2005-02-09N
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February
9, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis
S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. Brian Wheeler, a 20-year resident of Albemarle, said that he supports the County’s revised
Rural Areas plan, but not without some concerns. He lives in the Langford Farms Subdivision in Ivy, built in
1978 before the general rezoning, and his family moved there in 1997 seeking a larger house and more
land. Since they moved there, many homes have been built, including those on smaller lots, and he is
increasingly alarmed at the pace of rural development. He agreed that the County’s highest priority, as
stated in the proposed Rural Areas Plan, should be to implement policies that “stop the ongoing trend
toward fragmentation and loss of rural character, new policies should focus on reducing the potential
overall level of residential development and loss of rural character.”
Mr. Wheeler said that 73 percent of the community agrees that the vision for the rural areas should
be “a rural character with little residential development.” He noted that we are currently zoned for sprawl,
adding that continuing rural growth is hard to predict, which may impact the recently considered school
redistricting. Mr. Wheeler emphasized that one cluster development could easily throw one rural school’s
enrollment capacity, and he doubts those homes will do much to slow development. He stated his support
for the phasing of development rights, and increased funding for ACE. That should be a recurring and
growing part of the budget.
__________
Mr. Steve Ashby said that he applauds public funding for the Key West Drive culvert replacement,
which had strong bi-partisan support. He said that residents of the growth area have been told that
extending bus service to their areas would serve the needs of only a few people. Mr. Ashby stated he
disagrees with this, and he feels the Board now has the unanimity to fund decent transit service, as well as
sidewalks and bicycle paths to give citizens a choice of how to get around Albemarle County. Mr. Ashby
encouraged the Board to adopt the “Key West spirit” and fund the transit needs.
__________
Ms. Liz Palmer commented on the South Fork of the Rivanna Reservoir, stating that citizens have
been informed that there is not enough information to make an intelligent decision about dealing with
sediment and runoff in the reservoir. She emphasized that in October 2002, Rivanna made
recommendations for future water supply to the Board of Supervisors and City Council, which included
maintenance dredging and a commitment to study the sediment and better identify its source. Ms. Palmer
pointed out that last year dredging was “demoted” back to one of the alternatives, and Rivanna’s director
recently told her that there was no need to spend money on examining sediment and its source. She
strongly disagrees with that assessment.
She provided two articles – the result of a sediment study done in 2001 by the Thomas Jefferson
Water Resources Advisory Committee, formed by the Soil and Water Conservation District and Planning
District Commission. Ms. Palmer mentioned that a copy of this study was included in Stephen Bowler’s
book on the state of the watershed, and unfortunately seems to have been shelved. We need to resurrect
this committee report, because it is timely and necessary to move on in search of solutions. She
emphasized that the study clearly states there is not enough information about the source of the sediment
to make meaningful decisions on a course of action; some of the recommendations require long-term
commitment and lots of money. Ms. Palmer noted that one of the paper’s authors told her that some of the
study’s recommended actions could be done by a Virginia Tech graduate student as part of their thesis.
She added that they cannot search for a home for the dredged material without “in-depth characterization.”
Ms. Palmer said that the second article she provided from the cites sludge and
Washington Post
sediment as “an environmental conundrum” for the Chesapeake Bay, noting that sediment has been
created by short-sighted land-use policies over 200 years. She added that the County has a responsibility
to future generations not to leave them with an environmental conundrum of our making.
__________
Mr. John Martin, of Free Union addressed the Board, stating that he believes the processes for
decision-making in government are as important as the decisions themselves, because if the processes are
flawed, the strength of the outcome is uncertain. He said that the decision-making process for the current
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
water supply project is unclear at this point, and hopefully the joint City Council meeting slated for March
will clarify this. Mr. Martin asked if there would be public hearings, work sessions, and staff involved. The
public needs elected government in this water-supply project decision-making. He emphasized that under
Rivanna’s own data, there would not be a safe-yield deficit – when Beaver Creek Reservoir is included –
until 2018. There is plenty of time to make a decision, and yet right now, there seems to be a rush to
judgment with a July deadline for this decision-making, which he thinks is triggered, artificially, by some
requirements from the dam safety people. Mr. Martin pointed out that there is a lot to be done, and he does
not think that all of it can take place before July, and suggested asking the dam safety people for an
extension so it can proceed in a more organized way with full public participation.
__________
Mr. John Foster addressed the Board on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council, reporting
on the progress to make Covesville a Historic District. He reported that Covesville was originally developed
in response to religious settlement, overland transportation routes, and a successful agricultural climate,
fostering one of Virginia’s successful early apple industries. Although it was not officially established as a
village in 1828, there was significant agricultural, religious, and residential interest in Covesville as early as
th
the mid 18 century. He said that the settlement along Cove Creek began in the 1740’s by Scottish, Irish,
and German immigrants from the Shenandoah Valley. Mr. Foster stated that the Cove Meeting House was
a religious congregation that provided a center to the fledgling community, and by the last quarter of the
th
18 century, the community began to expand into a village due to its location on the Charlottesville to
Lynchburg stagecoach road. He reported that the area did not experience significant growth until the
establishment of a commercial apple orchard in 1866. Mr. Foster said that in recognition of the importance
of this history, in late 2003, a group of residents began investigating establishing the Covesville Historic
District, and the State Review Board recommended in March 2004 that the district be eligible for nomination
on the Virginia and National Registers. He mentioned that a formal nomination has been completed and
submitted, and a public meeting would be held tonight at the Cove Presbyterian Church, and the
nomination will be voted on March 16, 2005. Mr. Foster emphasized that it would be a strong show of
support if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors were to pass a resolution in favor of the
establishment of the district prior to that meeting.
After asking fellow Board members, Mr. Rooker said that such a resolution would be drafted for
nd
approval at their March 2 meeting.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, stating that there are
numerous options available within the watershed for the community’s public water supply. He said that the
PEC is concerned that a decision should only be made after complete and accurate information has been
made available and so far this has simply not been the case. Mr. Werner said that the PEC is not alone in
believing the RWSA has focused on using the James River as the preferred alternative water source, and
the cost estimates have “become a shell game,” with no consistency in that price tag as presented, varying
from $40 million to $109 million. Mr. Werner pointed out that there have been discrepancies in reports on
the volume of sediment, dredging, pipeline lengths, hauling and associated costs. He stated that he worked
with a consultant on some online estimating, and using a bigger truck and loader could virtually cut the cost
in half. Mr. Werner emphasized that the issue here is maintaining local control over the most critical and
basic human need – water.
Mr. Rooker asked that a copy of Mr. Werner’s letter be given to the Clerk and passed onto the
RWSA.
__________
Mr. Jared Lake said that he was on Phi Phi Island in Thailand when the tsunami hit, and asked that
Albemarle name Phi Phi Island a “sister island” to show that this area cares about what happened. Mr.
Lake said that the island is a very small and lovely place, and he said that he would be returning at the end
of the month.
Mr. Rooker said that Albemarle County citizens do care about the victims of the tsunami and other
natural disasters. He asked staff to get something back to the Board by their next meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Dorrier,
to approve Items 5.1 through 5.3. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None
__________
Item No. 5.1. Approval of Minutes: May 5, October 13 and October 27, 2004.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes were approved.
__________
Item No. 5.2. Amendment of Personnel Policy Manual – Adoption of resolution establishing
Employee Recognition Policy.
The executive summary states that at the September 1 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
the following recommendations for the Total Rewards strategy for Albemarle County employees:
?
Approved implementing an Employee Recognition Program in January, 2005 at a cost of
$20,000 for the current fiscal year and an anticipated cost of $50,000 for FY06.
?
Approved a revised Merit Plan for FY06, which will provide a base market increase for
employees who meet expectations, a market increase, plus an additional amount to employees
who exceed expectations and less than a market salary increase for employees who do not
meet expectations. The revised plan continues to provide an accelerator increase for those
employees below mid-point.
?
Approved development of skill and competency differentials for a skill-based pay system, which
will reward specific job-related skills, such as licensing, certifications or completion of formalized
training.
?
Approved continued evaluation of Broad banding, a compensation and classification system that
provides greater career and skill development by grouping jobs into wide pay bands.
The Employee Recognition Program is proposed to be incorporated into the County’s
personnel policies. One aspect of the Employee Recognition Program provides for the payment of cash
bonuses to employees. Virginia State Code Section 15.2-1508 requires that any payment of bonuses be
approved by ordinance. The approval of the addition of this Program in the County’s personnel policy by
resolution satisfies the state code requirement.
Staff recommends the Board adopt the proposed Resolution to approve the Employee Recognition
Program as part of the County personnel policy.
By the recorded voted set out above, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to authorize a Total Rewards Program for Albemarle
County employees; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Section P-65, Employee Recognition Program, sets forth the purposes of the
program, recognition criteria and employee eligibility; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds it appropriate to add Section P-65, Employee Recognition
Program, to the Personnel Policy Manual.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby amends the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual by adding Section P-65, Employee
Recognition Program.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
Section P-65 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM
A. Purpose
The Board of Supervisors encourages its employees to provide the best possible service to our customers
and citizens. The purpose of this program is to recognize County employees who distinguish themselves in
the performance of their duties and who contribute significantly to the achievement of the goals and
objectives of the County.
B. Program Established
There is hereby established an Employee Recognition Program. Each department is authorized to define
its own recognition standards to reward employees for the following:
1. Providing exceptional customer service
2. Performing above and beyond normal duties and expectations
3. Identifying and/or implementing a means to reduce the costs of providing services
4. Demonstrating excellence in safe work practices
5. Causing improvement in productivity, process, or quality of services
6. Exemplifying County values of Integrity, Innovation, Stewardship and Learning
These departmental standards shall be in writing and approved by Human Resources. Pursuant to Virginia
Code section 15.2-1508, the Board of Supervisors authorizes the payment of monetary bonuses and other
forms of nonmonetary awards to recognize employees who qualify for recognition under this program.
C. Eligibility
All permanent full-time and part-time County classified employees are eligible to participate in this program.
__________
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item No. 5.3. Barry E. and Tracy M. Meade, Deed of Dedication Agreement – Rivanna Greenway.
The executive summary states that the subject property, a portion of TMP 78-15C3, is owned by
Barry and Tracy Meade and is located along the route of the County’s proposed Rivanna greenway trail
which runs from Darden Towe Park at Free Bridge downstream to the Fluvanna County line. This property
abuts a 22.7 acre parcel in the Pantops area which was dedicated to the County in 2002 and is currently
managed as a greenway within the County’s park system. Park staff approached the owners and made a
request for the portion of the property necessary for the continuation of the proposed route. The total area
of the dedication is 11,268 square feet.
The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan identifies the Rivanna River from the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir to the Fluvanna County line as a main component of the overall recommended
greenway system. Currently the County has 2.4 miles of this section complete with a Class B trail running
from the northern end of Darden Towe Park to the Meade property line which is approximately 1 mile
downstream of Free Bridge. It should be noted that the Meade property is not under development review.
This small but critical dedication is being offered simply as a gift in support of the Albemarle County
greenway plan.
The deed of dedication prepared by the County Attorney’s Office is provided for the Board’s
reviews.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed deed of dedication and authorize the
County Executive to sign the deed on behalf of the County after it has been approved by the County
Attorney with any necessary changes.
By the recorded voted set out above, the Board approved the proposed deed of dedication
and authorized the County Executive to sign the deed on behalf of the County after it has been
approved by the County Attorney with any necessary changes:
This deed was prepared by the Albemarle County Attorney.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 15C3
This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code §§ 58.1-811(A)(3) and 58.1-811(C)(4).
DEED OF DEDICATION
THIS DEED OF DEDICATION is made this ___ day of ________, 2005 by and between BARRY E. MEADE
and TRACY M. MEADE, Grantors, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantors are the owners in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle
County that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the “Property;”
WHEREAS, the Grantors offer to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the County for public use,
namely, a public access trail and greenway, including improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept the Grantors’ offer of dedication.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, the Grantors hereby grant, convey, and
dedicate for public use to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL WARRANTY AND
ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit:
Those certain lands, shown and designated as the 11,268 square foot area of dedication
that is shaded on the plat of Robert W. Coleman, Jr., Residential Surveying Services,
dated January 6, 2004, and entitled “Plat Showing Greenway Dedication Located On
T.M.P. 78-15C3, Albemarle County, Virginia,” a copy of which is attached hereto and to be
recorded with this deed (the “Plat”). Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular
description of the location of the described lands.
The property interest conveyed herein is a portion of that certain parcel of land shown on the Plat
situated on the northeast side of the Rivanna River, being the same parcel conveyed to the Grantors by
deed of record in the office of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Circuit Court at Deed Book 1958, Page
68.
This conveyance is made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and easements,
if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the
chain of title to the Property conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect the Property, which have not
expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication made by this deed, as evidenced
by the signature below.
WITNESS the following signatures.
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
GRANTORS: GRANTOR
________________________________
Barry E. Meade
GRANTOR
________________________________
Tracy M. Meade
GRANTEE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:________________________________
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-2004-00021. Delta Kappa Epsilon at UVA (Sign #92). Request to
rezone 0.22 acs, which is currently unzoned, to R-6 to allow expansion of boarding house (fraternity house).
TM 76A P C5. Loc at 173 Culbreth Rd behind Campbell Hall at the University of Virginia. (The Comp Plan
designates this property as Institutional in Neighborhood 6.) Jack Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on January 24 and January 31, 2005).
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this property is not zoned, and the fraternity must have it rezoned in
order to make their planned building addition. The applicant has requested R-6 zoning for boarding house
use, which is by-right in this zone. Proffers have been included to limit the use within the concept plan they
have provided.
st
Staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission. At its meeting on February 1 the
Commission requested an additional proffer that the building would be subject to the requirements of the
County’s lighting requirements, to which the applicant agreed. With that proffer, staff recommends
approval to the Board.
The Chairman asked the applicant for comments.
The applicant’s representative, Mr. Sri Ravali Komaragiri, from McKee Carson addressed the
Board, and offered to answer any questions. There were no questions of the applicant.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before
the Board.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas to approve ZMA-2004-00021 as proffered. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: February 9, 2005
ZMA #ZMA-04-021 DKE Expansion
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) TMP 76A-0C5
0.22 Acres to be rezoned from NOT ZONED to R-6
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the
property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed
that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a
reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1) Permitted uses of the property, and or/uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the
following section(s) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on February 9, 2005, a
copy of the section(s) being attached hereto and will be in conformity with the site plans prepared
by McKee Carson and the architectural drawings prepared by Dalgliesh, Eichman, Gilpin & Paxton
dated February 1, 2005:
1. Sec. 16.2.1.7.
2) Each outdoor luminaire on the structure containing a lamp that emits three thousand (3,000) or
more maximum lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire as provided in Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance Section 4.17, in effect on February 9, 2005, a copy of the section being attached hereto.
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Delta Kappa Epsilon Renovation Limited Partnership February 3, 2005
By the DKE Corporation General Partner
Vice President R. Page Henley Jr.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. CPA-2004-0006. Stormwater Master Plan. Proposal to amend the Natural
Resources and Cultural Assets component of the Comp Plan by adding a stormwater master plan that
identifies stream resources to be protected & restored as development occurs, regional stormwater
facilities, & watershed projects that can be implemented in conjunction with development; provides
guidance for land use planning & neighborhood master planning; & promotes public & private stormwater
solutions based on needs & opportunities at the watershed scale. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
January 24 and January 31, 2005).
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board, noting that they had
had several work sessions on this item over the last year, and it was recommended that there be a County-
wide plan to be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. He reported that this was done through a
Resolution of Intent in September, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 11, at
which they unanimously recommended approval. Mr. Graham noted that the Commission discussed
several items of concern, including the funding strategy, and this would be considered by the Board in an
upcoming March work session. He mentioned that the maps for stormwater improvements incorrectly
showed the current boundary of the Crozet Development Area. There has been a change in that boundary
which has since been corrected. Mr. Graham said that the Commission suggested several non-substantive
changes to the proposed text amendments. These changes have been integrated into the proposed
amendment.
Ms. Thomas said that she was recently at a conference about water quality, and noted that it is still
going to save water quality by having development in the urban area rather than spreading out into the rural
areas, even if streams within the urban ring are impacted. Albemarle is not alone in working on this issue.
Mr. Graham agreed, emphasizing that keeping development in a focused area has more “bang for the
buck” than any other considerations.
Mr. Boyd asked how the funding and associated levels of service would be decided on. Mr.
Graham responded that how urbanization is addressed as a strategic initiative in the budget process –
which came out of discussions last fall – would now be discussed at the upcoming March work session.
Mr. Boyd asked which option the Stormwater Master Plan is designed towards. Mr. Graham replied
that it is designed toward the County-wide plan, with an eye towards funding without creating a special
funding source.
Mr. Boyd commented that it could be more specific in its definition of what our policy is if the Board
knew how the County was going to fund it, to what level we are going to fund it, whether it is going to be
County-wide, or just in the urban area which greatly impacts what the County is going to do in the
Stormwater Management Plan. Mr. Graham responded that staff received adequate direction from last
fall’s work sessions to proceed with a County-wide Stormwater Master Plan. Staff has tried to follow it as
outlined in that action list. Ms. Thomas commented that the Board all agreed at those meetings. Mr. Boyd
stated that the Board never voted on anything. Ms. Thomas said that the Board members were asked if
they disagreed, and no one spoke up at the time. Mr. Wyant disagreed with Ms. Thomas that no one
differed as to the funding strategy. He will take that position again during the appropriate time.
Mr. Wyant stated that the County regulations are above what is mandated by the state. Mr.
Graham said that at the upcoming March work session, that would all be laid out.
Mr. Boyd reminded fellow Board members that they did not vote on the funding mechanism
previously, and asked if the document would have to be revised. Mr. Graham responded that it would be
revised as they go along. The original document focused on the development area, and the concept of
expanding this to the whole County was introduced. The action list of proposed facilities to be constructed
for projects as far as streambank stabilization does not extend to the rural area. That is something staff has
to look at and come back to the Board. Assuming the Board still wants to go with a County-wide
stormwater master plan, the staff will be amending this at some date in the future.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the plan would deal with correcting unacceptable levels of pollution in the
streams. Mr. Graham replied that streambank stabilization is a big part of it.
Mr. Rooker commented that this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan does not lock the County
into a County-wide plan, nor does it lock in a funding mechanism or chosen level of service. He thinks it
makes a general statement about stormwater. He finds nothing in it to disagree with.
Mr. Rooker then opened the public hearing and asked for public comment on the proposed
amendment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier said that this is an important issue, and an important plan, and it is deserving of the
Board’s support. Mr. Rooker referenced Attachment 1 as the proposed new text to the Natural
Resources/Cultural Assets component.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, to approve CPA-2004-0006 to amend the Natural Resources
and Cultural Assets component of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Stormwater Master Plan,
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
with the anticipation of eventually adopting a stormwater financing strategy as part of a broader approach to
funding urban infrastructure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None
(Note: The proposed amendment is set out in full below.)
Amendment #1 Page 1 - Introduction to the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of
th
the Comprehensive Plan, 4 Full paragraph
This chapter incorporates as part of the Comprehensive Plan the following freestanding documents: the
adopted in 1992, the adopted in 2000,
Open Space and Critical Resources PlanHistoric Preservation Plan
and the adopted in 2005.
Stormwater Master Plan
Included as Appendix A is the detailed . The , prepared by the
Greenways PlanMountain Protection Plan
Mountain Protection Committee in 1996, is Appendix B. The , the
Open Space and Critical Resources Plan
, and the are located under separate cover.
Historic Preservation PlanStormwater Master Plan
st
Amendment #2 Page 28 – Stormwater Management, 1 Full paragraph
Urban and suburban development changes the nature of streams and drainage ways, and can result in
increased flooding, loss of groundwater recharge, and water quality degradation. Pollutants present in
urban and suburban runoff include: sediment, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, bacteriological
contaminants, and grease and oil, among others. Since 1980, the County has required development in an
urban and urbanizing portion of the County known as the "stormwater detention area" to use facilities that
detain storm water. The purpose of these measures is to protect downstream properties from excessive
drainage, erosion, and flooding. In developing the Water Protection Ordinance, the County has been
studied how the storm water program can be enhanced to be more comprehensive, to coordinate
stormwater management within entire drainage basins, to incorporate water quality concerns, and to
improve the design and maintenance of stormwater facilities. The Design Standards Manual further refines
County guidance on these matters.
To this end, the County has recently completed a Stormwater Master Plan for the County’s Development
Areas. The objectives of the Stormwater Master Plan are to (1) provide guidance for land use planning and
neighborhood master planning that is based on the assessment and prioritization of water resources and
(2) promote public and private stormwater solutions that are based on needs and opportunities at the
watershed scale rather than relying solely on a site-by-site approach.
In developing the Stormwater Master Plan, assessments were conducted for streams within the
Development Areas and information on habitat conditions, community values, and problem areas were
gathered. Information from the stream assessments was utilized to identify High-Value Stream Corridors.
This information is useful for land use and neighborhood planning, for prioritizing County capital projects for
stream improvement, and for guiding the review of development proposals and the implementation of the
Water Protection Ordinance. To further assess stream conditions, selected High-Value Stream Corridors
were monitored for biological integrity by the StreamWatch citizen monitoring program. Stream Corridor
Restoration Projects and Regional Stormwater Control Facilities were then identified. Stream Corridor
Restoration projects would improve existing stream corridors by repairing stream erosion, enhancing
stream buffers, cleaning up dump sites, and repairing infrastructure problems. Regional Stormwater
Facilities are intended to treat areas with high impervious cover, help protect downstream High-Value
Stream Corridors, and be integrated functionally and aesthetically with existing and future development
patterns. The Stormwater Master Plan aims to coordinate various Stormwater Programmatic Elements and
contains Stormwater Actions Lists for each Development Area that includes prioritized stream restoration
projects and prioritized regional facilities to be used in planning County capital watershed improvement
projects and in coordinating private development activities.
Amendment #3 Page 30 – List of Strategies
Strategy: Implement the Stormwater Master Plan programs and improvements in accordance with
a funding strategy approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Strategy: Amend the Water Protection Ordinance to incorporate stream management
objectives based on stream assessment results, including providing stream buffers
for pocket natural areas and community and private use trails, as designated in the
plan.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. CPA-2003-006. Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Proposal
to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by adding Chapter 4, Rural Areas. Chapter 4 would
describe the existing rural areas, the history of land use policies for the rural areas, & trends in rural areas
land use & development; establish a vision for the rural areas within Albemarle County; identify guiding
principles for the rural areas & land uses therein; establish policies, objectives & strategies for
achieving desired land use patterns, density & residential development for the rural areas; establish
policies, objectives & strategies for infrastructure & providing community services within the rural areas; &
establish policies, objectives & strategies towards using & developing fiscal tools that will enable the
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
County & its citizens to fulfill the guiding principles & achieve the policies & objectives of Chapter 4.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 24 and January 31, 2005).
Mr. Cilimberg reported that it has been almost two years since the Planning Commission provided
direction for this effort to draft the Rural Areas element of the plan. They started out with direction in seven
areas; since then the Planning Commission has had numerous work sessions, public hearings, and
meetings in the rural areas of the County. In August 2004, the Commission recommended a draft of the
Rural Areas element of the plan, and the Board began their work session shortly thereafter. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that most of what had been recommended by the Commission remained unchanged.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in the major issue areas, there were guiding principles for the
Comprehensive Plan approach to rural area matters. In this particular plan all elements that comprise the
rural areas have been considered equally. Current growth management policy puts greater weight on
agricultural and forestal resources, and now there is equivalent weight put on all resources. With
agricultural and forestal, the plan would call for the County to take a more active role in supporting
agriculture and forestry through the creation of a staff position to provide support to farm and forest owners,
education programs, increased funding for conservation easement purchases, simplifying processes for
sale of farm products, and mandated clustering of subdivisions to help protect important farm and forest
land.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the plan also addresses commercial uses and land use flexibility,
allowing uses in the crossroad communities at scales small enough to provide benefits without encouraging
residential development and also providing the opportunity to preserve historic buildings and make use of
those buildings to help communities maintain its resources. He noted that the identification of “crossroads
communities” would follow with the implementation of this plan.
Regarding conservation areas, Mr. Cilimberg said that there is new language that the Planning
Commission amended to clarify the definition of conservation, its importance to the County and the
recognition that conservation uses qualify for land use taxation. He added that there are many tools also
identified to protect important resources at various scales.
In the Central Water and Sewer System area, he mentioned, there is a recommendation from the
Planning Commission that the Board utilize central water as a tool to further reduce residential lot sizes in
the rural areas. He added that the Board had previously expressed concern that proliferation of those
systems could have an unintended consequence by permitting residential development that would not
otherwise be feasible. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Board had felt that such systems should only be
considered on a case-by-case basis, which is consistent with current policies and regulations. They had
also agreed previously that the Board would consider tax provisions regarding maintenance of septic tank
systems in order to reduce the potential for groundwater contamination, which would have widespread
application in the rural areas.
In the Residential Development area, Mr. Cilimberg said that since the 1989 plan, that has been
recognized as a major threat to the rural areas and the areas water supplies, with an estimate that there
could be an additional 50,000 homes in the rural areas, providing significant impact to agriculture and
forestry and water quality and natural habitats. While this plan does not reduce the total amount of
residential development that is possible in the rural areas, the policies do propose to control the design of
development by requiring subdivisions to be clustered, limiting the size of development lots to the extent
that can be supported with onsite well and septic, and phasing of development to moderate the rate of
subdivision in the Rural areas.
In the Roads and Transportation area, the plan focuses on enhancing safety on roads with in-place
improvements and recognizes that unaddressed development potential in the rural areas will make safety
more difficult to achieve.
Mr. Cilimberg added that the overall plan recommends tracking and monitoring tools that would
help the County better understand the trends in the rural areas, and calls for a detailed visioning process
whereby citizens can help to identify future states in the rural areas in which the plan’s multiple goals can be
achieved. He said that staff recommends that the Board receive public comment on the draft plan and
schedule a follow-up work session to discuss any final revisions that might result from public input, and
review implementation steps before adopting the plan.
Mr. Wyant asked if implementation steps would be handled in follow-up work sessions. Mr.
Cilimberg affirmed this.
Mr. Rooker asked if there would be ordinances that would result from the passing of this plan that
would go through a public process. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be the case, and staff would outline what
it would take to do those various things based on the plan.
Mr. Wyant stated that it is important that the Board see what they are before making decisions. He
would like to see the Board deal with implementation as it adopts plans in the future. He thinks it would
help give direction for staff, and the Board would know the outcome.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing.
Ms. Ann Mallek, of Earlysville addressed the Board, stating that while the amendment is not
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
perfect, she wants the Board to adopt this chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. In her mind, the plan
needs more teeth to achieve its goal. In 2003, 28 percent of newly developed units were still located in the
rural area.
Ms. Mallek set forth nine ideas for the Board to consider in protecting the rural areas from
development:
(1) Agriculture and forestry should keep their top ranking in the uses for the rural area. Since the
rural area makes up 95 percent of the land in the County, the effect of these 50,000 possible residential lots
is the driving force for all County issues – traffic, schools, water, fire protection.
(2) Decide to protect the rural area rather than just accommodate development there. Changing
the permissive use of private roads is just one step. The plan should limit those private roads to family
divisions.
(3) Support the economics of agriculture, and the connections of producers and buyers. Direct the
land use incentive program to bonafide preservation, agriculture, forestry, through required management
plans and/or annual production amounts.
(4) Continue to actively and generously support the ACE program, as it provides value to
landowners and the community.
(5) Require phasing of development right use where only a certain number of development rights
could be used in any several year period, which would benefit a farmer or landowner who wanted to sell a
small parcel for income and protect their revenue and stop the wholesale development of a farm into 100
houses.
(6) Create strict standards for cluster construction and provisions for wells and septic systems;
runoff control is essential. Every housing unit sends out an average of 10 car trips per day.
(7) Package sewage disposal plants should be prohibited. The density of housing must be limited
to what can be safely sustained under the new groundwater ordinance.
(8) Find a way to include affordably priced houses in sizable construction projects around the
County. Unbridled free enterprise is not building affordably priced housing now, if the new Earlysville
construction is any example; requirements or incentives are needed; and
(9) There should be extra costs associated with building in the rural areas.
Mr. Ken Bahr, a local contractor, addressed the Board. He said that there is a low supply and high
demand for contractors in the area. Mr. Bahr stated that the County should work towards alleviating traffic
and congestion by offering local built-in services. There is specific language in the current proposal to
disallow contractor yards, but in reality a contractor yard is not a permanent change and can easily be
“plowed back under into farmland” if it is a fence with trucks, etc. Mr. Bahr emphasized that 58 percent of
the rural area is not agricultural as an active farm, and allowing a farmer to use his land for other uses can
help them “whether the storm” when farm years are rough. He added that the County survey indicated that
96 percent of citizens favor more services available at the rural level. Mr. Bahr stated that he found it
disturbing that the plan called for schools in the development areas and not the rural areas, because this
would lead to the need for more buses if residential development continues in the County. He concluded
that allowing for more goods and services in a local community area keeps people from having to go into
town.
Mr. Carleton Ray addressed the Board on behalf of the Board for Citizens for Albemarle, and
distributed a statement from that group. The current Rural Areas Plan reviews a decades-long undertaking
of plans, proposals, voluntary actions, and incentives designed to reverse “central trends” towards the
division and fragmentation of the rural landscape and the increase suburbanization of rural areas. The plan
states “the County should ensure that regulatory and program changes protect or restore the resources
they affect. This will require an orientation of resource protection that pervades the County planning
process rather than a separate resource protection program. He stated that if the shift is not accomplished,
the County will continue to be plagued by a tyranny of small decisions or by the inevitable long-term
outcome of a situation no one could have predicted from numerous short-term small decisions.
Mr. Ray said that the public acceptance of the fact that growth comes with a substantial cost may
be difficult to achieve, and the myth that population and economic growth promotes the welfare of citizens
has been debunked theoretically and in practice, but yet persists. The CFA feels the Rural Areas Plan is a
“major advance” in protecting the rural character of Albemarle. Mr. Ray stated that the plan’s guiding
principles require broadening, as forest products seem to take precedence over the health of the forest and
biodiversity is narrowly confined to wildlife protection when it should relate to landscape. He added that
biodiversity is particularly important in Albemarle because of close connection of ecosystem services that
provide free economic health and public well-being. Mr. Ray said that a standing biodiversity committee
must be appointed and funded as soon as possible to facilitate rural area conservation and coordination
with the public so that natural resources inventory may better proceed. He stated that the RWSA is
presently considering exceedingly costly alternatives to maintain Albemarle’s water supply, but those
alternatives will not suffice absent coordination with land use planning as suggested in the Rural Areas
Plan. Mr. Ray said that ACE and other such mechanisms should be aggressively pursued and funded.
Application criteria should be brought up to date, particularly with respect to biodiversity and water supply.
He added that performance standards for improved environmental management should be
expressed as regulations and ordinances. Mr. Ray concluded by stating the CFA supports the Rural Areas
Plan.
Ms. Wrenn Olivier addressed the Board, noting that she was born in Albemarle County and still
lives on her family farm, where she and her family have raised sheep since 1987. Ms. Olivier said that she
supports the strengthening of natural resource protection, and hopes the County will support agricultural
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
marketing efforts. She encouraged the Board to find means to reduce rural residential development rights.
Ms. Katie Hobbs addressed the Board, stating that the concept of central wells and septic systems
is a critical element of cluster development now becoming part of the rural area portion of the
Comprehensive Plan, but it has been deleted from the draft. She emphasized that the Planning staff and
Commission, Water Resource Manager, and Rural Area Advisory Group have all recommended that the
centralization of well and septic is a method that should be considered in rural area cluster development.
Ms. Hobbs said that the technology available now makes these systems viable options. She added that
monitoring rural development systems would be a strong beginning towards greater watershed protection.
Mr. Dan Maupin of Whitehall addressed the Board. He said he farms 225 acres that have been in
his family for over 250 years. The County needs to recognize the private enterprises that preserve the rural
areas. Mr. Maupin asked the Board to restore the language from the previous Rural Areas Comprehensive
Plan chapter regarding priority uses in the rural areas, which recognize the importance of agricultural use.
Agriculture puts food on our table, and the forest industry puts roofs over our head.
Mr. Zeke Crater of Ivy addressed the Board, and thanked them for their work on the plan. He
stated his support for the plan, but added that he does not think it goes far enough in protecting the rural
character of the County.
Mr. Tom Olivier addressed the Board. He is pleased to see that protection of natural resources is
regarded as one of the primary goals of rural land use planning, and that areas dedicated to the
conservation of water and biological resources are now recognized as desired rural land uses. He stated
that the proposed clustering of residences in rural areas is a necessary step away from sprawl, and this
draft is a “forward-thinking document.” Mr. Olivier recommended that the goals statement in the
Conservation Uses section be changed as it does not fully capture the essence of the section to include the
language “protects sufficient natural conservation areas to assure persistence of our biological and water
resources.” Mr. Olivier commented that the assumptions underlying the 1989 strategy that hoped the
economic benefits of rural industries would protect farms, forests, and other open space resources were
flawed. Having been tried for 15 years, we now know that approach by itself simply does not work. He
added that food-producing agriculture does remain essential to our continued existence, and it has suffered
hard times lately. Mr. Olivier encouraged the direct marketing of local agricultural products. Mr. Olivier
concluded by stating there is one great omission in this chapter: a proposal to reduce residential rights.
Mr. Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, noting that in 1976
the first conservation easement in Albemarle County was recorded. Since then, in partnerships with Virginia
Outdoors Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, private landowners, and others, over 49,000 acres of
Albemarle’s countryside has been protected with voluntary conservation easements. Mr. Werner reported
that in the PEC’s nine-County region, almost 215,000 acres are under easement. He said that while about
11 percent of the countryside has been protected with easements, almost 20 percent – 85,000 acres – has
been subdivided. Mr. Werner said that annually, over 300 new rural homes are built, mostly on small lots
without any agricultural activity. He added that the PEC encourages the Board to adopt the proposed plan,
which includes the key component of preserving the rural area by limiting development and fragmentation.
Mr. Werner said that adopting this plan also means the County must adopt effective regulatory and
compensatory measures to reduce the rate of rural area development. He stated that clustering simply
“rearranges” development, and does not reduce it. The PEC goes on record in stating that “clustering
alone will not stem the tide of rural development; clustering will not preserve the rural area.” He added that
clustering may actually accelerate development, and urban-scale development is still counter to the
County’s rural policy. Whether the development is clustered or scattered, the results are the same. With
clustering, there are no fewer wells, no fewer septic systems, no less traffic on rural roads, and long school
bus rides do not become shorter. He added that the cost of a suburbanized rural area also includes
increased sediment in streams, increased demand on groundwater, increased conflict between residential
and agricultural uses, and loss of ecosystems. Mr. Werner emphasized that ex-urban sprawl has an
enormous impact on natural resources, and comes at a high fiscal cost to taxpayers. He stated that the
PEC would like to have included in the plan: (1) prohibit centralized well and septic plans in the rural areas;
they are used to create large-scale rural subdivisions; (2) require that 85 percent of the cluster be placed in
a permanent conservation tract; (3) limit the scale of cluster development; (4) require the phasing for all
rural subdivisions, and (5) complete a thorough assessment of the public cost associated with rural
development.
Mr. Tony Vanderwarker, representing Voters to Stop Sprawl, addressed the Board. He stated that
the VSS has been concerned for some time about utilizing clustering as the main means to control growth
in the rural areas. Their concern is primarily regarding “messing with the economics of the rural area.” Mr.
Vanderwarker said that a developer can make more money in a cluster development by limiting the well
and septic area provided in the rural area and providing smaller lots that are more marketable. He noted
that cluster development theoretically allows the portability of lots, whereby developers could use more of
their parcels for lots. Mr. Vanderwarker stated that the VSS encourages the County to implement a
phasing of development rights as soon as possible. He suggested that the Rural Areas Plan be developed
so the regulations would put more of the greenspace along roadways or visible from scenic vistas.
Mr. Tom Loach described the land use program for rural preservation as a failure. The question is
whether the Board is going to continue to spend money on the land use program in the face of no data that
the County can show return on investment for the taxpayer. He mentioned that the County has spent $100
million on the land use program over the last 20 years, adding that one County official at a recent
conference could show no return on investment to the taxpayer. Mr. Loach said that a preliminary study
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
done by PEC showed that 95 percent of recent development lots in the rural areas were in land use, which
benefits developers. He said that if the County had invested that $100 million in the ACE program, there
would now be 100,000 acres preserved forever.
Mr. John Cruickshank, an Earlysville resident representing the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club,
with 1160 members in central Virginia, including 400 of them in Albemarle, addressed the Board. He
thanked the Board for including a Rural Areas chapter in the Comprehensive Plan, which demonstrates
foresight and a commitment to the preservation of our natural environment for future generations. Mr.
Cruickshank said that conservation of open space and protection of natural resources must be top priorities
of this plan. He added that large contiguous areas must be left in their natural state so that native plants
and animals can flourish. Mr. Cruickshank mentioned that for 25 years, his family’s lives have been
enriched by the Ivy Creek Natural Area and Ragged Mountain Natural Area. This community must continue
to conserve natural areas for those that follow us. He urged the Board to create a standing biodiversity
committee that will help the County protect these areas and the plants and animals that inhabit them. Mr.
Cruickshank encouraged the Board to put a reasonable limit on the number of new residences that can be
built in the future, as a large increase in population will put tremendous pressure on transportation, schools,
and natural resources. He added that the Board does not need any more shopping centers or big-box
stores in Albemarle. Mr. Cruickshank reported that the Environmental Protection Agency ranks Albemarle
County among the dirtiest 30 percent of counties in the nation for air pollutants; 93 percent of this pollution
is caused by cars, buses, and airplanes. More development will bring more traffic and more pollution.
Mr. Jack Marshall, representing Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population, addressed the
Board. He said that ASAP members feel this version of the Rural Areas section defines the situation well,
and proposes strategies that will move this County in the right direction. He encouraged the Board to take
additional steps to reach the vision the section describes, that recognizes regulations that control the form
of residential development will not significantly reduce its impacts. Mr. Marshall said that overall density
needs to be reduced, and measures such as clustering and overlay districts address only where and how
quickly, not how much, growth should occur in the rural areas.
Mr. Marshall continued, stating that these strategies need to be incorporated into the Comp Plan,
not merely to accommodate whatever population growth happens to fall into the rural areas in the coming
decades, not seriously influencing the extent of the growth. He noted that ASAP does not see the
document as making an effort to examining what the residential development limit should be in the rural
areas. Mr. Marshall said that the Comp Plan chapter makes no projection of the population size in the rural
areas at buildout. He said that the County needs to be realistic about future growth and the associated
problems and difficult solutions associated with the growth. The County must calculate the population size
at buildout that will result from present zoning, as well as the buildout population if the recommended
strategies in the Comp Plan are adopted. The County also needs to define the optimum populations for the
rural areas and growth areas, and adopt less timid mechanisms to reach and maintain those levels. He
concluded that the County must also articulate a comprehensive population policy by putting together
references to population and adding new elements where appropriate.
Mr. J. H. Jones, a lifelong resident of White Hall, farmer, and forester, addressed the Board. He
said that overall he endorses the document, but feels a bit threatened by the “Guiding Principles of the
Rural Areas.” Mr. Jones expressed concern that all policies in the rural areas are treated the same under
this plan. He said that agriculture and forestry would be placed at equal value of all other considerations,
including water protection, for example. All things being equal, does he get to clear-cut, or does the County
watershed policy tell him he cannot. He stated that there are unintended consequences of treating all
aspects of the rural areas equally. He would like to see the Board “inch up” agriculture and forestry again
as the primary focus of the rural areas, and have all these other principles as a close second. It is
important to keep him in business.
Ms. Liz Palmer, representing the League of Women Voters’ Natural Resource Committee,
commended the staff, citizens, and appointed elected officials for their work over several years to produce
this guide for stewardship and management of rural areas. In terms of land conservation, preservation, and
resource protection, the revised Rural Areas chapter identifies conservation as the prime use of rural land,
on par with agriculture and forestry. Ms. Palmer stated that this properly acknowledges the role of
conservation in protecting critical natural resources such as water, forests, and soils, and in preserving the
biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. She said that public commitment to conservation must be increased
through permanent easements and more incentives for preservation and restoration activities. Ms. Palmer
said that the critical resources inventory and biodiversity study will enable ongoing identification and
mapping of the most vital resources, and this information should be used to extend overlay districts where
development is disallowed or severely restricted.
Ms. Palmer said that continuing current rates and patterns of subdivision could alter forever forests,
farms, and open spaces and natural habitats that define rural lands. To counter the trend, the LWV
supports the direction of residential and commercial growth to development areas, and the maintenance of
the current policy of not extending public water and sewer into the rural areas. Regarding Rural
Preservation developments, Ms. Palmer said this may not significantly decrease the amount of residential
growth, while it is important for mitigating some effects of growth. They support the development of high
RPD standards that would maximize the size of the preservation parcel, minimize lot size, and cluster them
in such a way as to protect important resources. Ms. Palmer stated that phasing development will help
deter development, and urged the County to moved forward immediately with phasing. She added that
community water and sewer should not be addressed in the Rural Areas chapter because of their tendency
to stimulate residential development and because of their history of trouble and failure; should they be
used, they should be addressed in the Land Use/Utilities section of the Comp. Plan. On Water
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Conservation and Protection, she said that the potential for 50,000 more houses in the rural areas will
continue to facilitate the loss of large tracts of land and forest. She noted that forested lands produce the
cleanest and most reliable source of water possible, and serve as a natural water reservoir and filtration
system. Ms. Palmer added that the LWV also supports the recent addition to the rural areas revision that
would tighten standards for maintenance of individual septic systems. In the area of public water supply
planning, they suggest overtly stating in the Rural Areas chapter that such planning must not increase
pressure for further suburbanization in the rural areas. She said that water supply projects must be
designed to adhere to goals of the resource protection preservation.
Mr. Jimmy Powell of North Garden, a farmer and member of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau
Board, addressed the Board. He is a third-generation farmer, and he would like to see his farm preserved
for future generations. Mr. Powell said that he has enrolled his farm in the County’s ACE program. He
supports the clustering concept in the proposed plan, but he has issues with the language that changes the
primary land use in the rural area to make the agricultural and forestry uses equal to other rural uses. This
language makes it looks as if it is demoting farm life. He strongly recommended reverting to the language
in the previous Rural Areas chapter.
Mr. Ed Scharer addressed the Board, stating his approval for the plan and the clustering concept.
Mr. Scharer said that the only two uses of the eight mentioned in the plan that return anything to the land
are agriculture and forestry. The others are laudable, and the County should certainly work towards doing
them, but if you do not have a return to the land at least to cover the taxes, the next steward may not feel
that water is important, and his heirs will sell the property. Mr. Scharer added that land that is not returning
anything is ripe for development.
Mr. Corky Shackleford, who operates farm and forest land in the Stony Point area, addressed the
Board. As a member of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, Mr. Shackleford said that he finds a lot of
positive elements in the plan, including the appropriation for a staff person to encourage and promote
agriculture. He shared the concern of his fellow farmers that the priorities in the guidelines are equal,
adding that agriculture and forestry need to be kept as top priority, although the other items are important.
He thinks the other items should come as secondary to the one thing that will keep property owners on their
land. Mr. Shackleford stated that farmers are protecting the land and resources at their own expense, and
there may be conflict between agricultural/forestry and other conservation uses. He concluded by
presenting an illustration of a York County example, where a landowner hired a consultant forester and
adopted state BMPs before she cut timber on her property, but her neighbors felt that her cutting of trees
impacted the view from their lots. He explained that the case went to the Virginia Supreme Court, and she
lost the case because of excess requirements by the County for additional forest buffer. Mr. Shackelford
asked audience members who agree with agriculture as a priority to raise their hands (approximately 15
people raised their hands).
Mr. John Hermsmeier addressed the Board, stating that he thinks the plan is good and
congratulated its architects. He acknowledged Charlotte Humphris and Walter Perkins for their past
contributions over the years to the thinking they provided as a catalyst for this plan, which is a “public-private
agreement.” Mr. Hermsmeier said that he supports conservation as a use, and that does not have to mean
extraction and does include preservation. He supports the active attention to all desirable components of
the rural areas, and acknowledging those and agreeing on the relationship between them is a more
advisable pathway than to attempt to rank importance. Mr. Hermsmeier said these are all ultimately
compatible and important uses of our rural areas. He thinks it would be a mistake to rank them thus
diminishing the importance of something else. He sees the Rural Areas plan in the context of the overall
Comprehensive Plan as an opportunity to increase the unity of Albemarle citizens while allowing for a
diversity of places and ways of living. Mr. Hermsmeier said that he includes this plan as part of his high
school curriculum, including courses on ecology, earth science, and environmental science. He added that
his students generally support this plan, but question whether or not it will be achieved. From here the
County’s task is to demonstrate its commitment that a good plan can indeed become a good reality.
Mr. Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum addressed the Board, stating that the best
protection for the rural areas is to make it easier to develop in the development areas. Mr. Williamson
stated that the FEF is asking that this be added to the guiding objectives of this Comprehensive Plan
chapter: “ensure that property owner rights are protected.” He said that the FEF fully supports the Farm
Bureau’s position that agriculture and forestry are the two primary uses for the rural area. He added that
they commend the stewardship of the rural property owners to date, and implore the Board not to punish
these property owners. Mr. Williamson said that the FEF has been involved in the Rural Areas plan since
its inception, and served on the Rural Areas Focus Group that pushed for clustering over the objections of
some groups. He noted that clustering by-right is a practical option, but the current process for a Rural
Preservation District is far too subjective. He added that long after staff had generally supported the RPD,
the Planning Commission turned the RPD on its head and wanted to change what land was in the district
and what was being used for the development. Mr. Williamson said that the FEF is concerned that the
Rural Areas Plan includes the phrase “with the phasing of development and changing the formula for
calculating the number and size of lots within the Rural Preservation developments. He added that phasing
by-right development is a diminishing of landowner rights, and by focusing energy on cluster-development
that is environmentally sensitive, you accomplish the goal without punishing landowners who have, to date,
been good stewards of their land. Mr. Williamson added that cluster developments balance the need for
large unfragmented open space while preserving landowner value. He concluded that the FEF requests
the Board to act to add the seven words on Page 6 of the current Rural Areas chapter: “ensure that
property rights are protected.” Mr. Williamson added that the FEF requests the Board to state a position on
the fairness to rural property owners to be used as guidance to staff as these policies are being translated
into regulations.
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Brian Walden, a farmer and educator, addressed the Board, noting that he believes that water
resources are of utmost importance. He emphasized that there must be an understanding that we are not
going to feasibly attain any more water whether it’s from an aqueduct or elsewhere. He said that the only
way to preserve the right to drink water freely is to promote more active public awareness of water
resources, as well as practical conservation practices that the public and industry can implement.
Education is the key to conservation.
Ms. Jean Kolb, who lives west of Covesville, addressed the Board. She said that she generally
approves of this chapter, and encouraged the Board to keep conservation equal with forestry and farming.
Ms. Kolb said that she lives on 176 acres of forestland, and she does not see any conflict in having those
things equal in the guiding principles. She had mailed the Board some information prior to this meeting.
Ms. Kolb said that she was conversing with a Parks & Recreation representative near Atlanta, GA, who
commented that she wished DeKalb County had supported conservation the way that Albemarle does.
Mr. Peter Kleiman addressed the Board to point out a loophole in the Rural Area Plan that allows
private road development on public rights-of-way, as with Blenheim Road. He commented that the County
must translate these goals into meaningful policies and strategies. Mr. Kleiman stated that a private
landowners decision to develop Blenheim Road opened up large parcels for development and violated
every one of those desirable goals, strategies, standards and objectives. Neither the County nor VDOT
took any administrative authority to ensure that these goals were met. The public had no voice. He
mentioned that VDOT did allow one meeting with residents, but the Resident Engineer said it was a waste
of his time and left the room at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Kleiman stated that the property nearby is
now for sale as development lots, and this loophole needs to be plugged. He added that the public needs
guarantees that they will be involved, that environmental policies will be recognized, historic properties and
cultural resources will be preserved. Mr. Kleiman emphasized that if a private person steps in to build a
road, they should have to go through the same process as that with a public road.
Mr. Jim Bonner, owner of two farms in Scottsville, addressed the Board. He said that the citizens of
Albemarle are honored to be stewards of this land, and have a duty and responsibility to preserve and
maintain it. Mr. Bonner noted the loss of prime forests to residential subdivisions, adding that they increase
pollution, traffic, taxes and services and degrade the natural balance and biodiversity that are critical to the
quality of life currently enjoyed in the rural areas. The loss of farmland and forests has often been at the
hands of those who do not live here and have no appreciation for the history, the people, the culture of the
area, but have exploited the subdivision ordinances purely for profit at the ultimate expense of the people
who live here. Mr. Bonner said that phasing of subdivision over a substantial period of time will discourage
this exploitation by land speculators with no loss in value to the underlying asset, and will hopefully buy time
to more carefully consider long-term strategies to further protect the rural areas.
Mr. Lee Freudberg addressed the Board, urging the County to enact phasing to slow development
in the rural areas. He had not heard much about the transfer of development rights, which he understands
the County is not able now to do because it requires enabling legislation on the part of the state. Mr.
Freudberg said that the state needs to enact legislation to enable the County to provide for the transfer of
development rights, which would be an incredible tool to retard growth in the rural areas.
Mr. Ed McMahon addressed the Board, stating that the County’s policies for the rural areas will
make it prohibitive for young people because the cost of the land as you get out of the City will become
higher and higher. He said that conservation easements and land use program drive the cost of available
land up, and the people living in places like Forest Lakes are really subsidizing multi-million dollar farms
such as those in Keswick and Free Union. Mr. McMahon commented that it is doing a disservice to lower
income people when you restrict development, and encouraged the Board to develop a plan for affordable
housing as well as conservation programs.
Mr. Andrew Wright told the Board that he did not agree with the previous speaker who said that
allowing development in the rural areas would enable landowners to continue to be good stewards of the
land, although he acknowledged that farmers are an important part of the fabric of the County, and their
stewardship is critical. He added that phasing is an important tool in keeping large developers out of the
County and preserving the rural areas.
Mr. Eric Christiansen of Scottsville said that nothing is being done to stop the rapid influx of people
to the area, and the last drought basically caused the area to run out of water. Every additional resident
greatly increases the expenses associated with drought.
Ms. Karen Arch of Jarman’s Gap in Crozet said that within less than a year, an entire site was
bulldozed at Wayland’s Grant to make way for new development with houses right up against the road.
She does not understand when Albemarle has this new community neighborhood model that it should be
proud of, that it looks like everything else that is being developed all around the Northern Virginia corridor.
She suggested a form of zoning that would require developers to give a visual appeal, and safety factors as
part of their developments.
Mr. Larry Denevue of White Hall commented that he put 400 acres of his land in conservation
easement last year. He believes that the chapter on Rural Areas should keep conservation and water
quality on equal footing with farming and forestry. The County should put its money where its mouth is. Mr.
Denevue asked if he wrote something to the Board later, if it would be considered. Mr. Rooker replied that
it would.
Mr. Denevue stated that a lot of his neighbors do not qualify for conservation easements, but many
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
people do not understand the benefits of the ACE program and there ought to be a more concerted effort
to explain ACE to citizens.
Ms. Jane Gatewood of Scottsville addressed the Board, stating that in the next few years, at the end
of her driveway, there will be a development showing “the backsides of ugly mansions,” which was
approved by the Planning Commission and called a Rural Preservation Development. She mentioned that
40 percent of the property in Albemarle is a rural preservation section, and more than half is a subdivision.
Ms. Gatewood expressed her hope that future language would be tighter regarding development in the rural
areas, and the rural preservation development concept may need to be scrapped entirely.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Rooker said that it would be helpful to have the minutes before their next meeting when this is
nd
discussed, which is March 2.
Ms. Thomas commented on the intelligent and worthwhile comments provided by people attending
the meetings.
nd
Mr. Boyd asked that if the discussion at the March 2 meeting would include the implementation
strategies. Mr. Cilimberg replied that they would be available at that meeting.
Mr. Rooker said that the goal would be to adopt a statement of policy, and the strategies would
come back one-by-one in the form of specific recommendations such as funding of positions. He added
that these strategies may require independent work sessions. He does not think the Board will go through
nd
every strategy on March 2 and make a concrete decision about how that strategy’s being implemented.
Mr. Boyd stated that he has heard the concerns from farmers on this particular ordinance, and he
wants to know how staff will address specific concerns.
Mr. Rooker commented that the farmers who spoke had a specific issue with the language
pertaining to guiding principles in the plan. That is something the Board can discuss at its next meeting.
Ultimately, the Board will have to come to a resolution on that issue. Other issues may arise based upon
comments or based upon things that members of the Board bring up.
Mr. Boyd said he wants to make sure their concerns are addressed, including more information
about the examples presented.
Regarding the example given about the York County landowner, Mr. Rooker said there are very
little restrictions under state law about cutting timber on rural lands.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the Comprehensive Plan is just a plan and a guide. It is a first step to
move along towards the Zoning Ordinance, but the farmers should not fear that it is going to come down
immediately, or even long term. It might not happen.
Mr. Rooker said that the examples given today were about cutting timber, and under state law the
County could not pass an ordinance that prohibited the cutting of timber on rural land.
Ms. Thomas said that she was aware of a subdivision situation whereby there was a diminution of a
landowner’s ability to harvest trees because of the neighborhood’s opposition. From that story, she has
concluded that the main danger to farmers and foresters being able to operate is going to be increased
suburban development in the rural area because the more people you have, the more people are going to
regard that as their view, and they are going to have a strong social if not legal impact on what that person
can do with his land. She said that the Comp Plan does not cut down on the number of subdivisions, but it
does say they will be clustered, with the buffers being on the clustered land. Ms. Thomas added that this
Comp Plan proposal is just figuring out a way to deal with the conflict between conservation and agriculture
and forestry if the Board is not willing to reduce the amount of suburban development that is going to take
place in the rural area.
Mr. Wyant commented that there are conflicts regarding biodiversity and farmland use. He said
that farmers are conservationists, and should be given credit for that. Mr. Wyant stated that he once ran
over a quail nest and it upset him greatly, and it is hard for people who have not farmed to understand that.
nd
Mr. Tucker said that most of the afternoon of March 2 has been reserved for further discussion on
the Comp Plan. There was no further discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9 From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Wyant asked for a status report on the Pantops and Northern Master Plans. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that the County is in negotiation with a selected consultant for the Northern Development Area
Master Plan, and are working with a particular group that made a presentation to the County. He noted that
the planner who has been working on the Pantops Master Plan is leaving the County, and they are
restructuring that project.
Mr. Wyant said that he would like to get more specifics about the project so the Board knows what
they will be dealing with. Mr. Cilimberg commented that he and Mr. Graham were in a meeting yesterday
regarding the third phase of the Route 29 corridor work coming out of the MPO and dealing with the
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
transportation aspects of the Northern Development Area study. The County has the opportunity there to
take advantage of that work and put the two together.”
__________
Ms. Thomas provided packets from her conference “Building Safe, Health, and Livable
Communities” to Board members and County staff. She stated that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
Urban League, and others underwrote the conference. Ms. Thomas said that many health problems such
as obesity have occurred because people do not have any way or reason to get out and walk.
Mr. Rooker stated that there have been studies that have shown people in urban areas weight less
than those that live in rural and suburban areas.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that he has been informed that the County is getting to a critical stage with the Route
231/Route 22 situation. He indicated that there is support for truck limitation at the County and state level,
but at the district level that support is questionable. Mr. Boyd suggested that he and Mr. Rooker call Butch
Davies and let them know where the County stands, as Orange and Louisa are opposed to the restrictions.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked when the subdivision ordinance was coming back to the Board. Mr. Davis replied
that there would be a work session at the March day meeting, which would hopefully be a final draft, and a
public hearing would be scheduled for April.
Mr. Boyd said that the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association provided information on the impact of
the ordinance to the price of housing, and he understood that County staff was going to take a look at those
numbers. Mr. Graham noted that the cost of the infrastructure – such as common space, walkways, etc. –
can actually be offset with increased density because you can build additional lots. Mr. Boyd asked if there
were items in the ordinance that would impact that. Mr. Cilimberg said that some of the BRHA examples
were not VDOT-standard roads, and because the County is willing to accept private roads, that fueled the
use of those road widths shown in the BHRA examples.
Mr. Rooker stated that the cost-density tradeoffs are site specific, and the question is whether or not
the form of development the County is striving for in the urban area is worth that additional cost.
Mr. Boyd commented that he would like to know what that additional cost is, and he wants to make
sure there are provisions for affordable housing. Mr. Rooker said that he felt it would be difficult to pinpoint
how much the ordinance might impact a development unit’s cost. Mr. Boyd asked if there was any more
cost in choosing a certain type of street tree over another, etc. Mr. Rooker responded that information does
exist. He is concerned that the County might be taking on a big cost by requiring trees in the strip between
the sidewalk and the street instead of on the other side of the sidewalk.
Mr. Boyd said that he is interested in getting those figures for a specific house, as opposed to the
cost of maintenance.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Boyd what he plans to do with this information. Let’s say the Board finds
out it is $10,000 more per lot to have good stormwater drainage system rather than rural cross-section
swales that do not work in the urban area. That is a piece of information that she is sure that engineers
could come up with. She thinks the County has gotten to the point where it is saying there are going to be
more expensive ways, but they are better ways, to do things in the urban area. We are hoping there will be
greater density in development, and the developer is going to divide that greater cost by having greater
density, which is what our Comprehensive Plan and our Growth Management Plan call for. It is all moving
in the right direction. Staff could spend a hundred hours coming up with the cost of each piece of the
subdivision ordinance, but she does not know that it is going to change either the County’s, or the
conclusion that the Blue Ridge Homebuilders made in their presentation to the Board, which was that it was
doable, and it was divisible by the number of houses.
Mr. Boyd said that he recalled there was discrepancy in opinion over whether the things the County
was requiring were best practices.
Mr. Rooker reminded the Board that the BRHA sent several letters to the County with seven or
eight issues, and staff agreed with them on three, several were agreed upon in compromise, and several
were not agreed on. The Board went through those and made a decision on those elements. He added
that the Board has gone through that process.
Mr. Boyd stated that there was no decision made about that. Ms. Thomas responded that she felt
decisions had been made. Mr. Boyd said that at work sessions there are not always decisions made, and
other outside information comes in also. That is not changing his mind, because he never stood up and
voted for Plan A as opposed to Plan B in the first place.
Mr. Rooker stated that additional concerns could be raised at the next work session, and up until
the time the Board votes, the members do have an opportunity to amend anything. He recalled that he
went through every point from the Blue Ridge meeting one by one. At that point, everybody seemed to be
in agreement with the resolution of those issues.
February 9, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Ms. Thomas said that perhaps the Board should not rely solely on the Blue Ridge Homebuilders
Association as representing all homebuilders.
Mr. Wyant and Mr. Graham stated that the BRHA has gone back and “agreed to disagree” on a
number of issues.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 03/02/2005
Initials: DBM