee.
Building Level Staff Development - $50,000. This initiative provides funding to schools for
professional development based on identified instructional needs and replaces State funding that is no
longer available.
Computer Equipment Replacement Fund - $100,000. Approximately 3,500 computers are
currently deployed in the Division. Available capital funds are insufficient to maintain the Division’s
infrastructure and replace computers on a four-year cycle. This initiative will begin to address this issue by
providing funds to begin the implementation of an annual replacement cycle for approximately 800
computers.
Building Services Contingency Fund - $100,000. This initiative provides an emergency
contingency fund that will allow Building Services to cover unexpected costs such as weather-related
clean-up.
Textbooks/Learning Resources Adoption - $100,000. Projections for the purchase of textbooks
and other instructional resources exceed the operational budget for this category. This would fully fund
anticipated textbook costs for FY 2004-05 including maintenance, replacement, growth and new adoptions
for social studies and world languages.
Strategic Planning Initiative - $8,000. It is a School Board priority to complete a strategic planning
process by the end of the next fiscal year. This amount reflects payment for consulting services associated
with that process.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2005 Budget Amendment in the amount of $614,600 after
the public hearing, and then approve of Appropriation No. 2005-001 to provide funds for the various School
programs described.
Mr. Boyd asked if this is an amendment for next year’s budget. Mr. Breeden said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd asked how much will be left in the School’s Fund Balance after this appropriation. Mr.
Breeden said he did not have that figure with him.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public to speak, the public hearing
was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Boyd said he has received e-mails about a large sum of money which he considered “to be off
the table” during consideration of the budget.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought the Board was trying to nail down this amount of money that is sort of a
“floating fund” in the School budget.
Mr. Boyd said he assumes this request is for only a portion of those funds.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Boyd would like to know the remainder of the School’s Fund Balance.
Mr. Jackson Zimmerman, School Fiscal Manager, said he did not have that figure with him.
Mr. Dorrier suggested the Board discuss this later today, or next week.
Motionseconded
was offered by Mr. Bowerman, by Mr. Wyant, to approve the budget
amendment as advertised, and to adopt Resolution of Appropriation No. 2005-001. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-001
DATE: JUNE 2, 2004
EXPLANATION: APPROPRIATION OF SCHOOL FUND BALANCE
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2114 61101 602000 TEXTBOOKS J1 100,000.00
1 2115 93010 939999 TR TO COMP REPL FUND J1 100,000.00
1 2117 61311 580500 STAFF DEV J1 50,000.00
1 2430 62220 580500 STAFF DEV J1 600.00
1 2430 62220 800100 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT J1 6,000.00
1 2412 62125 312700 PROFESSIONAL SVCS J1 8,000.00
1 2432 93010 930000 TR TO BUS REPLACEMENT J1 250,000.00
1 2433 93010 930000 TR TO BLDG SVS CONT FD J1 100,000.00
2 2000 510000 510100 TR FROM FUND BALANCE J2 614,600.00
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 38
2000 0501 EST REVENUE J 614,600.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 614,600.00
1 3905 62320 800506 SCHOOL BUS REPLACMNT J1 250,000.00
1 3906 62420 580000 BLDG SERVICE CONTG J1 100,000.00
1 3907 61101 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT J1 100,000.00
2 3905 51000 512001 TRANSFER IN - SCH FUND J2 250,000.00
2 3906 51000 510109 TRANSFER IN J2 100,000.00
2 3907 51000 510109 TRANSFER IN J2 100,000.00
3905 0501 EST REVENUE J 250,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 250,000.00
3906 0501 EST REVENUE J 100,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 100,000.00
3907 0501 EST REVENUE J 100,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION J 100,000.00
TOTAL 2,129,200.00 1,064,600.00 1,064,600.00
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: SP-2004-003. WHSV/Channel 19 - Charlottesville (Signs
#24 & 29). Request to remove an existing 175-foot tower that has 23-foot long antenna mounted at its top
& allow replacement w/149-foot tall tower that would have 40-1/2 foot long antenna extending from its top.
Proposal also includes expansion of existing bldg to accommodate transmittal equipment supporting
establishment of new local ABC television affiliate. Request made in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning
Ord. TM 91, P 28I, is part of larger parcel identified as TM 91, P 28, which contains 234.165 acs. Znd RA.
Loc on Carter's Mountain Trail approx 1 mile S of intersec w/Rt 53 (Thomas Jefferson Pkway). Scottsville
Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 18 and May 24, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request to allow the installation of a new 149-foot tall guyed tower that
would have a 40-1/2 foot tall antenna rod extending from its top as a replacement for an existing 175-foot
tall guyed tower that has a 23-foot long antenna mounted at its top. The widest portion of the existing
tower is 41 inches in width. The proposed tower would be 48 inches in width in order to provide the
necessary structural support. The tower will be fitted with top-mounted antennae, as well as five dishes,
two other antennas, and a side-mounted antennae rod, resulting in a reduction in the size and number of
attachments that currently exist. The tower is needed to support the establishment of a new television
affiliate while also accommodating transmittal equipment for an ABC television station, and Adelphia Cable,
which is currently attached to the existing tower. He said this tower is located in what has been called a
“tower farm” on top of Carter’s Mountain on property owned by Crown Orchard Company. The facility is
maintained by Gray Television on this portion of the site which was originally approved in 1980. Several
other facilities with towers ranging between 60 and 300 feet in height are located on the subject property.
There are no dwellings within 2000 feet of the facilities proposed, and the nearest public road is
approximately one mile away.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a lot of information contained in the staff’s report and other documents
forwarded to the Board. To summarize, a few factors favorable to the request are: the existing tower will
be removed after the proposed tower is constructed; the proposed changes to the facility would provide a
single tower accommodating the collocation of equipment of two television stations and Adelphia Cable; the
proposed facility and appurtenances would allow possible switches to digital broadcast transmissions for
both stations without any significant changes to the outward appearance of the tower; no significant
clearing of vegetation would be necessary; and, a new television station would provide the community with
additional options and a wider variety in local programming.
Mr. Cilimberg said unfavorable factors are: the proposed tower would be skylighted, as are most of
the existing towers on Carter’s Mountain; the site of the proposed facility is already developed with several
facilities and towers that support various types of wireless communication services; the existing tower and
transmission building for this facility do not have the capacity to support the addition of the proposed
television equipment.
Mr. Cilimberg said a set of recommended conditions were set out in the staff report that the
Planning Commission modified. They did recommend approval unanimously. In the first condition they
changed the reference to the plans being built “as shown” to being built “in general accord”. This was to
accommodate a slight move of the antenna location. The Commission also deleted staff’s recommended
condition No. 3 about a soil erosion control plan saying the condition was not necessary. The Commission
added a new ninth condition stating: “There shall be annual verification by a source acceptable to the
County Department of Engineering on radio frequency emissions.” Since the Commission’s meeting, the
applicant has submitted additional information requesting that the Board of Supervisors elect not to
implement a condition regarding radio frequency emissions for this proposal, in part because such a
condition has never been imposed upon any of the other facilities located on Carter’s Mountain.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is staff’s opinion that the licensing guidelines and operating regulations set
forth by the Federal Communications Commission should adequately address any concerns about possible
health issues. However, if it is desired that the County become involved in the process of ensuring that any
site with several telecommunication facilities does not impose any potential for elevated health risks, staff
feels this might be better addressed through the implementation of a Zoning Ordinance provision holding
the owners of such property accountable for any cumulative environmental effects. That would need to be
accomplished through a separate zoning text amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board wants to apply a condition regarding radio frequency emissions to
this request, staff has recommended some language which expands on that provided by the Commission
(the Commission expected staff to draft a more refined Condition No. 9). Staff’s recommendation is: “The
owner of the subject property containing the tower farm site, currently known as Crown Orchard, shall
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 39
provide an annual report regarding the levels of radio frequency and radiation emissions to the Zoning
Administrator by no later than June 1 of each year. This report shall be subject to analysis by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and shall demonstrate that the cumulative concentration of radio
frequency radiation levels in areas that are open to access by the general public and employees of the
orchards are in compliance with applicable FCC radio frequency radiation rules.” He then offered to
answer questions.
With no questions for staff at this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Valerie Long said she was present to represent the applicant, Gray Television, Inc. She said
there are several representatives of Gray Television present today. Mr. Bob Crather, President of Gray
Television based in Atlanta, Ms. Tracy Jones, Station Manager of WHVS in Harrisonburg, Mr. Joe Davis
from the firm, Cavel, Mertz and Davis, a licensed professional engineer and Gray Television’s radio
frequency emissions consultant. She said Gray Television is based in Atlanta and owns and operates a
network of 29 television stations across the United States. Twenty-two of its 29 stations are the news
leader in their market. Gray knows small markets like Charlottesville and are sure they will be successful
operating a local station in this community.
Ms. Long said Gray proposes to replace the existing tower at Carter’s Mountain with a new tower
that is slightly shorter by eight and one-half feet, and slightly wider by seven inches. The new tower would
support both the proposed Channel 19 CBS affiliate station in the form of a top-mounted antennae and its
existing ABC affiliate station which would have a side mounted antennae. The existing station is Channel
64 which is a low powered television station. Gray has proposed to the FCC to relocate Channel 64 to
Channel 16 because the FCC is essentially displacing it from a higher level station. In doing that, they will
provide more local programming on this ABC affiliate station. With the use of one tower, the County will get
the benefit of two local television stations; a full power station in the form of Channel 19, a CBS affiliate,
and a lower power station in the form of Channel 16, which will continue to be an ABC station.
Ms. Long said the key point for Gray is the impending FCC deadline by which Channel 19 must be
on the air. The license for the new CBS station will expire on August 15 if a station is not on the air. That
requires that the tower be constructed, and all of the equipment installed and functioning by that time. If
the license were to expire, based on how the FCC awarded allocations of the spectrum many years ago,
there will not be another full power television station allotment awarded to the Charlottesville community.
Ms. Long said one of the main issues discussed by the Commission had to do with radio frequency
exposure and whether there would be any health risks to the public associated with the new tower. She
said Gray Television hired Mr. Joe Davis and his firm. He measured the existing emissions levels at the
mountain and calculated the projected emissions levels for future stations including Gray stations and
including future upgrades to the WVIR Station. It is his opinion that at the height of the apple trees, the
total cumulative radio frequency emissions level at the base of the tower would only reach 74 percent of the
Federal threshold, which is known as the maximum permissible exposure limit. Therefore, people who
might be in the area picking applies or who might wander onto the site would not be exposed to any threat
of unsafe health exposure. She noted that materials were also submitted to the Board from WVIR-TV
suggesting the opposite is the case. She hopes the materials she sent to the Board clearly speak to that
issue. In essence, WVIR submitted to the FCC the day after the Commission hearing some materials that
clearly stated there will not be a threat to the maximum permissible exposure levels at the mountain once
Gray Television is on the air. In fact, they submitted additional materials to the FCC yesterday that
reiterated that point. She does not believe that WVIR truly believes there is a threat that Gray’s station will
cause a problem.
Ms. Long said a Mr. Sidney Shumate spoke during the public hearing before the Commission
regarding a potential threat from Gray’s emissions. He said he is a former engineer for WVIR. They
believe his assertions regarding their compliance do not have merit. They have studied the issue
thoroughly, and Gray is confident that there will not be an RF issue. She noted that both WVIR and Mr.
Shumate have filed objections with the FCC objecting to Gray’s operation of Channel 19. In their
objections to the FCC, they do not raise these particular RF issues. Also, a resident of Carter’s Mountain
spoke at the Commission meeting and expressed concerns because she lives close to the tower. Her
residence is about one-half mile away from the tower base and about 250 feet below the base of the tower.
The farther away from a tower one is both in vertical distance and lateral height, considering the dissipation
factor, the less the impact of RF emissions. She said Mr. Davis concluded that based on the approximate
location of the tenant residences on the mountain, using a conservative analysis model, the cumulative RF
exposure levels would at most be only three percent. The same would be true for people visiting the Apple
Barn on Carter’s Mountain.
Ms. Long said it is important to remember that the RF exposure level becomes an issue only at the
base of the tower because of the distance dissipation factor. She said there is concern only for people
standing at the base of the tower. That is why they wanted to be sure the health of employees picking
apples in the orchard around the base of the tower would be protected. There are also Federal regulations
and guidelines that the health of the workers working on the tower or on nearby towers also be protected.
Gray is confident they can comply with those requirements. Finally, the FCC exercises clear oversight and
jurisdiction over this issue and works hard to enforce its regulations so the cumulative levels are not
exceeded. She said staff members have the training, expertise and equipment necessary to respond to
any concerns about RF exposure levels.
Ms. Long said they do not believe it would be appropriate for the Board to require Gray,
individually, to certify the cumulative RF levels on behalf of all other towers and stations on the mountain.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 40
The issue of cumulative RF emissions is a common challenge. Everybody has to be in compliance
together. If there is a problem, all of the main contributors have to be part of the solution. Any station
which contributes more than five percent of the maximum permissible exposure level would have to
participate in a solution. They do not think it would appropriate for Gray to bear that burden.
Ms. Long said this proposal is appropriate to address the needs of the community for additional
local television stations. There will be one tower for two stations, and it will be shorter than the existing
tower. They are confident that the tower is not an issue with excessive RF exposure, and the FCC will
effectively regulate and enforce its restrictions.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Board members had questions for Ms. Long.
Mr. Boyd said he is curious about proposed Condition No. 9 by the staff: “There shall be annual
verification by a source acceptable to the County Department of Engineering on radio frequency emissions
(Staff will work on the language of the condition to address the Commission’s concerns that the property
owner of the tower farm shall provide the County with an annual report on radio frequency emissions
regarding health, safety and welfare.).” He asked if the RFE changes from year to year or does this refer to
new towers being placed on the property?
Ms. Long said for the most part the RF emissions from Gray’s antennas will not change from year
to year, but will remain constant unless it obtains permission from the FCC to make modifications that could
alter the amount of RF exposure.
Mr. Boyd asked if in that case the FCC would require new studies. Ms. Long said before any new
station can come on the air, or before any existing station can make any modifications to its station that
might impact the RF exposure levels, they have to obtain an amendment to their construction permit.
Before that amendment is granted by the FCC, it requires certification that the proposed change will not
cause the RF levels to exceed the Federal threshold. They think that is a reasonable regulation of that
requirement.
Mr. Wyant asked about recommended Condition No. 4: “Antennas supporting services other than
television broadcasting shall not be attached to extend above a total height of the tower itself.” He asked if
they would have to get FCC approval prior to putting another antenna on the tower. Ms. Long said in the
case of Condition No. 4, staff did not want Gray to be able to install any additional antennas of any kind,
whether for television or wireless PCS, above the top of the tower structure itself, which is 149 feet. In
essence, if a future collation were required, the special use permit would have to be amended.
Mr. Wyant said from what has been said, the FCC has some regulatory authority in this manner.
Ms. Long said she understands from conversations with Mr. Joe Davis that if it were a wireless
communications provider, because the RF emission levels from those antennae are much lower than from
a television or radio station, if the towers were proposed to be located only 30 or so feet off the ground and
the RF exposure levels are almost negligible, that might not require FCC approval.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing
Mr. Sidney Shumate said he was employed by Channel 29 for 17 years as director of engineering.
His involvement with them ended eight years ago and since then he has had no relationship with
Waterman Broadcasting. He is speaking today for himself. He spent many hours working at the antennae
farm on Carter’s Mountain so has significant knowledge with regard to the site. He said Gray proposes to
replace its current translator tower on the mountain with a shorter tower. He wonders why the Planning
Commissioners have never questioned why the existing full-power television station towers on Carter’s
Mountain (American rental tower, and the new WVIR-TV digital tower) are all at least 300 feet in overall
height. He said there are technical reasons for this. Before this meeting tonight, he sent a letter and report
to the Supervisors on the RF hazard situation on Carter’s Mountain. The report shows by expanding on the
work of Gray’s consulting engineers as presented in their most recent FCC application why the proposed
new tower is too short for the use to which it will be put. The report shows that a mild RF hazard currently
exists on Carter’s Mountain under FCC guidelines. As a result, the station licensees and the landlord are
currently responsible to take certain actions. At the mild level which exists now, that action requires the
placing of signs stating that there is an RF hazard and restricting the time that orchard workers and the
general public can be around the towers, especially the hottest locations, to three hours and twenty
minutes. The FCC only becomes involved when the RF level guidelines get to a 30-minute level. Then
they fine the stations if they have not started taking actions.
Mr. Shumate said when WCAV goes on the air it will cause the allowable general public exposure
time to be reduced from the current three hours, twenty minutes down to one hour, twenty-two minutes.
They are currently requesting a starting power level of 1000 kilowatts of effective radiated power. That is
less power than WVIR-TV started with. If allowed to start broadcasting atop this dangerously short tower,
in its current application before the FCC WCAV shows that it will, by itself, more than double the existing
measured RF power on the ground on Carter’s Mountain. That is far more than WVIR-TV and all other
contributors on the mountain currently contribute based on the recent measurements and WVIR-TV
operates at five megawatts.
Mr. Shumate said it is to be expected that WCAV will immediately upon signing on look to increase
power. He thinks they have planned ahead. The antennae they plan to use can take enough input power
to reach a full 5000 kilowatts if the input connector is ordered correctly. The building they propose to build
is more then adequate to hold a transmitter five times the power and size of what they need now. As to the
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 41
license, their current permit is actually for 2380 kilowatts, not the 1000 kilowatts they requested from the
FCC. CBC asked for a power increase to five megawatts over a year ago when for a short time they
proposed to move the transmitter to Goochland County. If WCAV increases power to 2380 kilowatts on
this proposed short tower, when combined with all of the other major TV stations, they will produce 90.5
percent of the allowable FCC limit. That reduces the allowable general public exposure time to 33 minutes.
If WCAV increases power to match WVIR-TV, it would exceed the FCC limit all by itself producing 108
percent of the limit on the ground without adding in any other stations on this short tower. Yet, WVIR-TV
and all others, by actual measurement, contribute only 15 percent of the existing limit by measurement
taken by Gray’s engineers.
Mr. Shumate said the already approved WVIR-TV digital tower will only be 130+ feet away from the
new WCAV tower. When both of these new stations are up and running, the hottest spot on the mountain
will be right between the two towers where the main road right-of-way runs through the tower farm. It
would be difficult to just build a fence around the hottest spots on the mountain. If WCAV were required to
build this tower only 101 feet higher, up to 250 feet, equal to the WVIR-TV digital tower, the overall height
would still be shorter than WVIR-TV or the American tower. Therefore, WCAV should still be able to obtain
a lighting waiver from the FAA and not light the tower. Then WCAV could eventually increase its power to
match WVIR-TV and it would still only generate in total 76 percent of the FCC limit on the ground.
Mr. Shumate said he thinks the County should require Gray to place its antennae high enough off
the ground so the future RF energy exposure safety hazard on the ground around the base of the towers is
significantly lessened and would remain below the FCC limit, especially if Gray upgrades to match WVIR-
TV in power. Alternately, as a temporary measure, the size of Gray’s new building should be restricted,
and the size of the electrical service allowed should be restricted. If the County does not approve this
request as presented, WCAV will be able to obtain in the near future a power increase from the FCC
without having to get permission from the County to make changes. This would leave the County
powerless to prevent an unsafe increase in RF power density on Carter’s Mountain. He asked that the
Board not rush into a bad decision by poor planning and a rush to build by the Charlottesville Broadcasting
Corporation and Gray. Charlottesville Broadcasting has had three years to put this station on the air. He
said that neither Charlottesville Broadcasting nor Gray have ever built a station before. Gray bought all of
the 29 stations they own, most in bankruptcy proceedings. He thinks it is obvious they have made plans to
increase power as soon as they get on the air. He thinks an increase would be granted by the FCC except
for one thing, an appropriately tall tower.
Mr. Joe Discipio, FCC counsel for WVIR, said he wants to correct some of the statements made by
Gray. Most important is that Gray is not yet the permittee for Channel 19. They have an application before
the FCC, but the FCC has not yet taken action on that request. The responsibility for building out Channel
19 still remains with CBC. He said this permit has been before the FCC since 1986, resolved in April of
2000 and the permit issued a year later. There has been three years for this to be built. He said CBC
owns a current permit at a different location on Carter’s Mountain, but have never acted to build there.
There is the current permit before the Board, a modification to move to Cumberland County which is still on
file with the FCC, and a third modification before the FCC to build with this special use permit.
Ms. Thomas interrupted and asked who Mr. Discipio represents. Mr. Discipio said he represents
WVIR-TV; he is their FCC counsel. He said Gray’s permit will expire on August 15. Previous counsel
stated that once that expires there will be no more new television in this area. That is not correct. That
allotment will stay, but it will go back into the pool and be auctioned off at a later time. The allotment
survives, but the current permittee will not have an opportunity to build at that time. He said none of this
has any impact on the proposed ABC affiliation as proposed. Gray is free to do news on that channel now,
so this will have no impact on that at all. There was a question of inconsistency. WVIR did file an
engineering statement with our (Mr. Discipio’s) consulting engineer raising the issue of RF problems. We
have filed with our digital permit at the FCC showing that our facility does comply. That is true but the key
thing to remember is that these are site specific findings. For our site, we are in compliance. They cannot
say that the site Gray is proposing is in compliance.
Mr. Discipio said the FCC requires a new entrance onto a site to be certain that all environmental
concerns are met. Gray has said they do not think they should be required to show that all requirements
are complied with.
Mr. Jeff Werner said he is a resident of the City, and will not speak on behalf of any organization.
He feels an ethical responsibility to share with the Board some observations he has had on this issue.
Several weeks ago, he was contacted by an individual expressing a great deal of concern about this tower.
He was led to believe this was either an adjacent landowner or someone who lived near the site. This
person was concerned because they hunt turkey on land near where this tower will be built. This individual
said if this procedure were delayed until August, the tower would go away. He has been told this person
had at one time done some legal work for one of the involved parties. Mr. Werner said he feels he was
mislead and raises this because there seems to be an intense interest in delaying this procedure. There is
clearly a legal issue between two television stations. He does not know anything about the RF frequency
issue, but hopes whatever decision is made by this board will be one based fairly and not on any
misinformation. He encouraged the Board members to get to the bottom of his remarks.
Ms. Long said she would respond to a couple of the comments by Mr. Shumate. In general, Mr.
Joe Davis is Gray’s RF compliance expert and he has thoroughly reviewed all of the materials Mr. Shumate
submitted to the Planning Commission and the Board. It is his professional opinion that Mr. Shumate’s
assertions do not have merit with regard to the RF exposure issue. Some of his other technical assertions
are based on inaccurate information and details about the antennae height, dimensions and design. Gray
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 42
is confident it can build the tower. They remain confident that the cumulative exposure levels will not
exceed the Federal maximum permissible exposure limits. Gray does not have any plans to increase the
power of its station despite what Mr. Shumate asserted. Even if it did, the FCC would have to approve any
increase in power. Any FCC approval would require a certification from Gray that would be reviewed by
FCC staff that the increase in power would not cause the cumulative RF emissions on the mountain to
exceed the Federal standard. She said the new proposed equipment building is the minimal size
necessary to accommodate the significant amount of equipment necessary for operating a full tower
television station.
Ms. Long said with regard to the comments made by Mr. Discipio on behalf of WVIR, he is correct
that the FCC has not yet approved the transfer of the Channel 19 license to Gray. The current license
holder is Charlottesville Broadcasting Corporation. It has proposed to transfer that license to Gray. Gray’s
general counsel expects to receive that approval any day, most likely by the end of this week. Gray is fully
confident it will obtain the FCC’s approval. Even if that did not occur, CBC will continue to hold the license
and will lease it rights to Gray Television which will operate the station. Gray will be operating Channel 19
in Charlottesville provided it can get on the air by the August 15 deadline. Finally, Mr. Discipio said in
regard to her comments about the WVIR FCC report about cumulative emission, she was not implying that
WVIR was certifying that Gray would be in compliance. It was certifying to the FCC that when its new
digital station comes on the air, that new digital station combined with all of the existing emissions levels on
the mountain and combined with all of the projected future emissions including Gray’s Channel 19 and
including Gray’s Channel 16, will not cause emissions levels to exceed the Federal threshold. They believe
that if they said all of the new stations will not cause the accumulative RF levels to exceed the Federal
threshold, in essence they agree with Gray’s experts that Gray’s stations will not, as well. She said Mr. Joe
Davis would be glad to answer questions regarding the RF issues. As to FCC specific issues, Ms. Margo
Polevy with Charlottesville Broadcasting is present to answer questions.
Mr. Wyant asked if Gray had received approval from the FCC on the RF issue. Ms. Long said
CBC’s request to transfer the license to Gray Television is expected to be approved soon. They also
expect them to approve an amendment to the construction permit that CBC has for its station. They have
FCC approval to attach an antenna for Channel 19 to another tower on the mountain. When it decided to
transfer its license to Gray, Gray wanted its own tower because it could not make it work on the other
tower. Because that could impact the RF emissions level, that required the FCC to approve a change to
the construction permit. They are waiting on that approval as well. She understands that if the FCC
approves that modification to the construction permit, it is essentially approving the RF compliance issue.
They expect both FCC approvals any day. They have not asked Mr. Joe Davis who provided the RF
compliance report for any additional materials to justify his conclusions. The FCC has not called into
question his conclusions and he is confident they do not have any questions about the accuracy of his
report.
Mr. Boyd said he still has questions about recommended Condition No. 9. He said it is a condition
that would be imposed on the landowner, so he would like to hear the applicant’s thoughts on the need to
require the landowner to annually monitor. Ms. Long said if the condition were imposed obligating the
landowner to provide an annual certification, Gray has no ability to require the landowner to do that. Her
main concern is that Gray would not be able to comply with one of the conditions of approval for its tower.
In theory, could Gray provide its own annual certification? Could Gray reimburse the landowner for such
certification? It could. She thinks this shifts the burden back to Gray as a lone solution to a problem that is
communal. There are 11 towers on the mountain; some have multiple collocators. All of the stations on
the mountain together must be in compliance and remain under the Federal maximum exposure level.
They do not think it is appropriate for Gray to be the only broadcaster on the mountain that has to annually
certify compliance. This has not been required before. It requires them to certify compliance when in fact
Gray has no control over the actions of third parties on the mountain. If some other radio station on the
mountain were to obtain FCC approval to increase its power, Gray has no control over whether that would
be approved. Potentially a third party could cause all of the broadcasters on the mountain to come out of
compliance. It is a joint problem, and if there is a solution it must be a joint solution.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier closed the public hearing, and placed the matter before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the alternative proposed by staff is that there would be a zoning text
amendment considered at some future date to deal with any cumulative environmental affects rather than
tying it to this particular applicant. She asked that the County Attorney comment.
Mr. Larry Davis said it is staff’s position that Condition No. 9 is not appropriate and is not necessary
for this application. First, radio frequency levels are substantially regulated by the FCC. The County
probably has no ability to have more stringent standards than the FCC. This condition would only assist
the FCC in their regulation of RF levels. He thinks the FCC has that covered because they require a
submittal whenever there is a change in equipment or a new application. They do not need this annual
certification in order to meet their FCC requirements in regulating this area. Second, there are concerns
about putting this requirement on any single applicant because of the practical issues which have been
discussed. He said it would be debatable whether a zoning text amendment would be necessary for the
same reasons, but if a ZTA were addressed it would probably be in the fashion of putting some cumulative
level of RF based on the FCC standards that could not be exceeded by any land use that would
subsequently be located on any particular site. Because the FCC already prohibits any relocation or
amendment of facilities that would exceed the FCC level, it would not be an issue as far as retroactively
applying it because it would not be in violation at that time based on the FCC regulations. He thinks staff
does not recommend No. 9 because of those circumstances and would only reluctantly proceed with a
zoning text amendment.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 43
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the FCC is more capable of dealing with the radio frequency emissions
than local government. He asked if the FCC monitors these towers on a regular basis. Mr. Larry Davis
said he does not know that they are monitored, but their licenses depend on them being in compliance. If
they are not in compliance, they are subject to fines and other corrective actions. In order to stay in
compliance with their license, they cannot make any changes to their broadcasting equipment affecting the
RF without getting an amended FCC approval. It is unlikely there is a need for constant monitoring of RF
levels assuming the equipment has not been modified which would be in violation of both the FCC permit
and the County approval process.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board approved the tower for WVIR a year or so ago and there was not this
discussion about radio frequency emissions then. He asked if this is a new issue or was it present when
they put up that tower. Mr. Tucker said it was present then but a condition was not added regarding it.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board assumed the FCC was in charge of that issue. Mr. Tucker
said the Board focused on the land use aspect of the permit request, while the FCC regulates the power,
etc. and the RF power.
Ms. Thomas said from a land use point of view, she is appreciative of this tower being somewhat
smaller, resulting in fewer towers. She had asked the applicant a lot of questions and was satisfied with
their answers. One of the questions had to do with collocation, and the County’s own 800 megahertz use.
Because of the timing of building permits and technical issues that is not a viable option, so she would not
suggest changing the wording or add anything regarding that to the conditions that came from the
Commission.
Mr. Dorrier said this property lies in his district, and he is in favor of this request. It passed the
Commission by a 7:0 vote. He asked for a motion of approval deleting Condition No. 9.
Ms. Thomas moved that the Board approve SP-2004-03 with the conditions as recommended by
seconded
the Planning Commission removing Condition No. 9. The motion was by Mr. Bowerman. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
Note
(: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The facility including the tower, its attachments and the new ground equipment building
shall be sized, located and built in general accord with the construction plans, tower
elevations and schematic drawings initialed SBW and dated May 5, 2004, subject to
maximum height and width restrictions in conditions three (3) and five (5). This information
is provided in Attachment B of this staff report;
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of
site drawings for construction of the facility. Planning staff shall review the revised plans to
ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed;
3. The height of the tower structure shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet and the top
of the antenna, including the lightning rod, shall not exceed one hundred ninety (190) feet
above ground level. No equipment, with the exception of any FAA required flight safety
lighting, shall extend higher than the tallest portion of the top-mounted antenna;
4. Antennas supporting services other than television broadcasting shall not be attached to
extend above a total height of the tower itself;
5. The width of each side of the tower shall not exceed fifty (50) inches in width;
6. The existing guyed tower that currently supports this facility shall be removed within sixty
(60) days of the completion of the new tower;
7. The short existing tower, owned by Adelphia Cable Company shall be removed within
ninety (90) days of the discontinuance of its use and in any case no later than October 31,
2004; and
8. The new ground equipment building shall be painted a natural, dark brown color, and
screened on its eastern and western sides with evergreens or a mixture of trees deemed
acceptable by the County’s Landscape Planner.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Crozet Master Plan (Critical Elements and Implementation Measures), Work
Session.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff held a meeting in Crozet on May 18, 2004, to take public comments on the
Crozet Master Plan. There were about 50 people present, and a good number of those people had not
attended prior work sessions by the Planning Commission and the consultant. Staff will focus today on the
important elements of this plan, and how particular recommendations support the plan being realized.
Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner, said she will discuss key elements of the plan within the
context of each of the three geographic sectors of the community: Downtown, Crozet–West, and Crozet–
East. These areas function as larger neighborhoods of their own. She said that in many cases, the master
plan recommends improvements that are already in the CIP, or are anticipated by it. There are a few new
items resulting from the master planning efforts, but they are in the minority. There are many candidates
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 44
for improvement by public/private partnerships. There are various categories on Attachment D to the staff’s
report for today’s meeting.
Ms. Susan Thomas said she would begin with the Downtown area. The most essential element in
downtown is placement of a new library on the Mountainside Senior Living block. That was a change from
previous concepts for the new library, but it is seen as a real revitalization tool. The community was solidly
in support of maintaining downtown as the focus of Crozet. Investment is needed to keep it there. The
library is something the County has had in the CIP for a long time, and it is close to being fully funded.
Library’s are much more than they used to be containing teaching space and many cooperative functions.
That was seen as the linchpin of revitalization of the downtown.
Ms. Susan Thomas said sidewalks and streetscape priorities are also long-term goals for the
community and for the County downtown. Some areas in downtown Crozet do not have pedestrian
facilities at all. That is another key implementation measure and one that already has significant funding,
and probably needs more. A new recommendation from the master plan is Main Street which starts at
Crozet Avenue and goes due east to intersect with the proposed Eastern Avenue which would link Route
250 and Route 240. She said Main Street is a parallel street paralleling Three-Notch’d Gap Road and the
railroad. It provides a way for the eastern neighborhoods to connect with the heart of the community, which
is the downtown. She said it is recommended in the master plan that only the first block be built initially
which would be from Crozet Avenue into the lumberyard. That would give trucks using the lumberyard a
new and better access and ingress getting them off of the square. That would give the opportunity to make
the square a more attractive, livable pedestrian environment. She said there are some major issues now
on the square when trucks are entering and leaving the lumberyard.
Ms. Susan Thomas said that project would be a good candidate for a public/private partnership.
Initially it is the lumberyard that would benefit as Main Street were extended eastward. There are more
beneficiaries than the lumberyard, but initially Barnes Lumber is the key beneficiary. Staff has had some
talks with Mr. Connelly and there seems to be some interest in that. She thinks everyone agrees it would
be a positive step in the way of a safety improvement.
Ms. Susan Thomas said the improvements called for in Crozet-West are almost entirely funded by
the private sector, or they already have CIP funding. Old Trail, the connector road between Jarmans Gap
and Route 250, will be built as part of the Old Trail residential development totally with private funds. There
is a western park recommended for that central floodplain area. That would be some sort of partnership.
An interim CIP allocation ($75,000) was approved by the Board this year to allow for early planning of both
the Eastern and the Western park. Hopefully, that will allow the County to work with the developer to
achieve that park which is on private land.
Ms. Susan Thomas said there is one improvement identified in the master plan which has no
recommended funding in the CPA language the Commission forwarded to the Board. That is the Meadows
connector road. That was done because the project is not tied to a specific construction date. It is a road
seen as only one of many potential connections westward from Crozet Avenue. Staff has talked with the
owner and developer of the Meadows to try and get that in their plan, but with only limited success.
Recently, it took on added importance in that the developer of Old Trail expressed interest in working with
the County and other involved properties to see if there is a way to get additional access into the school.
These are preliminary conversations. Nothing has been decided. Staff is doing some traffic modeling.
Anyone who drives that stretch realizes that when Old Trail has a traffic signal opposite Western Albemarle
High School, it could be problematic to get into Henley and Brownsville. What was originally seen as a
connector into residential neighborhoods of Old Trail may work better as a connector road over to the
Western Avenue or Old Trail Road that serves more of a school function rather than just a neighborhood
function. That might move it off the Meadows property and it might be possible to skirt the rear edge of the
Henley/Brownsville fields and get to Old Trail.
Ms. Susan Thomas said Crozet-East is the most expensive part of the neighborhood in terms of
the need for capital improvements. This is an area that has potential for new neighborhoods;
neighborhoods that link well with existing neighborhoods and to major transportation corridors, namely,
Route 250 West, Rockfish Gap Turnpike and Three Notch’d Road. She said the Commission talked for
some time about the priority of the Lickinghole Bridge crossing and the railroad underpass. In the initial
ranking in the first section of the CPA language, they actually put the underpass higher because they were
worried that if the bridge were built and the underpass was not in place, that would funnel traffic directly to
Route 250. There is an established policy concerning Route 250 which tries to protect the corridor from
traffic volumes which might trigger the need for major improvements and destroy its visual beauty. The
Commission felt it was important to initiate work on the railroad underpass. Staff has talked with the owner
of ConAgra and learned that his organization has already talked with CSX. They think it will be a benefit for
the future ConAgra residential development and redevelopment of “downtown-east” which is the
Acme/ConAgra complex. A crossing was always planned for the eastern part of the neighborhood, but
originally it was further to the east closer to the Western Ridge development. This is more central. It
probably will promote the revitalization of the ConAgra/Acme complex and it distributes traffic to Three
Notch’d Road closer to downtown. The timing of the two things may be more a function of the ability to
design, fund and get approvals than the Commission’s original ranking.
Ms. Susan Thomas said Main Street is another issue that affects Crozet-East. Ultimately, the
alignment may not be exactly as seen in this plan because a lot depends on how private development
occurs. Staff has been talking to developers about the need for a functional, parallel road in order to have
another way to get to downtown. The section from the eastern edge of the first block over to Parkside is
the section that crosses the lumberyard. She said that at this time Mr. Connelly is not interested in giving
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 45
that up. As development intensifies in Crozet, it may be that he or his family will decide there is a better
place for the lumberyard or a higher, better purpose for that property. Additional development will be the
deciding factor as to when Main Street needs to be completed. She said it will be needed because the
alternatives are Tabor Avenue and Hilltop Street, neither of which were intended to carry all of the traffic
from this eastern segment to downtown. Plus, convenient access ways to the downtown area will need to
be promoted in order to keep the downtown area alive and well.
Ms. Susan Thomas said there are some other general items which are community wide. The
County would need to play a role in improving neighborhood parks. It may be that developers would
dedicate land for a park, but the County would need to play a role in the actual programming and
development of the parks. RWSA has talked about three new recycling centers in the County. Originally,
the consultants thought Crozet was a logical place for one of those centers. Then, there is greenway
development for which there is already some funding. There are planning funds for the library block.
There are park planning funds for both the eastern and the western park through the CIP. She said that is
a quick introduction to this subject.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the next step is in this process. Ms. Susan Thomas said it will depend on
what the Supervisors decide in terms of funding, and whether they agree with the ranking set out in the
plan. She said staff has a lot of work to do to lay out a realistic and achievable implementation schedule.
Mr. Tucker said staff needs to know if the Board supports the recommendations it has put forward
today in order to move forward with the implementation plan. In the cost of improvements, what is currently
in the CIP in regard to this Master Plan is noted, and other items that will be proposed for future CIP
budgets.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board now needs to decide on the document that will be subject to a public
hearing. If this Board wants to make any modifications to the document presented today, staff needs to
have those recommendations.
Mr. Dorrier suggested the Board “mull it over” during lunch, and make a decision later today.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session. Personnel and Legal Matters.
motion
At 12:25 p.m., was offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board adjourn into closed session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards and commissions; under Subsection (1) to conduct an administrative evaluation; under Subsection
(3) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding the acquisition of property for public use; under
Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation arising from a claim
against the County; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation
relating to a real estate assessment; and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding specific matters requiring legal advice relating to issues concerning public ownership of property.
seconded
The motion was by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session. At 2:02 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session in Room 235.
Motion
was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public 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.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Crozet Master Plan, Work Session (continued from morning session).
Mr. Dorrier said before lunch the Board was discussing whether it wanted to make any changes to
the proposed Crozet Master Plan. He asked for staff comments.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board does not need to decide that the document is in its final form today
before setting it for a public hearing.
Mr. Dorrier said Crozet lies in Mr. Wyant’s district, so he asked for his comments first.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 46
Mr. Wyant said he received a petition from some of the residents who do not want Pine Street to
come through to Route 240. Also, he has met with Mr. Connelly several times. He is against Main Street
because it will cost a good deal of money. Mr. Wyant said the infrastructure is not there, so maybe the
“backbone” of infrastructure needs to be shown rather than a detailed map. He thinks a developer would
propose a different road, so the detailed map is misleading. People have talked about the proposed site for
a new Crozet library. He does not know if land is available in the town square for this. He read the
feasibility study (which is now rather old) about converting the Old Crozet Elementary School into a library.
He has tried to tell people that this plan will not come about in the near future; there have to be realistic
timelines set on some of the infrastructure needs.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Wyant how he weighed the comments from people who are against the
entire process. The process took months and involved hundreds of people who want to have a downtown
that is a real downtown as opposed to just continuing sprawl. A library, as far as public investment is
concerned, is considered to be an anchor for keeping a viable downtown. Looking at the Old Crozet
School goes against the master plan’s idea of having a viable downtown area.
Mr. Wyant said “downtown” has to be defined. He said he had never thought about the land the
County owned just south of the Old Crozet School. If no land is proffered to the County, it will have to
purchase land. He thinks the Board needs to be realistic. He thinks that at this time the downtown is being
defined as just around the square. There is not much parking in that area now. Even though there will be
sidewalks and bike trails, people will still use automobiles. He said there have got to be jobs created in
Crozet and that will create traffic problems. To make this plan happen, the plans must be realistic, and
there must be a way to fund those plans. He thinks the county needs to talk with people about
private/public partnerships.
Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. Susan Thomas if the “yellow things” in the report are those items
recommended by staff. Ms. Thomas said those things came from one of the public meetings where the
original consultants proposed a series of priority questions. She referred the Board members to
Attachment D of the Executive Summary “Costs and Strategies for Funding Improvements” which sets out
a list of currently funded items in the CIP, items not funded but recommended, and items recommended for
private sector funding or public/private collaboration.
Mr. Dorrier said there is no timeline on these items.
Mr. Bowerman said some of these items are a part of the Five-Year CIP Plan. Ms. Susan Thomas
said the items which have funding are shown with expected construction dates.
Mr. Boyd asked what the Board would be approving to take to public hearing. He knows there are
some residential public/private partnerships being developed now. He asked if there are any such
proposals for commercial properties. Ms. Susan Thomas said staff has talked with the Bank of America
because they own the property that is designated for the new library. They talked about their prototypical
design and then realized the Supervisors had not yet reviewed the plan, and realized that it would help staff
if there were someone who knew how to deal with real estate, partnership and financial issues. That is
where the recommendation for the new staff person came from. She said the bank was very receptive.
That site is where the bank used to be and they were interested in partnering with the library in a new
structure on the old location of the bank because they want to be on Main Street.
Mr. Boyd asked if in this instance the County will be the one pulling together the parcel. Ms. Susan
Thomas said in the case of the library that is probably so because it is a public facility. In other cases, it
might be a private partnership with just a little County involvement. JABA, which manages Mountainside
Senior Living, is also an active occupant of that block. It was instrumental in getting County staff together
with bank representatives. She thinks it will be a different mix with every project. There are number of
consistent “players” in Crozet, which is good. Most of the big developers know a lot about the plan
because they followed the process all the way through.
Mr. Cilimberg said the new employee the Board approved for funding next year will be doing that
kind of work. It is something the County has not done before.
Mr. Boyd said even though the plan says a library can go in this particular block, the County does
not own the land. Essentially he thinks that by saying what use can go there, the Board would be infringing
on people’s property rights. That is what he thinks this master plan does.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board does that all the time in rezonings and everything it does. It is
politics as well as business that makes it happen.
Mr. Boyd said he does not believe it has happened exactly this way by approaching an owner and
asking if this type of facility could be placed on their land as opposed to the Board making a
predetermination.
Mr. Bowerman said the community made that predetermination.
Ms. Sally Thomas said the Comprehensive Plan map has always said how development of the
County will look if public goals are going to be pursued. But, the Comprehensive Plan has shown blobs of
color on the map, rather than drawing colors in such fine detail. She does not see it as a difference of great
degree. It is only a small degree from what has been done before.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 47
Mr. Wyant said this is a conceptual plan. As an engineer, he needs more detail. Some people in
the community have expressed a concern about saying what it will be. To him, when you just set out
general guidelines, it allows people to be innovative. He thinks whatever is approved should just be
general guidelines.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff brought up location of the library with Bank of America. Ms. Susan
Thomas said it came up during the community meetings, and the consultants put it into their final report.
There was a lot of discussion at the community level. Actually, Mr. Gordon Walker from JABA made
contact with the bank because he is their neighbor on that block.
Mr. Wyant said he knows the County has tried to work with the Meadows because there is a need
for another connector road. He has met several times with Mr. Carroll Connelly, and with Mr. Corian
Capshaw, etc., and Mr. Runkle with the idea of figuring out what fits in this puzzle.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission definitively outlined qualifiers to let it be known that
this plan does not show each piece as being a certain kind of development. It is recognized as being
conceptual; the plan is flexible. Second, it was never envisioned that the County would dictate what use
would be in each location. However, the different angle is that the County will take a role in trying to do
some of things Mr. Wyant just mentioned. It is important that people understand the plan, and there is
willingness to work with them to achieve the things the plan calls for.
Mr. Boyd said for the little bit of master planning he has seen since he became a Board member, it
appears to him that the opposite is true. When guidelines are set, they are then applied by staff. That
applies particularly to the twelve steps of the Neighborhood Model. That is his fear with this plan.
Mr. Dorrier said he does not think the Board can look at these strategies for funding improvements
in a vacuum and not consider other needs in the County. He is highly in favor of the new library because
he thinks it is the hub for a small town, but as far as approving all the other items on the list, he does not
think the Board is ready to do that.
Mr. Boyd said he did not think the Board was talking about doing that today, but he is concerned
about a very detailed map and this Board giving conceptual approval to that and that then becoming
gospel.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Boyd did not want to say the library should be downtown. He said the
Board looked at residential development on Jarmans Gap Road, but the Board did not know at the time
how it would fit into the Crozet community. Finally, this plan gives a blueprint of something that may be
achievable in the future. The Board would then know that if residential is put in this area, there are other
structures in place to support that residential development. Absent a plan, that cannot be done.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with that. Maybe he is speaking to staff and saying that if he
votes to approve this plan, he is approving it only as a concept.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff worked with the developer of Old Trail. They actually agreed to hold off on
their development until the Crozet Master Plan was finished to a point where they knew what would
happen. They proceeded with their golf course side. With staff working with them on their residential side
and the center they are going to build, they actually ended up with a road that is not in the location this plan
calls for. The plan was the guideline. Staff worked with them to determine how to best achieve that based
on some of their goals and objectives, as well as what the plan indicated. Staff recognized that the
planning was not at a point where it could dictate engineering of a road.
Ms. Sally Thomas said the County might not have gotten that road if this master planning had not
been underway at the time. Everyone said a road was needed between Jarmans Gap Road and Route
250. It was said strongly and even though this plan has not yet been adopted, it seemed clear the plan
would be adopted, and that formed the basis for being able to say to that developer that there had to be a
road in that location. The community even gave their preference as to which end of the road was
developed first. That came as a surprise to her because she thought it would be developed the other way
around. Now, the developer is finding out that he is selling lots very fast around the town center that he
really did not want and that the County said was needed. It has turned out to be the most popular aspect of
his plan.
Mr. Wyant said this plan is saying that a road is wanted on the western side of the town to relieve
traffic on Jarmans Gap Road and tie it into Route 250. The County did not say it had to be in a specific
location. The same thing is true of the neighborhoods. The County wants some commercial, so the only
thing that is specific is the backbone to the skeleton. How a developer lays out roads and everything else
is a whole different issue.
Mr. Tucker said staff wants to know if there are any changes to the proposed plan that the Board
wants to make before the public hearing. The Board can make amendments at a later date.
Mr. Wyant said he has received a lot of communications about the location of Jarmans Gap Road.
The concern is about putting a bike path beyond Gray Rock subdivision. Will there be future development
beyond that point? On the other end is the location of the path near the church and the old service station.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 48
Mr. Dorrier said if there were no objections, he would suggest that the Board take the plan it has to
public hearing. He asked if a motion is needed. Mr. Tucker said no motion is necessary if that is the
consensus of the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
motion
Ms. Thomas offered a to:
Reappoint Mr. John E. Davidson and Mr. Charles J Gross to the Piedmont Virginia Community
College Board of Directors, with terms to expire June 30, 2008.
Appoint Mr. Ronald Matthews to the Community Criminal Justice Board, Jefferson Area, with no set
term.
Appoint Mr. David J. Neuman as the University of Virginia non-voting member to the Albemarle
County Planning Commission with a term to expire on December 31, 2006. He replaces Mr. Samuel A.
Anderson.
Appoint Mr. Joseph Cochran to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority with a term to expire on
December 31, 2007. He replaces Mr. Terence Y. Sieg who has resigned.
Reappoint Mr. Donald R. Crosby and Mr. Robert J. Walters, Jr., to the Regional Disability Services
Board with terms to expire on June 30, 2007.
Appoint the following members to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors’ Bureau
(CACVB) Management Board:
Mr. Bryan O. Elliott, representative of local business community, for a term of one year
commencing July 1, 2004; term expires June 30, 2005.
Mr. Robert Foster, representative of the local accommodations/hotel business, for a term of two
years, commencing July 1, 2004; term will expire on June 30, 2006.
Mr. Gregory MacDonald, representative of the local tourism industry, for a term of one year,
commencing July 1, 2004; term will expire on June 30, 2005.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. North Pointe, Work Session.
Mr. Tucker said because Mr. Rooker is not present today, Mr. Chuck Rotgin has requested that this
be an abbreviated session, and that this be scheduled for another meeting when Mr. Rooker can be
present.
Note
(: As background for this work session, the following staff report is set out at this point for
informational purposes.
Background
: It was noted in the Staff’s Report that on October 14, 2003, the Planning
Commission held its final public hearing on North Pointe. On November 18, 2003, it recommended
disapproval of the rezoning to the Board of Supervisors. The Board then held a work session on December
3, 2003, and sent the project to a committee composed of two Board members and two Planning
Commissioners. They were to work out design issues related to the Application Plan, if possible. The
Committee met several times and the Plan was modified. After viewing a redesign of the commercial area,
the Committee generally sent a positive recommendation on the design to the Board. There were a few
items related to the Plan for which the Committee desired changes. The Board accepted the
recommendation of the Committee regarding the desired changes to the Plan. Since that time, the Board
has held three work sessions to discuss other outstanding issues on the project.)
Petition
: There are four petitions associated with North Pointe. The first petition is a rezoning
from RA, Rural Areas, to PD-MC, Planned Development-Mixed Commercial, for 676,000 square feet of
commercial and office space. The second petition is for a Special Use Permit to allow a maximum of 893
residential units. The third petition is for a critical slopes waiver for the area to be rezoned. The fourth
petition is for a waiver of the commercial setback requirements from Section 21 of the Zoning Ordinance for
the perimeter of the property.
The properties under consideration for the rezoning are described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 20, 20a,
20a1, 20a2, 20a3, 22h 22k, 23, 23a, 23b, 23c, 23d, 23e, 23 f, 23g, 23h, 23j and 29I. They are located in
the Rivanna Magisterial District north of Proffit Road, east of Route 29 North, west of Pritchett Lane and
south of the Rivanna River. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service, Office
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 49
Service, Urban Density (6 to 34 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Density (3 to 6 dwelling units
per acre) in the Hollymead Community. The property is located within the Entrance Corridor (EC) district.
Recommendation
: Staff has reviewed the proposals and associated proffers for conformity with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and cannot recommend approval at this time based on
the extent to which issues identified by staff, the Commission, and more recently by the Board, have been
satisfied by the applicant.
_____
Application Plan
: The current Application Plan is dated April 16, 2004, and is included as
Attachment A to the staff report today (on file in the Clerk’s Office). Outstanding technical issues related to
the Application Plan are included as Attachment B (on file in the Clerk’s Office). Design issues include
recommendations of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the need for redesign of the library area.
Attachment C (on file in the Clerk’s Office) contains the current proffers. In both form and substance,
unresolved issues continue to be problems, as indicated in Attachment D (on file in the Clerk’s Office).
The Proffers
: Attachment C contains the current proffers. In both form and substance, unresolved
issues continue to be problems, as indicated in Attachment D. Staff recognizes that there has not been
significant discussion with the Board on the substance of all of the proffers. To help the Board
systematically review the substance of the proffers and outstanding issues, staff will provide a table
consistent with comments in the report at the Board’s meeting.
For some time, the applicant has asked the Board to compare his proffers to the proffers of other
recently approved rezonings. Over the past several months, staff attempted to develop, with the applicant,
an “apples to apples” comparison in a consistent format. Resolution of differences was not possible so the
Board asked for both the staff’s and the applicant’s proffer comparisons. At the applicant’s request, staff is
not including the applicant’s proffer comparison which was provided on April 21, 2004. The applicant
indicated that he would provide a different comparison to the Board between distribution of this report and
the Board’s meeting. Attachment E contains the staff’s proffer comparison (on file in the Clerk’s Office).
Design:
Library block
- The library block is located north of the lake shown on the Plan. Parking areas are
the predominant feature in this block. A park, “Park H”, is shown in front of the library, but Buildings 20 and
22 are surrounded by parking areas and do not create the “Main Street” which the Board requested at an
earlier work session.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that the Board not accept the Application Plan until this
element is changed to create a “Main Street” by showing Buildings 20 and 22 adjacent to the streets or by
modifying the parking area in front of the park in conjunction with changes to Building 22 to give it a face to
the street.
_____
Architectural Review Board
: On April 19, 2004, the ARB reviewed the North Pointe project. By a
vote of 4:1, the ARB forwarded the following recommendation to the Board: “The ARB cannot support the
request for the rezoning and the special use permit based on the Plan submitted. However, if the Board of
Supervisors chooses to approve the Plan, it is recommended that the Plan not be approved until all of the
changes listed below are made, because this proposal will have a significant impact on the County image,
and because the preference for development in the Entrance Corridors is appropriately designed buildings
enhanced by landscaping. Expansive buildings with box footprints are overtly inconsistent with the
character of the significant historic buildings of Albemarle County.”
The ARB’s Action Memo is included as Attachment F. If the Board of Supervisors chooses to
approve the North Pointe Application Plan and accept the recommendations of the ARB, staff believes that
three substantial changes must be made to the plan. These include: 1) Revising the footprints, size, and
form of the big boxes to establish a form with a human scale, a streetscape of compatible architecture and
to eliminate the box character of the buildings. 2) Removing all rows of parking adjacent to the Entrance
Corridor (Route 29). The Design Planner clarified to the Board at their last work session that this does not
necessarily eliminate all parking between the building and the road. 3) Providing substantial additional
landscaping, including: interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping, landscaping along buildings, and, in
areas where existing wooded areas are not retained adjacent to the EC, a continuous planting area along
the EC with a minimum width of 25 feet, with a wider buffer required to mitigate design as necessary,
especially considering the topography.
Although the applicant said at the last work session that all of the ARB items except the size and
form of the “boxes” were acceptable to him, he later argued that the 2-foot landscape buffer was excessive
because of the grades. It has been staff’s experience that without changes to the Application Plan,
conflicts are set up between the approved Application Plan and future ARB actions based on the Entrance
Corridor guidelines.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that if the Board agrees with the ARB’s recommendations,
the Board not accept the Application Plan until the applicant makes changes to it which will ensure that all
ARB conditions can be met. Included with this recommendation would be addition of the list of ARB
recommended conditions on the Application Plan to ensure that the ARB’s recommendations will be
incorporated into future site plans. If the Board disagrees with any of the conditions recommended by the
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 50
ARB, staff strongly requests that the Board clearly identify each of those conditions for staff and ultimately
for the ARB’s future review.
_____
Transportation
:
Internal Streets
- The internal streets proposed for the project are shown on Sheet D2. There are
three issues relating to internal streets. The first issue continues to be the question of whether or not North
Pointe Boulevard will be a two-lane or four-lane street. Secondly, Northwest Passage shows sidewalks on
only one side of the street. Northwest Passage is a major leg of the parallel road to Route 29 and leads to
the school. Another issue has to do with inconsistency between the proffers and the cross-section for Main
Street shown on D2. As shown on the plan, Main Street would have to be a private street. The proffers
indicate that Main Street will be public.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that North Pointe Boulevard be shown on the Application
Plan and cross-section streets as a two-lane divided street with on-street parking between the southern
property boundary and Northside Drive. This will allow for easy conversion to a four-lane street should the
anticipated regional transportation study warrant. Between Northside Drive and Northwest Passage, staff
believes a two-lane residential street, with width to be determined at time of road plans, will be adequate
provided a seventy-four foot right-of-way is provided to accommodate any road widening the regional
transportation study might recommend. The proffer, which restricts streets as “public only”, should be
dropped or otherwise modified. Finally, staff recommends that sidewalks be shown on both sides of the
streets with planting strips between the sidewalks and curb, except at a bridge.
_____
Regional Transportation Study
- A regional transportation study is needed in order for the County
and VDOT to know how to deal with future impacts to Route 29 as a whole and other streets feeding into
Route 29. In part, the impacts will result from new commercial developments on the corridor. Other
impacts on Route 29 will result from anticipated County growth and the increasing regional traffic that uses
Route 29. The study is expected to cost about $1.0 million. During the Hollymead Towne Center project,
the Board supported a cost-sharing plan to pay for the study. The County would pay one-third of the cost;
VDOT would pay one-third of the cost; and, the three large commercial projects – Hollymead Towne
Center, Albemarle Place, and North Pointe – were expected to cover one-third of the cost. The
proportionate share from North Pointe was approximately $100,000. To date the applicant has proffered
only $25,000 toward the regional transportation study.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that the applicant commit $100,000 to the regional
transportation study in order to find ways to mitigate the impacts of the development on Route 29 North.
_____
Route 29
- The applicant has proffered two sets of improvements on Route 29. The first set of
improvements actually reflects requirements of VDOT. These proffers include a third lane on Route 29
northbound and right turn lanes; relocation of a crossover, turn lanes on Route 29 south, and correction of
the vertical curvature in the southbound lane. The second set of improvements includes portions of a third
lane on Route 29 northbound, improvements VDOT cannot require, but which help to mitigate the impacts
of the development.
Staff’s three concerns have to do with dedication of additional right-of-way if it is necessary for
construction of the improvements, use of a CDA for the second set of improvements identified in the
paragraph above, and phasing of the improvements to Route 29. Concerning the necessary right-of-way,
the applicant continues to say he will not widen Route 29 if the existing right-of-way is not adequate for
widening. About the CDA, the applicant will not make the off-site improvements whose need is
substantially generated by the development unless the Board approves the CDA.
Regarding phasing of improvements to Route 29, the applicant has not adequately addressed
staff’s previous comments. While he has proffered completion of improvements based on levels of project
completion, there is no assurance that those improvements will be in place within a known period of time.
It is possible that some of these improvements might never be completed or might not be completed in time
to address the need. It may even be possible that the property owner could find it advantageous to
withhold certain project phases until road improvements are completed by others. In addition, in the last
proffers submitted, the applicant has modified the size of the commercial area allowed with initial Route 29
improvements from 290,000 square feet to 331,696 square feet. That is inconsistent with prior agreements
made with the County and VDOT regarding the maximum commercial area before subsequent Route 29
improvements are required. No explanation has been provided as to why this was increased.
Recommendation
: Staff believes the Route 29 improvements proffer should be offered without
consideration of the CDA. Additionally, staff believes the Route 29 proffers should not be conditioned on
the availability of right-of-way or the applicant should offer to reimburse the County for the cost of
condemnation if adequate right-of-way is not available. Staff recommends the commercial area allowed
with the initial Route 29 improvements be returned to the agreed upon 290,000 square feet. Finally, staff
believes the applicant should proffer completion of the Route 29 improvements within a fixed period of
time. Staff has previously suggested five years, but has also asked the applicant to state what they believe
is a reasonable period of time.
_____
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 51
Leake Road
- Leake Road is the entrance to the development from Proffit Road. It is a privately
held easement that the developer has the right to dedicate to public use. It is 50 feet in width. Leake Road
is important because it helps to create one of the parallel streets in the Route 29 North corridor and
provides an important access to the commercial property. The outstanding issues related to Leake Road
are inadequate right-of-way for the completed roadway and Proffit Road entrance improvements as shown
on the Application Plan.
Recommendation
: Staff believes that a commitment for completion of a reduced section street
with the first site plan or subdivision plat is appropriate. This street section should be designed so it can be
easily converted to match North Pointe Boulevard in the future. Finally, staff believes a proffer to complete
the improvements related to the entrance at Proffit Road with approval of the first site plan or subdivision
plat is appropriate.
_____
Proffit Road
- Proffer Road requires lane improvements in order to address the anticipated traffic
with North Pointe. The applicant has previously proffered to contribute money to the design and
construction of these improvements. Staff believes it is more appropriate for the applicant to proffer
completion of the improvements with the first site than to offer cash contributions.
Recommendation:
Staff believes a commitment to complete the Proffit Road improvements with
the first site plan or subdivision plat is appropriate. Staff would find it acceptable for this commitment to be
satisfied if VDOT has constructed the needed Proffit Road improvements prior to them being required by
North Point.
_____
Access to Adjacent Parcels in Commercial Areas -
The Application Plan shows two points to
access adjacent parcels through commercial areas. The access points to the commercial areas are
entitled, “r.o.w. access easement” and “potential access easement”. Use of the term “easement” rather
than “reservation” sets up conflict in terms of how access ultimately will be provided to adjacent parcels.
Also at issue is the applicant’s “proffer” for architectural and land use control on adjoining properties.
Although staff has repeatedly requested the applicant to remove this language to provide for consistency in
terms, remove the term “easement” where a “reservation” is actually proposed and make terms consistent
on the Application Plan, the applicant has declined to do so.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends against accepting this proffer until this language satisfies
staff concerns. Staff also recommends that the Board not accept the Application Plan until terms on the
plan are consistent with the proffers.
_____
School -
The applicant has proffered a school site of 12.85 acres, as shown on the Application
Plan. The School Division retained an engineering consultant to determine if a school and fields meeting
their requirements could be constructed on the site. The Parks and Recreation Department has looked at
the recreational fields and determined that, while the size is acceptable for use with recreation
programming, irrigation is needed. The consultant for the School Division provided alternatives for the
school to confirm that the site could be used if stormwater management and auxiliary parking for 20 to 30
spaces were provided off-site. They also stated that fill on the site would need to be compacted to meet
current specifications to support a building. The School Board has endorsed the site with these conditions.
Because the School Board could not approve the layout shown by the applicant, the School Division has
asked that the layout be removed from the Application Plan.
Issues of stormwater management and off-site parking have not been resolved. The proffers only
provide for mains for an underground irrigation system. There is still no commitment to complete
necessary access and stormwater improvements for use of this site by the County within a fixed timeframe.
Without these improvements, it is possible the school site could not be available when needed, which
greatly diminishes the value of the site.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that the applicant resolve issues related to stormwater
management, provide complete irrigation of the ball fields, ensure that street design allows for on-street
parking on both sides of the street in front of the school and remove the building and parking lot layout from
the Application Plan. Staff recommends that the Board not accept the Application Plan until these items
are resolved satisfactorily.)
_____
Residential Uses:
Mix of Residential Uses
-The Application Plan and land use breakdown shown on the title page
show the following mix: 228 single-family detached units (26% of the total), 101 attached units
(townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes) for 11 percent of the total, and 564 multi-family units (in
apartment buildings or above commercial space in Buildings 18, 20, 22 and 37 which are located near the
library) for 63 percent of the total. This mix is not consistent with previous Commission recommendations
or verbal commitments of the applicant to the Committee of the Board. The Commission recommended a
range of 23 to 43 percent of each unit type.
Concerning the proffers, Proffers 3.1 and 3.2 say that the developer either reserves the right to do
the mix shown on the Application Plan or to do a mix of 23 to 43 percent. The proffer has little meaning if
the applicant can either do 64 percent multifamily or 43 percent multifamily.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 52
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that the mix described in the proffers be removed from the
proffers and that a special use permit condition be attached which conditions the mix to 23 to 43 percent of
each dwelling unit type. Additionally, staff recommends that the Residential Land Use Breakdown on the
title page be removed and a total number of dwelling units be noted.)
_____
Access to Adjacent Parcels in Residential Areas -
The Application Plan shows access from
residential areas to adjacent parcels zoned RA in six locations. Staff believes that the addition of four new
points of access to adjacent parcels is a positive change to the Plan last seen by the Commission. At issue
is the fact that there are four different notations for access to adjacent parcels on the Plan or in the proffers.
These notations include the phrases, “public access easement”, “emergency access easement”, “r.o.w.
access easement”, “future public access easement”, and “temporary reservation”. For all items but, “public
access easements”, the proffers allow for reservation for dedication on demand of the County. Use of the
term “easement” rather than “reservation” sets up conflict in terms of how access will ultimately be provided
to adjacent parcels. Also, at issue is the applicant’s “proffer” for architectural and land use control on
adjoining properties.
As stated in the previous section regarding access to adjoining parcels through commercial areas,
staff has consistently requested the applicant to remove this language, provide for consistency in terms,
remove the term, “easement” where a “reservation” is actually proposed and make terms consistent on the
Application Plan. The applicant declines to do so.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that access to adjacent parcels be made a condition of the
special use permit. Staff also recommends that the Board not accept the Application Plan until terms are
made consistent with either proffers or special use permit conditions.)
_____
Overlot grading plan -
The applicant has proffered an overlot grading plan for the single-family
residential portions of the site. Staff is satisfied with the proffer; however, staff believes that making it part
of the special use permit conditions could simplify the proffers.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that the overlot grading plan be a special use permit
condition.
_____
Phasing with Commercial -
The Board has been concerned that residential uses be built in the
development sooner rather than later. To address this issue, the applicant has proffered that no more than
50 percent of commercial square footage will be started until at least 25 percent of the residential units
have building permits. Staff recommended this amount to the developer who has now provided a proffer.
Since the concern is for the residential use, staff believes that a special use permit condition would be more
appropriate than a proffer. Adding the restriction as a special use permit condition could simplify the
proffers.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that the special use permit include a requirement that at
least 25 percent of the residential units will be started before more than 50 percent of the commercial
square footage is started.)
_____
Buffer along Pritchett
- The Application Plan shows a 50-foot heavily vegetated buffer along
Pritchett, which the staff and Commission recommended last year or the year before. Staff and the
Commission both were concerned about a portion of the buffer – 20 feet – being placed on individual lots.
Private property owners rarely review covenants concerning existing vegetation on their lot prior to
removing it. For that reason, the Commission and staff strongly recommended that the 50-foot buffer be
placed in common open space. The applicant has expressed a different opinion and has continued to
show the buffer split between 30 feet as common area and 20 feet on the individual lots backing up to
Pritchett Lane. Slight changes to the proffers have resulted in contradictions between the Plan and the
proffers.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that the Application Plan not be approved until it shows a
50-foot buffer in common open space. Staff also recommends that the 50-foot buffer be included as a
condition of the special use permit.
_____
Open Space and Amenities for residents -
The Plan shows many areas of open space and
several areas for amenities. The Application Plan now indicates that 44 percent of the residential area is
provided as open space. Although this figure looks extremely high, it should be noted that all but five of the
ten park/open space areas are proposed in steep slopes or wetlands. Of the 44 percent, only three percent
is not in steep slopes or wetlands.
The amenities include areas for passive recreation, with trails and benches and areas for active
recreation, including two swimming pools with clubhouses, tot lots, basketball and tennis courts. Sheet G
of the Application Plan shows the open space areas and calculations. Missing information from this sheet
was provided on May 19 and has not yet been analyzed. Staff hopes to be able to complete its analysis
before the Board’s work session to see whether previous issues related to the size of the swimming pools
and the population to be served have been satisfied.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 53
An extensive trail system is shown on the Application Plan for North Pointe. Some of the trails
proposed would be primitive and others would be improved. Some of the trails would be public and others
would be private. If the Board decides to accept dedication of the lake, staff believes the trails around the
lake and the trail connecting the lake to the school should also be public.
Specific recommended changes to the trails shown on the Application Plan are included with the
comments in Attachment B.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that the Board accept the applicant’s offer to dedicate trails
near the school for public use. Staff will provide additional recommendations on the parks, trails, and open
space amenities at the Board’s meeting, if needed.
_____
Library -
A fully-graded library pad of 15,000 square feet, graded and with utilities, is proffered if a
CDA is approved by the Board. Also proffered is “a nonexclusive easement to the adjacent common area
for ingress, egress and sufficient ordinance required parking”. Additionally, the applicant has proffered a
financing mechanism for the County or Regional Library Board to construct the library.
The library is viewed as a key element to the Application Plan and an anchor for the center of the
development. If the applicant wishes to provide the library site as a way to mitigate impacts, the offer
should be made free and clear of the CDA. There is no alternative use of this area shown on the
Application Plan and a conflict will exist if the CDA is not approved. It would be preferable to have an
alternate County use available, such as a recreational area, community center or County satellite office, if
needed in a future CIP. In addition, the shown library pad is not consistent with the area shown on the
Plan. In addition, this proffer provides no assurance that this pad, road and utilities will be available to the
County when needed.
Recommendation
: Remove the condition of a CDA for the library site or provide for an alternative
use if the CDA is not approved. Make the area for the library pad stated in the proffers consistent with the
area shown on the Plan. Ensure that the pad, road and utilities will be available to the County when
needed and allow the County to use this site for other County uses.
_____
Affordable Housing -
The applicant has proffered three-percent of the residential dwelling units as
affordable which translates into nine single-family detached, nine single-family attached, and nine multi-
family units. At least five units will be provided each year until the commitment has been satisfied. He has
also proffered a contribution of $100,000 to Habitat for Humanity, $100,000 for the Piedmont Housing
Alliance, and $50,000 for the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program over five years, provided that each
of these charities matches the amount dollar for dollar and matching funds have been raised from new
donors or as increased contributions over the prior year from existing donors. This proffer is also
dependent on use of a CDA.
Staff continues to make the positive note that the applicant is the first developer in many years to
proffer affordable housing. Staff also notes the positive aspect of mixing units with a contribution to
different organizations that help to meet affordable housing needs. However, there are a number of
problems with the proffer. First, the matching grant offer could not be enforced by the County and should
be removed from the proffers. Any matching grants to these organizations should be made outside of this
rezoning. Second, no commitment to affordable housing exists without the CDA. This lack of commitment
runs contrary to the County’s affordable housing goals for new residential development. Third, the
“programmatic aspects” of providing affordable housing are still sketchy. With regard to this third aspect,
staff is working on language to recommend to the applicant to be used with the proffer of the affordable
units.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that, if the applicant wishes to proffer affordable housing, it
be made unconditionally and not part of a CDA. If the applicant wishes to commit to three percent of the
units as affordable, staff requests that the percentage be replaced with an actual number (27 in this case)
and that the units be comprised of a mix of housing types. Staff further recommends that these units be
available for sale as affordable housing to eligible first-time buyers approved by the County’s Office of
Housing. At least five affordable dwelling units should be made available for sale each year until all 27 are
offered. Affordable rental units need not be proffered. It is also suggested that the annual cash
contribution described above be made directly to the County and applied to the Albemarle Housing
Initiative Fund for funding affordable housing programs, including those provided by nonprofit housing
agencies within Albemarle County. The cash contribution should not be contingent on matching funds.
Final language for this proffer needs to be developed. Because this proffer pertains to the residential
areas, it could be replaced by a special use permit condition.
_____
Bus Stops -
The applicant has proffered to provide ten bus stops in the development and $25,000
for bus shelters. Staff strongly supports the provision of the bus stops in the development but continues to
have problems with the cash proffer. As worded, the applicant seems to be giving money to the County to
build the bus shelters. On numerous occasions, staff has asked the applicant to commit to building the
shelters or be specific as to whom the cash proffer is made and for what purpose.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 54
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that the applicant commit to building the bus shelters or be
specific as to whom the $25,000 is proffered and for what purpose. At this time $25,000 would provide for
two bus shelters.
_____
Park and Ride
- The applicant is proffering a park and ride facility for up to 100 spaces if the
Zoning Administrator will approve shared parking. Staff believes that this is not a valid proffer because the
applicant is not offering a minimum number of spaces and because it is contingent on the Zoning
Administrator’s approval.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that the applicant proffer a minimum number of park and
ride spaces, and a maximum number if the applicant wishes, that are not contingent on Zoning
Administrator approval or remove the proffer.
_____
CDA -
A CDA is proposed as a proffer to be used as a funding mechanism to provide several of the
improvements identified in the proffers. Because the approval of the CDA is a separate and distinct
legislative act from the zoning decision, the zoning decision cannot be dependent in any way upon the
future approval of the CDA.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that this type of CDA not be included as a proffer. If the
applicant’s CDA application is considered in the future by the Board, the Board can consider the projects
that are appropriate for the CDA to fund and how the CDA would be obligated to do so.
_____
Retail Absorption and Stale Zoning -
Commercial/office square footage proposed has increased
from 664,000 square feet to 676,670 square feet. Some of the additional square footage has been
removed from the “commercial” use category and added to the “office” use category. This change has
resulted in minimal impact to the rezoning.
The Board-appointed committee, which worked on the design, also discussed the issue pertaining
to retail absorption. The committee did not take issue with the applicant’s proposed commercial square
footage based on an acceptable overall plan for development.
Both the Commission and staff believe that the square footage for retail use seems excessive in
relation to the need for additional commercial area on Route 29 North. The retail absorption analysis
provided by staff earlier in the rezoning resulted in statements that the market cannot absorb this amount of
additional commercial square footage in a reasonable period of time. The result of having commercial
zoning placed on land so far in advance of its actual development would be stale zoning.
Recommendation
: Staff acknowledges the Committee’s conclusions; however, it cannot
recommend approval of the rezoning with the amount of commercial square footage requested.
_____
Stormwater management -
The applicant now has demonstrated that the stormwater
management proposed could satisfy ordinance requirements with no modifications. He will be expected to
comply fully with ordinance requirements at time of site plan or subdivision plat. Two issues remain that
the applicant has not adequately addressed. First, staff has repeatedly requested that grading for
stormwater management facilities not extend into conservation areas. Two facilities continue to show
grading in the conservation areas despite repeated requests to modify the shown facilities such that
grading does not require clearing and grading of conservation areas. Second, staff has requested a firm
commitment to construction of the street and associated storm drainage in front of the school site. Without
completion of this infrastructure, the school will need to complete the storm sewer for the street in order to
use the proposed basin.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that the applicant revise the Application Plan to remove all
stormwater facility grading from the conservation area. Additionally, staff recommends that the applicant
provide a firm commitment to the timely completion of the necessary infrastructure to allow the school site
to use the stormwater management facility.)
_____
Waivers and Modifications:
Critical Slopes Waiver Request -
The Commission reviews and acts on all critical slopes requests
from developers. The Board makes decisions on critical slopes only when an applicant appeals the
decision of the Commission or when the Commission has not taken an affirmative action on a rezoning or
special use permit that includes a critical slopes waiver. In this case, the Commission denied the critical
slopes waiver request as well as recommended disapproval of the rezoning and special use permit.
Page I of the Application Plan (Attachment A), shows that critical slopes exist in several areas of
the site. Critical slopes information requested by the Engineering Department was provided late in 2003.
The slopes that are important environmental features on the Open Space Plan are now shown in
preservation areas and conservation areas. An overlot grading plan has been proffered for the single-
family areas and the proffers contain commitments to regrade slopes to no steeper than 3:1 and limit the
size of retaining walls. Because of additional information provided after the Commission’s meeting, staff
believes the critical slope waiver is appropriate for the residential areas where an overlot grading plan has
been proffered, if the rezoning is approved.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 55
Major disturbance and in some cases elimination of the remaining critical slopes is shown on the
conceptual grading plan. In the remaining non single-family residential areas, given the scale of the
Application Plan, there is not enough detail for staff to determine what conditions might be appropriate for
the critical slope waiver.
Recommendation
: Staff recommends that if the Board chooses to approve the rezoning, the
critical slopes waiver for the single-family residential areas be approved. Staff recommends that the critical
slope waiver for the areas other than that covered by the overlot grading proffer not be approved and be
considered as part of the site plan submittal. If the Board wishes to grant a critical slope waiver for the
entire site, staff would recommend the critical slope waiver be conditioned on these items: 1) All proposed
grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two feet and all drainage swales shall be
clearly indicated. 2) Graded slopes of more than five feet elevation change shall not be steeper than 3:1
(horizontal distance: vertical distance), except the Agent may allow grades up to 2:1 when satisfied the
landscaping will assure the slope is acceptably vegetated and the size of the slope is not considered a
barrier to use of the property. 3) Retaining walls must be no higher than ten feet (10’) and provide safety
rails if any part is over four feet (4’) tall.
_____
Modification to Setback Requirements of Section 21 -
Section 21 of the Zoning Ordinance
provides setback and buffer requirements for commercial districts. It requires that buildings be set back 50
feet from residential zones, which includes RA.
The proposed setbacks at the perimeter of the site are considerably less than 50 feet. The
applicant has requested a modification to this section; however, the request is actually at odds with the
distances shown on the plan. Section 8.2 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for modifications or waivers of
these setbacks.
If the Board chooses to approve the rezoning, staff recommends that the Board approve a
modification of the 50-foot requirement in Section 21 for North Pointe and that only a 20-foot setback be
required at the perimeter of the district.
_____
Summary and Recommendations:
North Pointe originally was submitted in August of 2000. After the first set of review comments, the
applicant deferred indefinitely. He submitted a traffic study in late 2001, which was reviewed by VDOT and
the County. By mid-summer of 2002, the applicant had satisfied all of VDOT’s issues regarding the traffic
study and in September of 2002, the applicant resubmitted an Application Plan and proffers. Since that
time, the Commission has held four work sessions on the application, held two public hearings, and met
two additional times to take action. Twice the Commission recommended denial of this application. The
Board has held two work sessions on this project and a Committee appointed by the Board met three times
in an attempt to see if design issues could be answered.
The committee found a compromise design but advised staff to seek ARB comments on this
design. The compromise design and ARB comments are now before the Board. Staff has also reviewed
three versions of the proffers since this application came before the Board in December, 2003 and many of
staff’s concerns, including those of the County Attorney, Engineering, Planning and Zoning, remain
unaddressed. With the current plan and proffers, staff would recommend denial of this application.
At this juncture, staff’s recommendations for changes to the Plan and proffers have been provided
several times to the applicant, but many remain substantially unaddressed. Thus, it appears further
applicant requests to address staff’s recommendations will be fruitless. Therefore, once the Board
provides guidance to staff on any changes the Board believes are appropriate, it appears this application is
ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. If a July 14 public hearing is desired, staff would need the
Application Plan and proffers no later than June 11in order to complete the review and staff report. If a
later date is preferred to provide the applicant time to address those recommendations, staff would need to
have the Application Plan and proffers no later than four weeks before the public hearing.)
Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner, said staff has identified 24 areas where there is disagreement
between the applicant and staff (see those items listed above in the staff’s report). Within those 24 items
there are different levels of details, some big and some little. However, there are some significant areas of
disagreement and the Board asked that staff bring those items to them for discussion rather than continue
trying to talk to the applicant. She then went through the staff report set out above including Attachments A
- F. She noted that on Attachment D (beginning on Page 54) which is the proffer statement, staff inserted
comments from the County Attorney and the staff for each proffer. Attachment E is staff’s comparison of
the proffers for Albemarle Place, Hollymead Town Center and North Pointe. She noted that the applicant
sent the Board members his comparison of the proffers by e-mail late last night.
Ms. Echols said she would like to mention some of the big issues including the roads and some of
the substantive issues relating to whether something should be a proffer or a special use permit condition.
Mr. Boyd said Attachment C is supposedly the latest set of proffers from the applicant, but they are
not addressed in the summary at the beginning of the staff’s report. He asked if those are the proffers
addressed in Attachment D. Ms. Echols said when she wrote the staff’s report, those were the current
proffers. She thinks it would be best to just look at the proffers mailed with the staff’s report for this meeting
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 56
Mr. Bowerman said he hopes that eventually this thing will settle down so there will be an
application from the applicant and staff’s recommendation on that specific request.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said he would speak about transportation
issues. He talked about the paragraph in the staff’s report entitled “Internal Streets.” He said the first
intersection on Route 29 is part of the commercial development, then to complete the road called Northside
Drive, then part of North Pointe Boulevard all the way to Proffit Road including Leake Road, plus
improvements on Proffit, would essentially give a complete loop road, so there would be a transportation
backbone to build off of. A part of this has been the question of a two-lane road versus a four-lane road.
Staff has recommended designing the road as a two-lane road with on-street parking. This is similar to
what was done with Ridge Road in the Hollymead Town Center, and also what has been proposed for the
Hillsdale Connector road. It should be a two-lane divided road with on-street parking, with sidewalks and
bike lanes on both sides, plus a planting strip. If the long-range transportation study done with the area
master plan identifies this as being a major backbone to transportation needs, there would be the ability to
convert the road in the future to a four-lane road.
Mr. Graham said another item of concern for staff is that the applicant is offering $25,000 toward a
regional transportation study. He said both Albemarle Place and Hollymead Town Center proffered a
contribution of $100,000 toward this project. This is a similar size of development, and staff thinks a similar
contribution is appropriate.
Mr. Graham said there are two sets of improvements to Route 29 in the proffers. Some are
required by VDOT to get the intersections put in. Then there are others which are over and above those
improvements. When putting in the crossovers, VDOT will require a signal and left turn lanes. VDOT will
require a third lane 1000 feet north and 1000 feet south of each intersection. The applicant’s proffer at this
time is conditional on approval of his CDA. The idea is that he could go from that point 1000 feet and
connect so there is a continuous road. He said VDOT has indicated to him that they would not allow this to
be carried through as a third lane, drop the third lane, then come another 500 to 800 feet and pick up a
third lane. As part of approval for the crossover, VDOT would require a third lane all the way through. He
does not consider that to be something above and beyond what is a requirement for the development.
Mr. Graham said in reference to the Route 29 improvements, VDOT has indicated they are not in a
position to require the improvements as part of the intersection improvements. Staff has asked the
applicant several times to commit in the proffers to all of the improvements off of Route 29 regardless of
whether there is a CDA or not. Staff feels they are all reasonably appropriate in association with this
development. Staff has also asked for a calendar date by which these improvements would be done. At
this time, the applicant has set the completion of these improvements based on the phase of completion of
the development. He thinks they will end up agreeing that when 290,000 feet of commercial has been built,
some of the improvements will be completed. Another road would be completed upon completion of 593
residential units. Because the road ends at Lewis & Clarke in the North Fork development, it is a critical
regional transportation component and staff would like to see a commitment as to when it would be
completed. Also, the road will be needed when the County uses the proposed school site. He then offered
to answer questions.
Mr. Wyant asked if there is a round-about on Proffit Road. Mr. Graham said “yes.” There has been
a preliminary analysis of it, and VDOT has reviewed it. VDOT said a signalized intersection would not work
at this location because of the distance between Route 29 and Worth Crossing/Leake Road.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Graham was paralleling the need for a four-lane road there with what happened
at Hollymead Town Center. He views that differently. Looking at Hollymead Town Center, that potentially
could be a true parallel road to Route 29. He sees this as just serving the neighborhood and the
commercial area. He does not view it as a cut-through. He said Berkmar Drive Extended all the way from
Rio Road to Airport Road would truly serve the need for a four-lane parallel road to Route 29. He asked
how Mr. Graham is relating that and the distance and this development.
Mr. Graham said this was originally proposed as a four-lane road because VDOT felt it was
appropriate for it to be four-laned. The idea was that in the bigger context of this area there was a giant
loop coming around to Route 29 that could effectively serve this area. Staff is concerned because this is
being done ahead of doing the area master plan, and a transportation study. He said staff does not have
the answers and he cannot say it needs to be four-laned. If it is designed as a two-lane road, and there is
no ability to convert to a four-lane road, that opportunity will be closed. There would be no need for a
transportation study to look at how this could be a major link in the transportation network. He does not
want the County to forego any opportunity that may exist until the transportation study has been completed.
Mr. Boyd asked if VDOT has backed off of their requirement that it be a four-lane road. Mr.
Graham said VDOT said they cannot require it because there has been no transportation master plan
saying there is a need for a four-lane road in this area.
Mr. Boyd said he is concerned about the economic impact of doing it. What will it cost the
developer to include that in a proffer to reserve that? Mr. Graham asked if Mr. Boyd was saying that
instead of providing on-street parking along this road, the developer could provide additional parking in the
adjoining development. Mr. Boyd said he is misunderstanding what the difference in thought is. He
thought the developer did not want to leave space for a four-lane road. Mr. Graham said he would prefer to
dedicate no more right-of-way than he has to. Mr. Boyd said that is obvious because of the economic
value of not doing that. Mr. Graham said he is trying to weigh that against the potential cost risk to the
County of foregoing that opportunity in the future. The compromise he has suggested is to provide on-
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 57
street parking on this road. That would provide the space that could be turned into travel lanes if it is found
that there is a need for that in the future. After the transportation master plan is finished, if it turns out that it
is not needed, the developer could use that parking in lieu of additional parking here.
Mr. Dorrier said the parking has been offered as a compromise, but what about the timing of
building the roads. Mr. Graham said he is concerned that the developer has it tied to phasing.
Hypothetically, what if it were 20 years before the developer got the 550 residential units built? These
improvements would not be built for 20 years.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Graham wanted to link it to a timetable. Mr. Graham said he would like to
have a date by which these improvements would be done. If this is supposed to provide a community
benefit to the County it has to be done in time to match that need.
Mr. Dorrier said if the applicant would agree to a timetable for the road and assuming the County
can get the parking spaces on the road, what are the other problems? Mr. Graham said there are some
minor things in the proffer. The applicant is still linking improvements in here to the availability of right-of-
way. In neither Albemarle Place nor Hollymead Town Center did the applicants qualify their proffers based
on the availability of right-of-way. He believes they were anticipating coming to the County and asking for
assistance in obtaining right-of-way if they got into that position. He said staff would like to see sidewalks
on both sides of Northwest Passage with planting strips. That is still not shown on the typical sections.
There are a number of little details like that which staff is working through. The big issues are the timing of
the Route 29 improvements and the two-lane/four-lane section.
Mr. Boyd said as concerns the need for a specific number of residential units before completion of
the road improvements, is Mr. Graham saying the road improvements are necessary now? He thought the
road improvements were needed because of the development that would be put there. Mr. Graham said
the road improvements are a shared need; they are needed now with the crossovers because of the
stacking which occurs with the signal. There has to be extra lighting to move the traffic through the signals.
That is a VDOT requirement. In the long term there will be a need as the total volume of traffic increases
up and down Route 29. The applicant has said this is where he is providing added value to the County.
He is providing value to the County while addressing his immediate need, but in the longer term he will be
taking care of something that will be a regional transportation need. There is no need in the immediate
future for those third lanes. Twenty years from now, there would probably be that need.
Ms. Thomas said she understands part of that need is caused by the retail, but the trigger points
are the number of residential units. Mr. Graham said the number of residential units is the trigger on this
one. The amount of commercial space is the trigger on this one (pointing to a map). He thinks 290,000
square feet of commercial area will be the final number; that is the number VDOT agreed to early in the
process. The applicant plans to put in this entrance earlier as a right-in, right-out, no crossover. That is
fine with staff as long as there is the backbone for the rest of the development.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the only difference between the two and four lanes is the amount of right-
of-way that Mr. Rotgin is willing to donate. Mr. Graham said “no.” It is actually the pavement width also.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the two lanes and the on-street parking takes up all four lanes of traffic. Mr.
Graham said “yes.” If there is on-street parking and it turns out that the four-lane road is needed, he will
have to provide parking here.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Rotgin if he did not want the on-street parking initially.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Rotgin to speak.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin said over the last six months working with staff and the ad-hoc committee, they
came up with a general design that was unanimously approved by those in attendance. He thought the
Board also acknowledged that the design was appropriate. Things being talked about today are important
details, but he wants to talk about the road which will be going in with the first phase of construction. It will
be completed or bonded before the first certificate of occupancy is issued in the commercial area. They do
not want that to be a four-lane highway, and that has been said in many meetings. This is a self-contained,
mixed-use community where people can live, work, shop, play, and go to school without having to get into
their car, and without necessarily having to get onto Route 29.
Mr. Rotgin said Mr. Boyd made a good point earlier. Ridge Road in Hollymead Town Center on the
other side of Route 29 is scheduled to be a through road that could be extended southward to Berkmar
Drive across the River and it would be a true alternate road to get from Rio Road to the University
Research Park. He thinks Ridge Road would be the extension of the Meadow Creek Parkway which the
Board took out of the County’s Six-Year Highway Plan; it would now never be a true road across the river
on the east side of Route 29. What they are talking about is a local network serving Forest Lakes,
Hollymead, North Pointe, the University Research Park and the Hollymead Town Center area. He said
what Mr. Graham is suggesting requires 24 feet of additional pavement which takes three acres of land
through the most valuable and important part of the center and they do not want four lanes going through
that area. They cannot conceive of a scenario where that would need to be four lanes of pavement plus a
bike lane.
Mr. Rotgin said they have established enough right-of-way so if four lanes of highway are ever
needed, they can be put it in. It might take one side of the sidewalk or one of the planting strips, but there
is room for lanes, but not enough room to put sidewalks, planting strips, curb and gutter, the bike lanes,
and single lanes of traffic. It is designed now with a bike lane and a travelway in each direction with 17 feet
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 58
of pavement which is a width that can accommodate two cars. It has a 16-foot wide median strip between
the travelways. They agree with staff that this main road is an important interconnection between other
neighborhoods, and the road will be built early.
Mr. Rotgin said another issue mentioned by Mr. Graham is Northwest Passage. It is a very difficult
site with steep terrain. This was actually the number one site for the Baker-Butler Elementary School
several years ago, but when County staff asked VDOT what type of road had to be built, the cost of a road
was estimated at $2.0 million. The roadway is no less expensive now. It is not just this roadway, but what
would have to be done along Route 29. They don’t feel people will be walking along that road, so they
think a sidewalk on one side of the road is sufficient. That is the only place they have not exceeded staff’s
request that there be an urban street schedule for the rest of the roads. They agree with that
recommendation. They want to change the paradigm of development with North Pointe to incorporate the
principles of the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Rotgin said the timetable will be tied to the CDA. They said that if a tax assessment CDA is
approved by the Board of Supervisors they will “do all of that stuff” without any conditions. He said those
road improvements are so expensive that they need some help. They need to build an access with lower
cost financing. He said Mr. Rooker had said at several meetings that as long as the proffer values are
equal, he has no problem with that. If they get the CDA which will let them save money on interest, they
will do all of the work on Route 29 without respect to a condition, and they will agree on a timetable. Also,
on the issue of Northwest Passage, they think a sidewalk and street trees on one side is appropriate,
otherwise there are grading issues. He said they added “this piece” to the North Pointe application, but
they do not own this piece. It is a piece of land which would serve the school site so they have agreed to
include it. There is no way the apartments in this area will pay for this road and for the road work that has
to be done on Route 29.
Mr. Rotgin said Mr. Graham had talked about right-of-way issues. They think it is a non-issue
because VDOT told them there is sufficient right-of-way all the way from Airport Road to Lewis & Clarke to
put in a third lane. That is something that can be resolved before the public hearing. He said they have
been asking for the staff report for over a month, and just received a copy yesterday so have had little time
to focus on it.
Mr. Bowerman said it is important to him that staff has enough time to give the applicant a report
and the applicant in turn has enough time to answer that report so the Board knows where things actually
stand. It is very confusing to try and deal with the issues. Mr. Rotgin said they just got the report and they
turned in the plan on April 16. He asked that the Board give instructions to the applicant and staff to get
together over the next couple of weeks to work out differences.
Mr. Dorrier said this session has served to focus on the problems.
Ms. Thomas asked the distance from curb to curb on North Pointe Boulevard where there is a
question of having four lanes or not. Mr. Rotgin said it is 72 feet, and there would have to be another 24
feet added to have two extra lanes.
Ms. Thomas asked if the pedestrian way and the median were given up, what the distance would
be. Mr. Rotgin said they do not need parking along there, and they do not want parking along there. Mr.
Graham said staff is objecting to using the median and the planting strips for the potential four-lanes. It is
not just a matter of busting out some curb and gutter and pushing the curb out a couple of feet. All the
drainage structures with an urban road are tied in to that curb line. Essentially, the whole storm sewer
would have to be rebuilt as well, so the whole road would have to be torn out along with all of the other
utilities. The median could be taken out easily, but there would be no room for left-turn lanes.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board is getting into specifics of the road itself. He wonders if the conversation
should not move to another set of problems. Mr. Rotgin said the two-lane as opposed to a four-lane design
is quite important to them because it requires an additional 24 feet of right-of-way.
Mr. Dorrier said that seems to be the critical issue. Mr. Rotgin said he does not remember that
VDOT initially thought it should be four lanes, but VDOT is not requiring that to be four lanes at this time.
The traffic studies do not show enough traffic to justify four lanes. It would be helpful to them if they had
some directions from the Board as to this question. If they have to accede to the four-lane right-of-way
they are widening the road by 24 feet.
Ms. Thomas said if the median strip is 16 feet wide she thinks the argument is about only eight feet
because they could give up the median strip if the road had to become a four-lane road. Mr. Rotgin said if
the four lanes had to go in what they are proposing as right-of-way, the median strip goes away and staff
does not want that green space to go away. That is the whole issue. They are saying there is enough
room to put four lanes of pavement if necessary, but to do that would take the median strip and probably
one of the planting strips.
Mr. Wyant asked if the median strip is 16 feet wide. Mr. Rotgin said “yes.” Mr. Wyant said eight
feet could be taken from the median strip. Mr. Bowerman said he would work with that. He thinks Mr.
Graham’s remark about the curb should be where the curbs and drainage stay. If that could be put in the
current plan with two lanes, and then in the future if the applicant has to sacrifice a planting strip and the
median, that might be an acceptable way to approach it. Mr. Rotgin said they will try to do that. He said if
this plan were approved today, they would be back this time next year talking about site plan
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 59
improvements. This will not happen soon. By that time, it is possible the study Mr. Graham mentioned
would be complete and it might show there is not a need for the four lanes through there.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the second set of proffers.
Mr. Graham said there are two other things which need to be discussed. One is the CDA and the
number of proffers which are tied to it. He asked if the Board wanted to consider the number of things tied
to the CDA at the time it considers the CDA.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks it is important that Mr. Rooker be present during that discussion.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Rooker told her he agrees that almost everything staff has come up with as
points of concern have to be handled if he is going to support this application.
Mr. Graham said the third thing was mentioned by Mr. Rotgin, and that is the appropriateness of
using special use permit conditions associated with the residential uses.
Mr. Rotgin said that is a big issue. He said when this was discussed previously the discussion
related to the tax assessment CDA they are proposing and a tax district CDA which was approved by this
Board in connection with the Hollymead and Albemarle Place projects. The Board asked staff and the
applicant to come up with a comparison of proffers to show that the excess value of the proffers they are
proposing is such that it would be appropriate for the County to consider creating a CDA using the special
tax assessment district. They suggested that if the County wanted to see public infrastructure put into
place concurrent with development that might be the best financing vehicle available. He said Mr. Rooker
had said at another meeting that he did not want to be put in a position of denying the private sector the
ability to take advantage of low cost financing if it is to the advantage of the County. It is their chore to try
and explain to the County why the tax assessment district is best (all of the CDAs in Virginia have been
issued on that basis except for one which is a joint CDA). He asked that the Board members read his e-
mail from last night.
Mr. Rotgin said with respect to the proffers and special use permits, what needs to be looked at
what is needed by the community in the way of public infrastructure whether or not it is caused by the
impact of a particular development. The Board and the applicant should not spend time talking about
whether a private developer’s proffer is a proffer or a special use permit condition. He thinks they should
stay focused on what the private sector and the County can accomplish working together.
Mr. Rotgin drew the Board’s attention to the next agenda item concerning amendments to the
Subdivision Ordinance. He said if the County does not recognize as proffers costly offers from the private
sector for urban streetscape, parallel roads, interconnected streets, preservation areas, conservation
areas, park and ride spaces, bus-able areas, affordable housing and overlot grading plans, which are not
ordinance requirements, where are the incentives in the development community to embrace the
Neighborhood Model or attempt to comply to Comprehensive Plan densities? He asked that the Board
focus on this question.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board just approved two projects on which it did what Mr. Rotgin just
mentioned. Mr. Rotgin said in his case staff has pulled out things which they say are proffers, put them
aside and are showing them as special use permit conditions. He explained in his e-mail last night why
they object. He doesn’t care what they are called. They are all public infrastructure. It is all stuff that the
County either needs or desires. Little of it is from the impact of North Pointe. Since they are using the
value of those proffers to establish whether or not what they are proposing is sufficient enough for this
Board to consider creating a CDA as a special assessment district, then it becomes very important.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a legal difference in the proffers and a special use permit.
Mr. Davis said he knows Mr. Rotgin wants to present the value of his project, and that is important,
but it has nothing to do with why staff is recommending special use permit conditions versus proffers.
Special use permit conditions are a means where in a district which requires a special use, the Board can
put on reasonable conditions necessary to address the impacts that development would have on adjoining
property and adjoining development. Using special use permit conditions is a more efficient way for staff to
deal with those issues. Proffers are voluntary, wording of those proffers has to be negotiated, and they
must be offered by the developer. There is no reason for the residential component of this development to
have the proffer process. The Board has the legal authority to impose conditions necessary to deal with
that development. That is why staff suggests those be special use permit conditions rather than proffers.
The Board can put whatever value Mr. Rotgin wants on the proffers. That is not the issue for staff.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board needs to look at other conditions which are reasonable. Mr. Rotgin said
they have already offered them all. They have no problem with them being included as special use permit
conditions as long as when the Board looks at the proffer comparison they are given credit for their value.
He said that in Attachment E to the staff report today, no credit is given for those. He asked that the Board
look at the proffer comparison he sent to the Board members last night.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Graham if he gave credit for those things. Mr. Graham said he could not
establish a value on everything. An example of that would be proffering preservation areas. The question
is the value of that to the County versus the value Mr. Rotgin assigned to it. He is saying that areas on
critical slopes which cannot be developed are worth over $600,000. Staff is asking that that area be
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 60
proffered to be maintained undisturbed. He found no basis for that to be considered worth that amount of
money to the County.
Ms. Thomas said that traditionally the Board has not allowed people to say they will follow the rules
and then get credit for having proffered it. She has learned over the years that certain things are proffered
by a developer but they are only proffering what they would be required to do anyway. If a special use
permit can require certain things, it is better for the public to see this as a special condition and easier for
the County to make sure it is followed and done. If someone wants to add up the cost of those, that would
be instructive to the Board, but she does not think it will be a determining factor as to whether this is an
appropriate development.
Mr. Rotgin referred to his e-mail again. He said they believe that the tax assessment form of a
CDA is a critically important financial vehicle to the County in order to achieve development of the
infrastructure he thinks the County wants in partnership with private development. They also said that if the
Board decides it does not want to create those types of authorities, they can go back and almost word for
word match the proffers in terms of value the Board approved for Hollymead Towne Center and Albemarle
Place. That takes out a lot of the “goodies” they think are important to the North Pointe community in order
to make it the integrated, interconnected, pedestrian-oriented community he talked about earlier. If the
Board does not want to consider the CDA tax assessment district, they will make a change in their proffers.
He said North Pointe would not look the same as it looks now. He does not think it would be as good for
the community or the market, but they can do that. Their job is to find a forum where they can hash these
things out and try to make the Board understand the benefit of the CDA as a tax assessment district as
opposed to a special tax district. This is a complicated subject.
Mr. Rotgin said they can go back and change the design, but they could do only the minimum.
They would like to make an effort to impress on the Board the importance of the tax assessment CDA. He
said they went through this in 1984 with Pantops Shopping Center. That shopping center is financed totally
with tax exempt bonds, not just the infrastructure, but the bricks and mortar. The same thing is true of the
Seminole Square Shopping Center. Lots of other facilities have been developed using tax exempt
financing. The CDA is a relatively new vehicle. It gives the locality the ability to work with the private
sector to see how infrastructure can be built. It is not just North Pointe, but the same thing holds true
anywhere public infrastructure is needed.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board needs to set a separate meeting to talk about CDAs. Mr. Tucker said
staff had already planned on doing that. The Board has to think about it as a mechanism which may be
used in every other area of the County where there is major infrastructure needed. It is a policy issue the
Board has to think about.
Mr. Dorrier said the Legislature would not have adopted it unless they thought it was worthwhile.
Mr. Davis said it is an important policy, but the other issue which needs to be looked at is how a
CDA is viewed as part of a zoning application. Legally, a CDA is a separate legislative act the Board has to
take. It cannot be approved as part of a rezoning application. It would have to be done after a public
process with public notice and public hearings. Bond counsel advises that it requires some very particular
detailed development agreements which would have to be entered in setting out what projects would be
required to be undertaken if a CDA were approved. He is concerned that the Board not approve any
rezoning project that is contingent upon promises or improvements in a future CDA because there is no
guarantee that it will be formed. There is no guarantee it will be successful once it is formed. If the proffer
package is contingent upon a future CDA and that is a key element for the Board to think about when
considering if this is an appropriate rezoning, then he cautions the Board that the County might not get the
key improvements important to this development. The proffer package and the rezoning application should
stand on its own without a CDA before it is approved.
Mr. Rotgin said he agrees. They submitted a petition for the creation of a CDA in March of 2003.
Creation of that CDA needs to happen before the rezoning and then the proffers in the rezoning take out
the contingencies, which they can do. If creation of the CDA is not approved, then they withdraw their
rezoning application.
Mr. Dorrier said he believes membership on the CDA is critical. The Board needs to focus on that
issue and whether or not the Board wants a CDA. Mr. Rotgin said the Board has already agreed to two
CDAs.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has not set up any CDAs. The Board has encouraged others to form
them, but it has not set up any CDAs. Mr. Rotgin said he assumes the Board will set up a CDA. He said
that in Mr. Graham’s comparison he gave credit of $2.0 million to each of those communities based on a
CDA. If the Board is not going to approve them, he thinks those values need to be taken out of the
comparison of the proffers. He said the proffer comparison is being “blown out of shape.” They are saying
that if they have the ability to issue the tax exempt bonds to pay for public infrastructure ($13.5 million
which they have qualified for financing), not all of which is necessarily for North Pointe but is infrastructure
they think will make North Pointe the community the Board can see in the design posted on the wall. If the
Board decides CDAs are not something they want to approve, they will back away and change the plan.
Mr. Dorrier asked when the Board will have time to discuss the CDA issue. Mr. Tucker suggested
putting this discussion on the agenda for July 7.
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 61
Mr. Boyd said it was his impression there was nothing in the proffer statements for Albemarle Place
and Hollymead Towne Center that was contingent upon CDAs. Mr. Davis said there is nothing in those
zoning applications contingent on a CDA.
Mr. Boyd referred to the proffers on the comparison and said if the Board never sets up a CDA
those things will have to be done. Mr. Graham said that is true. Mr. Davis said the one exception is that
the cash value of a future CDA that would assess a 25-cent/$100 tax to be collected for some period of
time. Mr. Graham said he included it because it is something this Board controls at this point. Mr. Davis
said the proffer was that they would petition to create a CDA in which the Board could then impose the 25
cents per $100 special tax.
Mr. Boyd said on the other comparisons, $2.0 million and $3.0 million were included. If the Board
is asking Mr. Rotgin to take CDAs out of his proposal, those amounts should be removed also. Mr. Davis
said the CDA concepts are totally opposite in these cases. The CDAs in Albemarle Place and Hollymead
are moneys going into the County’s funds. The CDA proposed by Mr. Rotgin is to build improvements
within his development and adjacent to his development.
Mr. Rotgin said they would be paid for by the same people who would pay the 25 cents
assessment in Hollymead Towne Center and Albemarle Place. Frankly, the tax assessment district will put
more of a burden on the North Pointe commercial area than the 25 cents will put on Hollymead and
Albemarle Place. As a result of that, they will get less money for their land, but because of the ability to
finance those on a favorable interest rate basis, they can put in more infrastructure.
Mr. Boyd said his sheet shows three different totals. He said the figure for North Pointe does not
include a CDA. Mr. Graham said it does not include any proffer tied to a CDA.
Mr. Boyd asked if the $3.4 million figure under Hollymead Towne Center includes any future CDA.
Mr. Graham said it does include $2.1 million. Mr. Boyd said those figures need to be changed. Mr.
Graham said in order to make it an “apples to apples” comparison you would need to take the pre-rezoning
land use versus the land use that is approved under the rezoning. For example, Albemarle Place was
already zoned Industrial. It was rezoned to Planned Development. Hollymead Towne Center Area C was
already zoned commercial. It was changed to Planned Development. There is a very small change in the
land’s value. The big change in Hollymead was in Area B which was zoned Rural Areas and was rezoned
to Planned Development. In that instance, value is being created by a legislative act.
Mr. Boyd said staff was not talking about comparing unimproved property to improved property. It
sounds like Mr. Graham is saying to take the value of the unimproved land as opposed to the improved.
He said the zoning only changes what the land can be improved to. Mr. Graham said by a brushstroke of
the pen the value of the property would be changed.
Mr. Rotgin said with respect to those other two developments, the Comprehensive Plan calls for
the exact uses that are being proposed for all three of them. He said the numbers can be moved around,
but the real issue is what the Board feels comfortable with as a financing vehicle going forward. Under
which scenario will the County citizens be better off? He said the market must be kept in mind, and there is
a limit as to what the market will pay. He said they tried to incorporate into North Pointe everything staff
asked for. There are really only two big issues left. One is the four lanes versus two lanes, and the other is
how the CDA will be established.
Mr. Dorrier asked for an “apples to apples” cost benefit analysis for the July meeting. Mr. Rotgin
said he thinks staff needs to be sure the Board has a clear understanding of the differences between a tax
assessment CDA and a special tax district CDA. Mr. Davis said staff understands the difference between
the two. The difference is that Planning staff evaluated Albemarle Place and Hollymead and said they paid
for those improvements without a CDA while Mr. Rotgin wants to pay for similar improvements with a CDA.
He thinks Mr. Rotgin disagrees with staff over whether they are similar improvements. The issue is
whether Mr. Rotgin is providing more improvements than Hollymead and Albemarle Place with a CDA.
Staff does not agree with Mr. Rotgin about that. That is the basic sticking point.
Mr. Dorrier said there are three completely different projects, but they are continuously compared
as if they are the same type of project.
Mr. Rotgin said he thinks the hardware is in place, it is just a question of the value. Is the school
site worth $1.5 million as the staff says, or is it worth $2.5 million as they say? He said they can bring in an
appraiser, and maybe the County can bring in the County Assessor. Is the library site worth $1.0 million as
they say, or is it worth $500,000 as Mr. Graham says? He said the problem is that with staff pulling out
their proffers and calling them special use permit conditions, they are not getting credit for $750,000 of
affordable housing. That is not fair.
Ms. Thomas said in comparing these three different developments, they are not that similar. Most
of the points in the staff report do not compare this development with another development, but says what
needs to be done in this development. She said Mr. Rooker told her to say for him that those 20 things
have to be taken care of if this is going to receive his support. She thinks the Board should focus on those
things. They should not get hung up on the comparison with the other two developments and forget it is
here to make sure that this development is one in which the Board represented the community’s interests.
Mr. Rotgin said a lot of the problems in those 24 points are semantics. There is different language
in the proffer than on the Application Plan, and that is legitimate. He guesses that when they sit down with
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 62
staff they can work this out. He said a lot of those points relate to the two lanes versus the four lanes and
the CDA. He thinks the conditional proffers need to be pulled out, but they need to have two separate
applications, one to create a CDA as a special assessment district, and proffers without any conditions.
The Board can then decide about the CDA and whether it is worthwhile for the County. If the Board feels it
is not appropriate they would then withdraw the plan as it exists, rework the proffers, rework the plan and
come back with a special tax district CDA similar to what the Board approved for Albemarle Place and
Hollymead Towne Center.
Mr. Dorrier asked that the details be worked out before the Board’s packet is sent out for the July 7
meeting.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the meeting today would not be open-ended, but the list would be
whittled down to the impasse between staff and the developer. He does not want another meeting until
there is something like that.
Mr. Rotgin said they just got the staff report yesterday morning. He thinks the Board needs to
direct him and staff to sit down and work these things out.
Mr. Tucker said staff needs to know what the term “worked out” means. There may not be
agreement.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks these things have been worked on and worked on and this is the list
on which there is not agreement.
Mr. Rotgin said he has not had a conversation with Planning staff and neither has their architect.
He did speak with Mr. Graham a month or so ago. The Board should fuss at both of them for not having
gotten together yet.
Mr. Boyd said he is only saying that he does not want to meet again until the applicant and staff are
at an impasse over the items on the list.
Mr. Dorrier said to shoot for the first of July to get everything in.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to have anymore meetings where there is this lack of
information or coordination between the applicant and the staff.
Mr. Dorrier said if it means pushing the meeting off until August, so be it. Mr. Tucker apologized for
staff not getting the report to Mr. Rotgin until yesterday. He should have gotten it at the same time the
Board got their copy which was last Friday. Mr. Rotgin said that was when the legal stuff was finished, but
the engineering and staff reports were ready long before that.
Mr. Dorrier said everybody will try to do better.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Subdivision Text Amendment, Work Session.
Ms. Lee Catlin said at the Board’s meeting on May 5, 2004, it directed staff to invite representatives
of interested organizations to join them in a series of facilitated work sessions to discuss the recommended
changes to the Subdivision Ordinance. There are four issues which still appear to lack community
consensus. They are street infrastructure (curb/gutter, sidewalks and planting strips), street
interconnections, private streets and over-lot grading plans. The purpose of this work session is to allow
staff to present the proposed amendments in their entirety and then take comments from representatives of
interested organizations on one of the remaining issues, street interconnections. If this work session goes
well, it will be repeated with the other three issues. Staff will then bring their recommended response to the
Board at the end of the process.
Mr. Mark Graham said he is going to ask Mr. Cilimberg to explain the history of the proposed
Subdivision Ordinance amendments.
Mr. Cilimberg said he went over the reasons with the Board last month when it discussed the
reason for doing the Crozet Master Plan. He went through the County’s planning approach since the first
Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Over time they have refined the development areas where most of the
growth in the County was supposed to occur. From the original set of growth areas identified in the early
1970s, they are basically down to 37+ square miles of area in a County composed of 727 square miles.
They are dealing with a relatively small area of the County for the majority of development in the County.
Because of that the Crozet Master Plan is being developed, and they are looking at the Subdivision
Ordinance. Those types of things will be essential in order to accomplish what is set out in the
Comprehensive Plan as the growth management program. There is a limited area in which the County is
trying to capture most of the population growth that is probably 1600 to 1800 people per year. The
efficiency in which that can be done will determine the success or lack of success in accommodating
growth within development areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said if densities are low and are like those traditionally seen in development areas
(about two dwelling units per acre), the County will run out of area fairly quickly. Areas like North Pointe
are being precisely planned because there is not but so much area left. If the County is to be successful in
getting to higher densities, it will take a subdivision ordinance that calls for the kinds of things to support
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 63
that density. That has been the gist of it as the recommendations for the subdivision text have evolved. It
came out of a lot of effort during the 1990s in the planning process. They are supporting two aspects:
physical development which includes infrastructure and facilities which are put into place during the
development process that support the kinds of densities being called for; and there is a fiscal element to
this ultimately. If it is not done in the development process it will have to be done later through the capital
improvements program. That would be a cost passed to the community at large. Also, they are trying to
identify the kinds of things which support livability in the development areas. The amenities in the
development area will be just as important to their ability to capture growth, growth that continues to occur
in the rural areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Subdivision Ordinance is one implementation measure and it was identified
in the Neighborhood Model work of DISC. There are a number of recommendations in Volume II regarding
the Subdivision Ordinance which hit on the things that will be talked about in the next couple of months. He
said there are four issues remaining which seem to be controversial. Interconnected streets is the first of
these issues which will be addressed today. He said this has not popped up as a concept in the last few
years. In reality, even in the 1970s, staff was trying to achieve future interconnections. The Subdivision
Ordinance was geared toward achieving that. There were areas shown where future interconnections
should be made. It became an element of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, and since then has been refined
to call for interconnected streets as a part of the overall development of the urban areas. If interconnected
streets are not provided during development, they will probably become a capital improvement project in
the future, or lanes will have to be added to roads like Route 29. That is the background of this subject
today. Over time there have been a lot of changes recommended to the Subdivision Ordinance which the
development community wanted to have and needs. He said there are many changes recommended
which be believes everyone has agreed are good changes. They are changes which will help the
community deal with development pressure and the growth of the County in the future.
Mr. Dorrier asked the minimum size of a subdivision to which this regulation would apply. Mr.
Graham said this provision would apply to any subdivision proposed in the development areas.
Mr. Boyd asked if it applies to all levels regardless of size. Mr. Cilimberg said different levels of the
Subdivision Ordinance apply to different levels of development. Provisions for interconnected streets will
basically apply in the development areas.
Mr. Graham then explained the proposal with the use of a sketch. If there were three properties in
the same area being developed they would need to be developed with an interconnected street network.
This needs to be a requirement to make sure that streets are built through subdivisions to adjoining
properties to ensure that interconnections actually result in an overall urban street network in the
Development Areas. Staff feels that in order to make the Neighborhood Model a viable option in the
development areas, interconnected streets have to be provided or it won’t work.
Mr. Graham said the second question is more complex. How much of the road should the first
subdivision be required to build? Now, the ordinance requires them to build to their property line, but there
are administrative waivers to that requirement. For example, if there were a stream buffer, the agent could
waive it for that. If the agent does not see an immediate public need for this connection, the requirement
could be waived or modified. Staff knows there are an infinite number of ways the property can be
developed. All factors would enter into how much of the road needed to be constructed at the time. That is
why staff felt it was appropriate to say the developer is responsible to build it to here, but there may be
circumstances which warrant the developer only building some portion of the road depending on what area
would be used in the new area in the immediate future.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Graham to explain the question. Mr. Graham said the question from the
development community is how much of this road they should be required to build. The first question is
whether they should be required to make that provision for the interconnections.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the proposed language recommends this model. Mr. Graham said the
proposed ordinance recommends this (the desired) to make sure the interconnections are provided for, and
that the connections are built where there will be the need for them. If there is not going to be immediate
need for them to be built, they want the right-of-way and construction easements so when the next
developer comes in that road can be connected.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a representative of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association to speak.
Mr. Tom Loach said his views are probably tainted by the Crozet Master Plan. With regard to
interconnections, there was not unanimity among the Crozet community. Some of that came about
because when the consultants drew the interconnections they did so in places where they would never go.
In one instance they put one through his next door neighbor’s house. As to the main aspects of
interconnectivity, there was consensus among the community that interconnectivity should take place and
is a good thing if well planned.
Mr. Dorrier then asked for a representative of the Free Enterprise Forum to speak.
Mr. Neil Williamson said the questions they have with regard to this are not whether it is desired or
not. It actually concerns equity and scope. Looking at Mr. Graham’s sketch it appears that a person who
may have only three lots with access to Route 29 would be responsible for providing a road that would
carry a greater capacity than required by his subdivision. The other question regards “tiered” and “equity”.
He asked if this ordinance should apply across the board, or should there be levels created that make
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 64
sense. To him, equity is critically important. Often there is one small parcel and the lack of a connection to
the parcel behind it that may be in the development area would prohibit it from getting primary access.
What is the proper compensation if that person has two lots? If someone had to give up one lot in order to
have access for an adjoining landowner, is that fair? He believes the County has the ability for
condemnation if that is in the County’s interest. But, that requires compensation of the landowner. He is
concerned that the County consider those scope issues as it considers interconnectivity.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a representative of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Association of Realtors to
speak.
Mr. Percy Montague said he has no mandate from the Association, he was only sent here to speak
today. He said limited interconnectivity makes more sense to him than having universal connectivity
mandated. He noted a “not-desired” drawing on the wall and said he can think of a couple of things done
about 40 years ago. One is Woodbrook and another is Bellair. If you polled the residents in those
communities, you would find that the majority of them would rather be left alone just as they are. As
someone who has sold a number of houses in the community, a lot of the time people are looking for
safety. Having arterial traffic put through their neighborhoods is not what they want. People like the fact
that in Woodbrook their kids can play without having a lot of excess traffic running through the
neighborhood. They also like the fact that from a security standpoint, potential burglars think twice about
going into neighborhoods where there is limited access. He has a question about the second example
posted on the wall where it shows a road dead-ended at a property line. In his development experience,
where a road stops you generally have to put in a temporary cul-de-sac. Depending on the size of those
lots, a cul-de-sac would wipe out half of those two lots. He thinks there are a lot of potential pitfalls in this.
He does think there is a percentage of the population that would like interconnectivity. In his experience in
Albemarle County, a lot of the topography does not lend itself to the grid system of development. That is
another problem he has with making this mandatory. Where connections can be provided, logically it
makes sense, but to say that every piece of property developed has to be done on the grid system and all
has to connect to potential future developments is definitely overkill.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a representative of the Piedmont Environmental Council to speak.
Mr. Jeff Werner said he would hand in a statement for the Piedmont Environmental Council. He
has said in the last few DISC meetings that PEC wants to work with the development community. A lot of
these things are a leap of faith and will require advocates on both sides working for creative solutions. He
wants to make it clear that a street grid network is not about 90 degree angles. That is a conceptual
design. He said he lives in the City nearby on Wine Street. You can access it from McIntire Road over to
Park Street. He has children and there are days when you could sit in the middle of the street and have a
picnic. The idea that City streets are filled with flying traffic is a myth. He said the grid works. He said the
city of Charlottesville has 45,000 people in an area of 7000 acres. It has most of this region’s jobs, it has a
major university, two large hospitals, and no eight-lane highways. You don’t see gridlock in the middle of
the day in the City, yet the growth area on Route 29 North is about 9000 acres and in the last census had
about 29,000 people living in the area, and it has an eight-lane arterial highway which is in failure most of
the day. Something is significantly wrong with that. The reason is because of the development pattern
everything has to come back out of the city. If connectivity is built into subdivisions, it will reduce the need
to add more and more lanes to Route 29. If there were some connection on the east and west of Route 29
such as Hillsdale going all the way through, and Commonwealth and Berkmar going all the way through,
there might be no need to discuss a Route 29 bypass. He said there are costs associated with any
development. You could scrap the Neighborhood Model, but the resultant cost of development would not
be free.
Mr. Dorrier asked a representative of the Blue Ridge Home Builders to speak next.
Mr. Josh Goldsmith said he is Chairman of their Government Affairs Committee. He said as they
looked at the whole subdivision ordinance they felt that instead of requiring a waiver for interconnectivety,
they would rather see thresholds set so if he has a two-lot subdivision, he might not be required to have
interconnectivity. He is presently working on a couple of subdivisions which are going through the rezoning
process. They are very detail oriented and the County is trying for an interconnection across the property
line, but it is a moving target. It is another item in that process which is hard to define. He knows someone
who calls his road “a road to nowhere”. The question is “does he put curb and gutter along that road and
street trees and a planting strip” as he goes through this process. They analyzed the entire subdivision
ordinance and think an affordability pack is something that should be measured against a lot of these
items. He thinks interconnectivity is a great thing and right-of-way is a reasonable thing. He would rather
see the area reserved and if he is the next buyer in the development process he understands that part of
his cost will be to make that connection. He thinks the waiver process is something he would rather see
defined. Then, if there are places where interconnectivity is not going to be required, then he should not
have to go through the waiver process to make that happen.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a representative of the League of Women Voters to speak.
Ms. Liz Palmer said she had no prepared comments, but it is her understanding that these
regulations are for the growth area. She does not believe any development like Belmont would be
proposed today in the growth area. She cannot imagine where a subdivision would be built along a major
road; it would be off of a major road. She thinks it is a no-brainer that it is a safety issue. As the mother of
four children, when they first drive she wants her teenagers off of a road like Route 29. She wants them to
be able to ride a bike to their friend’s homes. She agrees with Mr. Werner about not being locked into the
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 65
grid system. She does wonder if topography in the County might get someone into trouble by mandating.
She would not want to see someone forced into connecting.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a member of the DISC II Committee to speak.
Ms. Marilyn Gale said that at the Board’s suggestion they met twice in the last two weeks to
discuss the ordinance changes, especially the items listed in Mr. Dorrier’s letter. She had a prepared
statement to read; it is a consensus of the DISC committee members. They believe that interconnected
road systems should be developed in the development areas. It is appropriate that the Subdivision
Ordinance require interconnections between adjacent parcels during the platting process. Where
interconnections are physically possible, economically feasible and will function as an interconnected street
system, they should be built with the street system for the subdivision. The proposed subdivision
amendment acknowledges three areas for waivers of constructing the street to the edge of the parcel.
These waivers are: where off-site easements would be required to construct the street to the property line;
where stream buffers would be disturbed or where a present public purpose would not be served. DISC II
supports these waivers but believes there should be other areas in which waivers should be available.
Waivers that relate to the cost of constructing the improvement to the scale of the development should be
provided. For example: it would not be appropriate to require the developer of a 20-unit development to
construct the oversized portion of a street to support a 500-unit development next door. It would not be
appropriate for a single developer to build Lickinghole bridge to provide a physical connection to an
adjoining parcel. In both of these cases, provisions should be made to allow for the future connections into
adjacent undeveloped areas. The second area relates to how the interconnection would relate to other
goals of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically the Neighborhood Model. Waivers should be available if
the built interconnection would preclude or diminish the ability of a developer to meet other goals of the
Neighborhood Model. A third area relates to building interconnections and portions of the development
area where master plans have not yet been created or where insufficient information exists to adequately
know where the connection(s) should take place. As with the other two items mentioned, opportunities for
future connections should not be precluded. However, a waiver to build a street may be appropriate. DISC
II recognizes that the more subjective the waiver, the less comfortable staff would be in granting an
administrative waiver. DISC II acknowledges that these more subjective waiver requests will need to be
reviewed and acted on by the Planning Commission. DISC believes that more emphasis should be placed
in the ordinance on the fact that the Planning Commission, and ultimately, the Board of Supervisors can
hear appeals on decisions concerning waivers.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were anyone else present who wanted to speak about this subject.
There being no one else to speak, he asked Board members for their comments.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees that some standards need to be set as guidelines. He does not believe
these standards should require that every development should have interconnected streets.
Mr. Dorrier asked that staff define the term “subdivision” as related to the number of houses in the
subdivision. There is a big difference between a 20-unit subdivision and one having hundreds of units. He
asked if the same standards would apply to both.
Mr. Graham said the requirement for the interconnection would apply regardless of the size of the
subdivision. The requirement is needed for an interconnected street network. Because of terrain
characteristics or other factors, there could be a very large subdivision which would need additional inter-
parcel connections. There could be a smaller subdivision that because of its location may need to have the
inter-parcel connections to make the street network work for the community as a whole. Staff has
struggled with the question of when the developer should be required to build, and what should a developer
be required to build. It was set up with the administrative waiver condition to allow the flexibility to
recognize different circumstances. He said the DISC committee recognized that this is complicated and
there are factors which may require more than staff’s judgment; it may need to go to the Planning
Commission for a decision.
Ms. Thomas asked if that is a legal possibility. Mr. Davis said different levels of waivers could be
set up. However, it is a ministerial ordinance so any waiver would need to be based upon objective criteria.
It cannot be a totally discretionary process. Probably the objective criteria would be the same for staff as
for the Planning Commission.
Ms. Thomas said when the Neighborhood Model was adopted it was decided to use the words
“network of streets” rather than the term “grid.” She has been a strong believer of interconnectivity for a
very long time. One thing that has not been recognized, and something which needs to go along with this,
is saying subdivisions do not need to have a second entrance. She said the entrance to Redfields is an
example. That was a situation where that was a very unpopular requirement. She thinks interconnectivity
makes more sense than having a second entrance. It usually would serve the same purpose. She
appreciates that DISC met twice in the last week to give the Board advice on this subject. They tend to be
scapegoats when there are hard issues to resolve. She thinks they have some good ideas.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks Mr. Montague put his finger on the pulse of the issue. From a policy
point of view he looks at Woodbrook and says it should be connected through to Carrsbrook. If it were
connected all the way through to Raintree, there could be school buses and cars use it, and people could
get to the Woodbrook Shopping Center. He said everybody would benefit except the people living along
those streets. He does not know how to judge what should take precedent. In many respects, he thinks
interconnectivity should be the case, and when a community is not connected to Rio Road that opportunity
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 66
is lost forever, but a connection would change the character of the neighborhood streets. He does not
know that one connection is the answer. Maybe it should be multiple connections.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks the diagram was a little misleading. VDOT does not want a lot of
connections to major highways, so interconnectivity between parcels is good except for topography.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks Mr. Bowerman was right. One size does not fit all situations. Bellair is a
good community with a good road system that is not interconnected. Then there is West Leigh which is
connected. They were done under an old subdivision ordinance. The question is: when would the waivers
be applicable? Is there a size number on these waivers, or is it the length of road? Another factor that has
not been considered is affordability. All of this drives up the cost of housing. The more the County requires
the developer to put into roads, the larger the cost of the house.
Mr. Wyant said there are a couple of places in Crozet where a developer put a stub-out for a future
road connection, and he does not know if they will ever be used. It is almost as if the County needs to
master plan the connections between parcels.
Mr. Bowerman said the same thing was done in Woodbrook.
Ms. Thomas said the subject relates to the development area where greater density is desired.
She lived in an urban area in the city on a dead-end street with no sidewalks. It was built that way on
purpose because they wanted it to look rural, but it was not rural. It did not work. That was a popular way
to develop in the 1950s. She thinks people have become more sophisticated and this is a way to develop a
more sophisticated urban area. These are not rural subdivisions, but urban subdivisions.
Mr. Boyd asked how that can be defined. He does not think there can be one set of rules as to
how subdivisions have to be done. He does not know whether that should be subjective and open-ended
and let it go through an appeal process. If it is left subjective, there needs to be some way to fast track the
process.
Mr. Wyant said if the developer were required to put in two entrances and an interconnection that
would be very expensive. On the downside, if he builds on that street and all of a sudden a lot of traffic is
coming through the subdivision, that is a problem for the homeowner.
Mr. Neil Williamson said they are working on a study to show the impact of the subdivision
ordinance in the new form versus the old form. They are using a portion of Forest Lakes as an example.
They will try to get the information to staff so some of the pluses and minuses can be discussed.
Mr. Dorrier asked if anyone had anything else to bring up.
Ms. Catlin said she would like to summarize what she thinks the Board has said today. Basically,
the main discussion has been about some sort of tiered approach that establishes standards for different
sizes of developments. Should there be some threshold for the level of waiver that could be handled
administratively versus something that would go to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the Board
for review? Should there be an appeals process establishing objective criteria that would distinguish the
level of review a particular subdivision would call for? The idea of making sure or discussing the possibility
of some sort of fast tracking or something for the waiver appeal process to make sure things would not get
hung up in that stage, and some ability for staff to appeal for the things that may be below the threshold,
appeal it up if they thought it would be appropriate to do so.
Mr. Dorrier said that is a good summary. It is a work in progress and the Board will continue this
discussion in July.
Ms. Catlin asked if the Board wants staff to look at these issues and come back with something
that is a tiered approach that does set some different standards and a different review process for different
sizes.
Ms. Thomas said a neighboring county had a tiered approach so that if there were over five houses
the developer had to do a lot more; in this case it was with groundwater. They ended up with a lot of five-
house subdivisions because that was the trigger point. The Board is talking about the development area
here, so it does not want a lot of five-house subdivisions. The Board actually wants people to be using
their density credits and have urban type of development. Her concern about trigger points is that there will
be a lot of people using whatever it is that is chosen at the point below that trigger point so they don’t have
to do something.
Mr. Boyd asked if this only applies to developments in the designated growth areas. Ms. Thomas
said “yes.” Mr. Boyd said it is not written to exclude anything.
Mr. Dorrier said the subdivision ordinance applies county-wide.
Ms. Thomas said it is being amended to fit the Neighborhood Model which is only in the
development areas, so maybe she put her finger on something that all can agree on.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Davis if it could be applied in a two-tier approach, one for non-growth and
one for growth. Mr. Davis said that is a little tricky to do that. For the most part it is not an issue because
the rural areas are zoned Rural Areas and there is not the density to have a large number of lots in a
June 2, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
)
(Page 67
subdivision. From a practical standpoint, it will not have a major impact on the rural areas if the standards
for the number of lots are reasonable. The problem in just dealing with zoning is that there is some rural
area zoning in the development areas. Rural area development is not wanted in the development areas
because it is not up zoning. He said there are ways to approach it to have different subdivision standards
depending on zoning, but that would have to be addressed carefully so there are not unintended
consequences.
Ms. Thomas asked if the subdivision ordinance could apply either by definition or practically only to
the defined development area. Mr. Davis said the subdivision ordinance needs to apply everywhere.
Whether or not there are different standards in a development area versus a rural area, it is more difficult to
do it in the Comprehensive Plan because that plan is not intended for that purpose. It is usually related to
zoning districts rather than the Comprehensive Plan. It is an issue staff can look at.
Mr. Tucker said it is something staff can think about. He had always envisioned it being for the
Neighborhood Model and in the development areas although Mr. Graham said it applies everywhere. Mr.
Tucker said he does not think that was necessarily the intent.
Mr. Dorrier suggested Mr. Graham try to ascertain how this is handled in other communities and
make a report on it in July.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff expected to hold a work session on just one issue, work on the comments
received at that session, and bring back a report, but not necessarily at the Board’s next meeting. He
thinks staff will make their report after getting comments on all issues.
Mr. Dorrier thanked all who had attended this meeting today for their comments and suggestions.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd asked that the School System provide the Board with an accounting of how many total
dollars they have in their reserves.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 03/02/2005
Initials: DBM