2004-06-09
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 9,
2004, at 6:00 p.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., 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,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Neil Williamson, Executive Director of the Free Enterprise Forum, presented to the Board a
memo containing a comment from the County Attorney on Section 14-429 of the Subdivision Ordinance -
the proposed language in regard to interconnectivity. He said the Free Enterprise Forum commissioned Mr.
Jim Thiebold for a legal opinion so there would be an outside legal view on the Subdivision text
amendments. They want to identify the issues that may be problematic to the County regarding
enforcement and implementation. He said this section was actually deleted, but the concern raised by its
language still exists in Section 14-409. The Forum would like to note this conflict between these two legal
opinions to the Board’s attention. It believes the public deserves to hear how the Board feels about this
legal difference of opinion. He said the Forum is disappointed that neither the staff report nor the County
Attorney raised this concern in the public work session last week. Should the County seek another legal
opinion beyond the County Attorney’s Office? Is the County prepared for the possible legal battles involved
if this amendment is enacted and challenged? Will the County spend public funds to obtain the rights to
future interconnectivity? The Forum requests that in future work sessions the County Attorney provide the
legal context and the legal questions that have been raised by it and others in order to facilitate a better
discussion.
__________
Mr. John Cruickshank said he represents the Piedmont Group of the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra
Club. He came tonight with some friends to ask the Board to take an official position in opposition to the
construction of two new nuclear power plants at the North Anna site in Louisa County. The close proximity
of these proposed plants makes this a critical issue for the people of Albemarle County. He then listed
reasons why construction of these power plants is not in the interest of the citizens (recording of the
meeting is on file in the Clerk’s Office). He urged the Board to sign a letter that expresses opposition to
construction of new reactors at the North Anna site. The letter was written by Public Citizen’s Critical Mass
Energy and Environment Program and the People’s Alliance for Clean Energy
__________
Ms. Elena Day, a resident at 151 Buckingham Circle, also asked the Board to oppose the nuclear
power plants at North Anna (recording of the meeting is on file in the Clerk’s Office).
__________
Ms. Abhaya Thiele, a resident of 406 Key West Drive, representing the People’s Alliance for Clean
Energy, also spoke regarding the proposed nuclear reactors at North Anna (recording of the meeting is on
file in the Clerk’s Office).
__________
Ms. Elizabeth Helmke, owner of Charlottesville Jazzercise Center, addressed the Board
concerning her special permit application that was approved by the Board on May 12, 2004. On May 21
she received notification from the County that she was in violation of the conditions of her permit and was
given until June 21 to resolve the situation. She said the condition causing the violation calls for a site plan
on the building. On May 21, the owner of the building turned in a site plan to the County. This past Friday
she was notified that the site plan did not meet requirements and the owner of the building would be notified
by today, June 9. This leaves a week and a half before the June 21 deadline. During this period of time a
revised site plan would need to be done by the owner of the building and turned in, and the County review
that plan. She said it was almost three weeks from when the owner turned in the site plan until he was told
that it did not meet requirements. She is facing legal action and fines from the County if this situation is not
resolved by June 21. She has no control over whether the landlord turns in or does not turn in a site plan.
She also cannot control how long it takes the County to review any document he does turn in. She said she
is being held accountable for actions of others over which she has no control. She asked that the Board
review her case and consider waiving Condition No. 2 of her special use permit.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the Board could do. Mr. Tucker said that in order to amend the special use
permit, it would have to go back through the same process. This is not a request on which the Board can
take action tonight. He said Mr. Davis responded to Ms. Helmke’s e-mail and explained that while she
is in violation, because there are others who are responsible for this, the Zoning staff would not press that
violation. Staff hopes to use that as a means to encourage the owner to get into compliance.
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Davis said he explained in an e-mail to the Board that the relief Ms. Helmke is asking for does
not solve her problem. That condition in the special use permit was simply an advisory, extra, duplicative
condition the Zoning staff wanted in order to place her on notice that she cannot get a zoning clearance
until that violation has been corrected. Whether or not that special use permit condition existed, she would
still be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance because she occupied the building without getting a zoning
clearance. In fact, she occupied the building prior to the special use permit being considered by this Board.
He said her violation is of her own creation. She should have waited to begin operation at that site after she
obtained a zoning clearance and she did not do that.
Ms. Helmke asked to speak. Mr. Dorrier said the Board could not debate the issue because it was
not an agenda item tonight. Mr. Davis said whether or not the Board wanted to amend the conditions would
do nothing for her situation. The Zoning Administrator cannot issue a zoning clearance until that violation is
corrected. If the Board wanted to undertake that step, there would need to be a public hearing before the
Planning Commission and the Board. It could then remove the condition, but it would not change the
situation. He said the Zoning Administrator could exercise discretion in this matter; she understands the
situation and will work with Ms. Helmke to see that she is not unreasonably affected. She will be taking
more aggressive action against the owner of the property to correct that pre-existing site plan violation.
__________
Ms. Nancy Verell said she lives at 314 Westfield Road and is speaking on behalf of a number of
residents from the Minor Hill Manorhomes Homeowners’ Association. She said Whitewood Park is a
County-owned park containing several acres of rolling woodland and winding paths. It is a home to wildlife
and offers local residents an opportunity to return to nature. Residents from all the surrounding
neighborhoods enjoy the park on a daily basis. She said the park is in danger because the County’s Public
Works Department has launched a project that includes an earthen dam, basin and spillway, as well as a
ten-foot wide road, with four-foot shoulders. They understand this project would seriously compromise the
natural setting protected by the County’s easement and lay groundwork for the previously defeated
roadway proposal. The Homeowners’ Association wishes to restore the integrity of Whitewood Park in
order to preserve a relaxed, aesthetically pleasing natural environment for slow-paced pedestrian traffic.
They also wish to maintain the safety of residents whose homes are adjacent to the park, both on Westfield
Road and on Albert Court. The park should remain an enhancement rather than become a liability to
adjacent properties. The Homeowners request that the park be altered as little as possible if the process of
establishing an earthen dam must continue. She then listed several things that they would like to see
happen if this project goes forward (See copy of full statement on file in the Clerk’s Office).
___________
Mr. Gerald Gill said he is president of the Minor Hill Manorhomes Homeowners’ Association. They
are alarmed at the extent of the road going through the parkland. Apparently it is being built to VDOT
standards. They find this to be an odd thing to do for a bicycle path. They understand there may be a need
to let service vehicles enter the area, but are concerned the roadway is extremely extensive for a bicycle
path. He would like to echo the concerns expressed by Ms. Verell.
Mr. Rooker asked what is going on. Obviously there is not a road being built through the park.
Mr. Bowerman said it is a ten-foot wide asphalt pathway that he thinks is being made that size to
allow for maintenance of the Birnam detention basin. It is not in keeping with anything else in the area. He
thinks they can have access to the basin without building a one-lane road through the park.
Mr. Wyant said some drainage problems have been created below that area.
Mr. Bowerman said he would talk with people in Engineering and Planning to see exactly what is
proposed.
Mr. Tucker said the County is building the Birnam Basin; it is part of a system of detention basins
the County has been building throughout the urban area. In conjunction with that, a bicycle path/walkway
from Whitewood Road Park around to Townwood was being built. The width of that construction is the
concern of the neighbors. It must be of a width that can accommodate maintenance vehicles occasionally.
Mr. Rooker said the neighbors seemed to be concerned that there was a revival of a plan to build a
connector road through that area. He said there is no such plan.
__________
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, said he spoke to the Board last week about the structure
of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. He thinks the governing body of Albemarle
County is under-represented on the RWSA making the residents of the County under-represented in
matters pertaining to water supply and water protection. He suggested that the Board review the second
restated Articles of Incorporation of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority executed in 1986 that put the
Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority on the RWSA in lieu of the County Engineer.
At that time the Board reserved the right to substitute a County department head for the ACSA Executive
Director. He said the County has changed dramatically since 1986 and he is suggesting it is time to review
this matter. He said the position of County Engineer, under a recent reorganization, became the position of
Director of Community Development. He suggested that County government and its citizens would be
better served if that person were a member of the RWSA Board. He cannot think of any reason why this
Board would not want to make this logical change. He does not think this matter should wait to be
considered in conjunction with broader reforms of the RWSA; those reforms will take a longer period of
time.
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. A motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by
Mr. Rooker to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Set public hearing on an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 12, Sections 12-201 and 12-202
regarding Dance Hall permits.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that County Code Section 12-201 currently requires
applications for dance hall permits to be filed with and considered by the Board. Section 12-202 requires
that any such permit be revoked by the Board in the event of any violation by the permittee or for any false
statement made on the application. At the Board’s request, the process of approving and revoking dance
hall permits is proposed to become an administrative process. After review, it is suggested that the Zoning
Administrator is the appropriate person to exercise this responsibility. The Zoning Administrator has an
existing process in place to issue permits and is familiar with the Building Code and Fire Code issues
required to be reviewed prior to issuance of dance hall permits. Other than the permit approval and
revocation process, there are no other changes proposed in the ordinance. Staff recommends that a public
hearing for the proposed ordinance be set for July 7, 2004.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized staff to advertise for a public
hearing on An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises, Article II,
Amusements, Division I, Dance Halls, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, for July 7, 2004.
_________
Item 5.2. Adopt resolution approving Gilbert Station Road (Route 640) as a Rural Rustic Paving
Project.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Board, at its meeting on March 17, 2004,
recommended that Gilbert Station Road (Route 640) from Route 784 to Route 20 be a pilot project for the
Rural Rustic Roads Program. VDOT informed the Board that Gilbert Station Road could be paved utilizing
rural rustic roads standards in 2004. The concept of rural rustic roads is to pave roads with either no
encroachment or minimal encroachment beyond existing ditches and without compromising the safety of
the road. Roads paved utilizing rural rustic roads standards are considerably less expensive than traditional
paving.
In August 2003, the Board adopted notification guidelines for the Rural Rustic Roads Program.
Staff mailed a letter to every property owner along Gilbert Station Road between Route 20 and Route 784.
The purpose of this letter was to inform residents that VDOT would pave Gilbert Station Road in 2004
utilizing rural rustic roads standards instead of traditional paving standards. The letter explained the
difference between rural rustic and standard paving. The property owners were given until May 14, 2004, to
contact the County if they objected to rural rustic paving. Staff did not receive any contacts voicing objection
to the project. Although the Board endorsed Gilbert Station Road as a candidate for rural rustic road
paving, VDOT requires a resolution from the locality. The Board did not take action on the resolution at its
March 17, 2004, meeting.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution designating Gilbert Station Road between
Route 784 and Route 20 for improvement and hard surfacing utilizing rural rustic road standards. VDOT is
currently finalizing the road plans for this project and anticipates an August or September start date.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, during the 2002 session of the General Assembly, legislation was passed to
revise §33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, to allow for the improvement and hard surfacing of
certain unpaved roads deemed to qualify for and be designated a Rural Rustic Road; and
WHEREAS, such roads must be located in a low-density development area and have a
minimum of 50 vehicles per day (vpd), and have no more than 500 vpd; and
WHEREAS, this Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the
existing traffic on the road; and
WHEREAS, the citizens that utilize this road have been aware of this road being paved with
minimal improvements; and
WHEREAS, this Board believes Route 640 – Gilbert Station Road - should be designated a
Rural Rustic Road from Route 784 to Route 20 owing to its qualifying characteristics; and
WHEREAS, the road aforesaid is in this Board’s six-year plan for improvements to its
secondary system of state highways:
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby designates and requests
VDOT’s Resident Engineer to concur in the aforesaid road as a Rural Rustic Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board requests this road be hard surfaced and, to
the fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right-of-way and ditch-lines to preserve as
much as possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the
road in their current state.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
__________
Item 5.3. Authorize County Executive to sign future construction agreement related to Hollymead
Town Center Area B.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that when Hollymead Town Center is more fully built out, a
traffic signal may be required on Town Center Drive at its intersection with the entrance to Area B near the
proposed Harris Teeter grocery store. If a traffic signal is required, VDOT has requested that an agreement
be entered into that will assure that a second left turn lane from Town Center Drive (eastbound) and a
second receiving lane on the Area B property be constructed. To make these improvements, two islands
within the Area B parking lot would have to be relocated to accommodate the second receiving lane. Staff
has determined that these improvements are not required by the pending Area B site plan, SDP-03-081
(these improvements are identified on the site plan as “future improvements”). However, the owner of Area
B is willing to construct these improvements if and when the traffic signal is required.
The owner of Area B proposed the Future Construction Agreement. The draft agreement
incorporates revisions requested by staff. The Agreement would require that the owner of Area B or its
successors or assigns construct and complete the improvements identified above if and when the traffic
signal is warranted. The owner also would agree that when the Area B receiving lane is constructed and
the parking lot islands are relocated, adequate onsite parking would be maintained. The final language of
the Agreement has not yet been agreed upon. Among the issues not resolved are the language for the
timing of the improvements and the amount of liquidated damages.
Staff recommends that the County Executive be authorized to sign the Future Construction
Agreement on behalf of the County after final language acceptable to the Department of Community
Development and the County Attorney is agreed upon, and the Agreement approved as to form by the
County Attorney.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to sign the Future
Construction Agreement on behalf of the County after final language acceptable to the Department
of Community Development and the County Attorney is agreed upon, and the Agreement is
approved as to form by the County Attorney.
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
THIS FUTURE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made as of this 15th day
of June, 2004, by and between THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (“County”) and
HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Hollymead,”).
RECITALS:
R-1. Hollymead owns a parcel of land near U.S. Route 29 in Albemarle County, containing
approximately acres, (the “Hollymead Property”), and designated as TMP 32 Par 43 on that certain
“Plat Showing Subdivision for Tax Map Parcels 42A, 42C, & 43, Hollymead Town Center, Regional
Service Area B”, dated January 27, 2004, by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC, recorded in the
Clerk’s Office of the County on Albemarle, Virginia in Deed Book , at page . Hollymead intends to
develop the Hollymead Property as part of a shopping center and commercial development (the
“Project”) pursuant to an approved site plan No. SDP-03-081 (the “Site Plan”).
R-2. In order to satisfy the future transportation requirements for the area known as
Hollymead Town Center, including the initial portion contemplated by the Project’s Site Plan,
Hollymead hereby agrees to construct an additional receiving lane, and related improvements to
accommodate entering traffic once a signal is installed at the entrance to the Hollymead Property at
Town Center Drive, all as more particularly described on Exhibit A hereto (the “Improvements”).
W I T N E S S E T H:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and
further in consideration of the covenants herein contained and for the mutual benefit of all present and
prospective owners of the benefited parcels, the parties agree as follows:
1. Construction of the Improvements. In connection with development of the Hollymead
Property pursuant to the Site Plan and subject to receipt of governmental approvals of any required site
plan modifications, building permits and other governmental permits and approvals related to the
Improvements (collectively, the “Permits and Approvals”), Hollymead, at its sole cost and expense shall
construct those Improvements designated on Exhibit A, at such time as a traffic signal is warranted, and
installed at the intersection of Town Center Drive and the western-most entrance to the Hollymead
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Property, as shown on Exhibit A. Hollymead shall complete construction of the Improvements to the
satisfaction of the County (for private Improvements) and for acceptance by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (for public road Improvements).
The timing of construction and completion of the Improvements shall be as follows. It is the
intention of the parties that the Improvements be completed contemporaneously with the opening of
the intersection and first operation of the traffic signal. Hollymead shall submit (such that it is deemed
to be “officially submitted” within the meaning of Section 32 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance) an amendment to its site plan showing the Improvements within 60 days of the receipt of
notice from the County that VDOT has determined that warrants for signalization have been met or that
a site plan has been submitted to the County that includes signalization. Hollymead then shall
complete the Improvements by the date of the first operation of the traffic signal, provided such
completion date may be reasonably deferred or delayed in the event active construction of such
Improvements would otherwise occur between November 15 and January 5 or in the event of
inclement weather or other force majeure causes where active construction is impractical. Hollymead
shall make necessary arrangements to assure that the Project maintains adequate parking after
construction of the Improvements, including, if necessary, installing replacement parking spaces within
the Project.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed as requiring Hollymead to install the traffic signal
itself, nor to construct anything more than the Improvements depicted on Exhibit A. Hollymead
reserves the right, subject to receipt of the Permits and Approvals, to construct the Improvements at
any time prior to the date it is obligated to do so hereunder, including without limitation before a traffic
signal is installed at Town Center Drive and the western-most entrance to the Hollymead Property.
2. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts.
3. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance to the
laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
4. Successors and Assigns. The terms and provisions of this Agreement are deemed to
be covenants running with the land and fee ownership of the Hollymead Property that are binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the transferees, successors, devisees and assigns of Hollymead
and any person claiming by, through or under Hollymead during the period of their ownership.
Upon any transfer or conveyance of the Hollymead Property, the grantor or other transferring
party shall be automatically released from all further liability and obligations under this Agreement
with respect or relating to the property so transferred or conveyed, and the grantee or other
transferee shall be deemed to have automatically assumed all such liability and obligations during
the period of its ownership of the Hollymead Property. Any obligations contained herein shall be
construed as covenants and not as conditions, and a violation of any said covenants shall not
result in a forfeiture or reversion of title.
5. Liquidated Damages. Because of the difficulty of ascertaining the amount of damages
which would be sustained by the County by a breach of this Agreement by Hollymead, its
successors or assigns, it is expressly agreed by the parties that in the event of a breach hereof by
Hollymead, its successors or assigns, it will pay to the County the sum of One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($150,000), which amount shall be increased at the rate of two percent per
annum, for such breach. The liquidated damages provided for herein shall not be paid unless the
County first provides Hollymead with notice of default, and so long as Hollymead has not cured
such default within thirty days of receipt of such notice.
6. Time is of the essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
7. Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded among the land records in the Clerk’s
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County.
8. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect
upon completion of the Improvements.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
HOLLYMEAD: HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
By: Regency Realty Group, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Manager
By: ________________________________
Its: ________________________________
COUNTY: THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: ___________________________________
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
______________
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2003-052. Larry Hawkins Home Occupation (Signs #63 & 65). Public
hearing on a request to allow Home Occupation-Class B for Excavation Contractor in accord w/Sec
10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord. TM 94, P 7B, contains 2 acs. Znd RA. Loc on 3117 Hearns Lane, approx .25
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
miles from intersec of Hearns Lane & Running Dear Rd (Rt 808). Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24 and May 31, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report that is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant has requested approval of a special use permit
for a Home Occupation-Class B, to allow for an Excavation Contractor on his property. The applicant does
not have any employees reporting to this location; his employees meet him on various job sites. He does
have equipment at this location. The property contains two acres and is surrounded by low-density
residential uses and wooded areas. The property is located in the Village of Rivanna. The Comprehensive
Plan designates that village for Neighborhood density residential development.
Mr. Cilimberg said a factor favorable to this request was that approval of the special use permit
would rectify some of an existing zoning violation on the property. Factors unfavorable to this request
included: The proposed use is incompatible with the Land Use Plan designation of Neighborhood Density
Residential. The proposed size of the use conflicts with the intent of Home Occupation-Class B that should
be subordinate to the primary residential use. The proposal will create a negative visual impact from
adjacent and nearby properties.
Mr. Cilimberg said based on the findings contained in the staff’s report and the existing conditions
on the property, staff did not recommend approval of SP-2003-052. He said the Commission, at its
meeting on May 4, 2004, by a vote of 6:0, in consideration of the comments from the public, the applicant,
and staff’s information, did recommend approval to the Board subject to six conditions (see action letter
dated June 2, 2004). He said there were also two requests for modification/waiver before the Commission
on May 4. One was a waiver of Section 5.2.2.1a that had to do with the size of the activity and the structure
associated with that activity. That modification was approved and is reflected in the first recommended
condition of the permit. The second modification would have allowed for outdoor storage and it was not
granted because the Commission felt all activities associated with the home occupation should occur within
the storage shed or garage.
Mr. Cilimberg said since the Commission’s hearing, the applicant has requested that the 1500
square foot maximum for the storage shed or garage be increased to 2200 square feet. That would
essentially mean a change in the first recommended condition. That number was based on the applicant’s
estimate of the area necessary to accommodate the equipment and materials associated with the home
occupation. If the Board agrees that the change can be allowed, that would also mean that the modification
of Section 5.2.2.1a would need to be revised to reflect that larger area in the storage shed or garage.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Larry Hawkins said he is applying for this permit in order to have more room to park his trucks.
Ms. Thomas said the Planning Commission was concerned about there being enough room for the
vehicles and enough room to move them around. She asked if the larger space is necessary for parking, or
is it necessary in order to work on the trucks.
Mr. Hawkins said with the amount of space they allowed, he has enough space to park his
equipment, but needs a little more space in order to park his dump truck and trailer in the shed. He is going
to landscape around the front; the back is all wooded.
Mr. Dorrier then opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, he closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Rooker read a couple of excerpts from the staff’s report. “This use will be visible from the
neighbors on Hearns Lane as well as the new construction underway at Glenmore.” “Due to the size of the
proposed storage area and the minimal screening proposed, staff finds this proposal to be in conflict with
the intent of the ordinance regarding home occupations.” He asked if screening is required by the
conditions if that would still be the case. Mr. Cilimberg said staff believes that is still the case. The thing
that has changed since the staff report was written is that activities would be within a shed or garage. There
would be a building with screening, but the building would still be visible. The building would actually be
larger than the residence on the property.
Mr. Dorrier said it appears that the conditions are appropriate for the structure, and that the request
should be approved.
Mr. Wyant asked if Mr. Hawkins would be able to construct a building within 30 days. He thinks a
more reasonable time period could be given. He said Condition No. 3 only allows him 30 days to come into
compliance. He asked Mr. Hawkins how long it would take him to put up the building.
Mr. Hawkins said if this request is approved tonight he must get the ground leveled and the soil
inspected and tested because he has to dig footers. He has already applied for a building permit. He
cannot do the construction in 30 days.
Mr. Wyant asked if this is a pre-fabricated building. Mr. Hawkins said it is a steel building. He does
not know when the people putting up the building can do it.
Mr. Wyant said he would have no problem with allowing 90 days.
Mr. Davis said the Zoning Department made this recommendation. This is an existing zoning
violation that they have been trying to get corrected. If the Zoning Administrator is willing to let that zoning
violation exist until he can construct the shed, on her behalf he will say that the sooner he can construct the
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
shed, the better.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any other place the equipment can be parked. She asked if that is
the violation. Mr. Davis said that is just part of it; there is a lot of material on the site, including inoperable
vehicles. Mr. Hawkins said he has taken care of all of that.
Mr. Wyant asked if he had removed the junk and parts. Mr. Hawkins said “yes.” He has done
everything he was told to do.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any place off of Mr. Hawkins’ property where the equipment could be
parked. Mr. Hawkins said he has been in business on this site for over five years. The neighbors signed a
paper saying they did not mind him being there. He hopes he can make out on the property until the shed
is built. He can keep most of his tractors on job sites, but occasionally he brings one or two to this property
for short periods of time.
Mr. Wyant asked if the condition means that if the shed were not built within 30 days he would have
to remove all outdoor storage of equipment. Mr. Davis said that would be a practical problem unless he
had another place to put the equipment.
Mr. Bowerman suggested allowing 90 days.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Mr. Hawkins needs more than 90 days. He said it might take 90 days to
build it. There is an approval process that precedes the soil testing, etc. He said if the Board is going to
approve this permit, he should have 120 days.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees, and Mr. Hawkins can start to get the pre-fabricated building ordered
and underway. He does not have to wait for all of the approvals to do that.
Mr. Davis said the Board must also decide what size building will be allowed.
Mr. Wyant asked if there are to be seven pieces of equipment stored in this 2200 square foot
building. Mr. Hawkins said he does not think there are seven pieces, but he can get the equipment in the
building.
Mr. Wyant said he would move that the Board approve SP-2003-052, subject to the six conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, amending Condition No. 1 to read: “A storage shed or
garage, not to exceed twenty-two hundred (2200) square feet shall be constructed for the purpose of
storing all equipment and materials related to the approved use;” amending Condition No. 3 to read: “No
outside storage of equipment, parts, mulch, inoperable vehicles, scrap or other construction materials shall
be permitted. Any outdoor storage existing on the date of the approval of this permit by the Board of
Supervisors shall comply with this condition within one hundred twenty (120) days of the Board of
Supervisors’ approval of this special use permit;” and also to grant a modification of the waiver to 2200
square feet.
Second was given to the motion by Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Rooker said he would vote against this request if there were any objections from neighboring
property owners because it far exceeds the scale of the size of a home occupation building contemplated
by the regulations. In the absence of objections from surrounding property owners, he will vote in favor.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. A storage shed or garage, not to exceed twenty-two hundred (2200) square feet shall be
constructed for the purpose of storing all equipment and materials related to the approved
use;
2. All on site repair or maintenance of vehicles or equipment related to the approved use
shall occur within the storage shed or garage;
3. No outside storage of equipment, parts, mulch, inoperable vehicles, scrap or other
construction materials shall be permitted. Any outdoor storage existing on the date of the
approval of this permit by the Board of Supervisors, shall comply with this condition within
one hundred twenty (120) days of the Board of Supervisors' approval of this special use
permit;
4. The new storage shed or garage shall meet the minimum yard requirements for
commercial structures, found in Section 21.7.2 of the ordinance (No portion of any
structure shall be located closer than fifty [50] feet to any residential or rural areas district);
5. The storage shed or garage must meet the minimum landscaping and screening
requirements for commercial and industrial uses, found in Section 32.7.9 of the ordinance;
and
6. Before this permit may be used, the zoning administrator shall confirm that no junk is being
stored on the property.
_______________
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2003-079. The Rocks Amendment (Signs #49, 52 & 53). Public hearing
on a request to amend existing special use permit for rural preservation development of more than 20 lots
to: (1) amend the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract (TM 74, P 18); (2) amend the boundaries of
TM 74, Ps 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3; (3) amend access to TM 74, Ps 18, 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3; &
(4) allot development rights not used in the original proposal. This request is made in accord w/Sec
10.2.2.28 of the Zoning Ord which allows for 20 or more Development Lots in a Rural Preservation
Development. TM 74, Ps 18, 18C, 18C1, 18C2, 18C3, 18D, 18D1, 18D4, 18D7, 18D8, 18D9, 18E, 18E1,
18E2, 18E3, 18E4, 18E5, 18E8, 18E9, 18F, 18F1, 18F2, 18F3, 18F9, 18G, 18G1, 18G3, 18G4, 18G5,
18G6, 18G7, 18G8, contains approx 645 acs. Znd RA. Loc off of Rt 637 (Dick Woods Rd) at its intersect
w/I-64. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24
and May 31, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report that is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the request is to amend the existing Rocks Rural Preservation
Development that is a 43-lot RPD to allow four changes. These are: (1) amend the boundaries of the
Rural Preservation Tract itself to reflect the changes that would occur in the four lots with the new road -
Tax Map 74, Parcel 18; (2) amend the boundaries of the four parcels which exist at the higher portion of the
property in the ridge area - Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3; (3) amend access to those
four lots to come from Rosemont rather than from the lower elevation of the core of the RPD, i.e., require
an improved road coming up the mountain to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18, 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3; and (4)
allocate the development rights not used in the original proposal. There were three additional development
rights that were not allocated when the RPD was originally approved.
Mr. Cilimberg said this petition was heard twice by the Planning Commission. The initial decision
was to grant only the new road and the changes in the RPD tract to reflect the new road. It did not allow for
amendment of the boundaries or allocation of the development rights. The request went to the
Commission the second time and additional information was presented. It then recommended approval of
the boundary changes to the four lots. However, it did not recommend approval of allocation of the
development rights. Staff had recommended approval of all four requests.
Mr. Cilimberg said during discussion of allocation of the development rights, the Commission
expressed a concern because those rights were proposed to be utilized on Lot 1, but were not shown in any
configuration. The Commission was advised that at such time as the rights were to be utilized, this matter
would come back to them as a request for an amendment to the special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg said during the time it took to process this request, changes were made to the
County’s Zoning Ordinance to reflect new state legislation which says that after July 1, 2004, there can no
longer be a special use permit provision for rural preservation developments. A special use permit for a
RPD such as this will be nonconforming. The County Attorney has advised that it cannot be amended
unless conditions are built into the approval now to allow subsequent administrative approvals. If the three
development rights are not allocated as part of this action, they will sit in limbo until such time as the
ordinance is further amended to provide for replacement provisions or by-right approval of the RPDs that
used to be approved by special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg said at a minimum, to reflect that situation, there would need to be language included
providing an administrative method to allocate those three development rights later. If the Board decided to
follow the staff’s recommendation of allocating those rights to Lot 1, that language would still be needed.
He said the County Attorney has drafted some language that could be used (he handed to the Board
members copies of that language). He said there had been discussion in e-mails about how to deal with
the allocation of the development rights, and the visibility of the lots on the top of the ridge. He offered to
answer questions.
Mr. Rooker said if the ordinance is amended in accordance with State law to allow cluster
developments as a matter of right, if this person could abandon this RPD and then exercise his rights under
the revised ordinance? Would he be locked into the special use permit granted tonight?
Mr. Davis said if he could meet all of the requirements of the new ordinance, it would be possible to
do that unless the Board specifically addresses nonconforming RPDs in those zoning text amendments and
locks them into those conditions. He does not think the Board would want to unwittingly let them out of
those conditions.
Mr. Rooker said it is then possible to continue those conditions. Mr. Davis said “yes”, but the Board
would need to address that in the zoning text amendments.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Steve Blaine said he represents The Rocks, LLC. He said there is a map posted on the wall
showing some of the key features of the RPD and he then pointed out the proposal on the map. He said
the applicant began about a year ago working with the homeowners’ association in Rosemont to address
the access road which was approved previously to reach those lots; it is over 700,000 linear feet in length
and would require almost 500,000 square feet of land disturbance up the side of the ridge known as Bear
Den Mountain. The proposal worked out with the Rosemont Homeowners’ Association would allow access
through Rosemont on an existing subdivision road with an extension from the terminus of the Rosemont
road along what is currently a road. This proposal eliminates a great deal of land disturbance.
Mr. Wyant asked if this eliminates that access near I-64. Mr. Blaine said it is being eliminated as an
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
access to these lots, and in exchange, the lots would be subject to the Rosemont Homeowners’ Association
declaration documents. Those lot owners would contribute to the maintenance for the Rosemont road.
The reason for the boundary adjustment along the rural preservation tract is to address a boundary
question between The Rocks preservation tract and the Rosemont Subdivision. There is no net loss to the
preservation tract with that adjustment. It is simply a boundary adjustment.
Mr. Rooker asked the acreage of the preservation tract. Mr. Blaine said it is 365 acres. It exceeded
what was required to meet the standards under the original RPD. He said the environment gets a benefit
from this change in configuration of lots because the lots are moved to a level portion of a second ridge.
He noted location of an intermittent stream that runs almost to the top of the ridge and said this change
actually moves the building areas on these lots away from a perennial and an intermittent stream. It moves
it to a level portion on what is a tabletop ridge. Cross-sections were done and they show that the lots
cannot be seen because they are obscured by the actual ridge. In addition, there are dense woods on all of
the ridges up to where the house lots will be.
Mr. Blaine said the conditions set forth in the original staff report addressed what the houses could
look like in terms of color. Also, there cannot be clearing other than what is necessary for driveways, the
septic fields and the houses themselves. Those conditions coupled with the natural conditions will operate
as a visual buffer. Mr. Blaine said he received this afternoon a further condition that would impose a 50-foot
tree preservation buffer on the preservation tract. It would preserve trees for 50-feet on one side of the
access road and one side of the lots. In principle, the applicant does not object to that since there is no
plan to do any clearing. There is already a condition dealing with clearing on the lots. There may be a
question about how it can be interpreted. The standard Recreational Facilities Authority easement does
allow some timbering, but it can only be select cut. There is a process the applicant must go through to
identify the trees that will be select cut. They are not opposed to overlapping that with a condition, but feel
those protections are already in place. If it means a 50-foot tree preservation buffer that is intended to
preclude clearing, they are okay with that.
Mr. Blaine said there is a sentence at the end of the condition saying the buffer would be defined,
recognized and protected in perpetuity, and they agree with that language. It contemplates that the
easement would have to be amended. He said the easement must be amended anyway in order to allow
these changes. He is concerned about language which talks about shielding from view any improvements
located on the lots referenced by the tax map sections (see description above). The question is, shield from
what? It is possible that even with all of these protections the homeowners themselves may see their
neighbor. The principle behind this is to prevent problems that have occurred with some buildings on ridges
where there has been clear-cutting to open up views. That is not their intent. They think those protections
are already in place.
Mr. Blaine said they could live with that condition if they could delete the last clause that suggests
that they have to shield it from view from any improvements. Mr. Rooker said he thinks Mr. Blaine would
like to put a period after the word “authority.” (The sentence would then read: “This buffer shall be defined,
recognized and protected in perpetuity by language in the body of the easement held by the Public
Recreational Facilities Authority.”)
Mr. Blaine said his next point relates to lot allocation. He said they only sought to have an
accounting of the development rights left. They never foresaw the complications mentioned by Mr.
Cilimberg in terms of the changes in the ordinance. They have no problem with the condition that in order
for those lots to be developed they have to show that the total amount of development rights could be
developed as a matter of right. That is a standard process for getting an RPD. They are not arguing about
whether development rights exist. They must first exist as a matter of zoning. The action they sought was
to keep there from being a question by some owner asserting the right to those development rights where it
was not intended by the special use permit, or not attended by the parties who entered into contractual
arrangements. He said Lot 1 is a parcel of over 100 acres and it is the logical place for any further division
to occur. They are comfortable with the conditions that would indicate where they would be located. Staff’s
condition indicates this is a cluster approach in the RPD; if additional lots are added they should be
clustered in approximate size, range, and near where the other clustered lots are located.
Mr. Blaine said the condition they are struggling with is the condition that refers to the character of
the occupancy of one of those lots. Should three of the lots be subdivided they understand this proposed
condition would require that one of those dwelling units be occupied by a person(s) responsible for the
operation or maintenance of the agricultural use in an area designed as a rural preservation tract. They
interpret that to mean that one of these lots would have to be occupied by someone living in the house, a
person who was a caretaker of the preservation tract. They think that is impractical and not necessary. If
the purpose is to impose a condition of affordability, this is not the method or the place for it. The
preservation tract will be low maintenance. Any timbering would be contracted; it is primarily designed for
open space and passive recreation.
Mr. Blaine said these are million dollar homes. In the Ivy area lots of this size are selling for
$250,000 to $275,000. By any affordability measure, the home price of construction is upward from there,
so this would not meet the land basis for affordable housing. He said this type of condition does not relate
to what they are trying to accomplish with the rural preservation tract. Typically in a special use permit, the
conditions relate to the impacts the use will present. He sees the method in which it is being presented as a
valiant effort to fit it within the ordinance, but he has a question about its validity from a legal standpoint.
They ask that the conditions be eliminated. If he is missing the purpose for which it is being presented, they
would be open to a dialogue to address that. He asked to have the opportunity to answer questions later in
the meeting.
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Rooker asked how many acres in the development are in the lots. Mr. Blaine said he did not
have that number at this moment, but will try to find it before the end of the meeting.
Ms. Thomas said there are two rural preservations lots that will be developed. If Lot 1 is developed,
it will create a second conservation area of approximately 100 acres. That area is in farmland as opposed
to the 365 acres that are in forest use. Mr. Blaine said Lot 1 is not within the preservation tract. It is in
agricultural use.
Ms. Thomas said if the extra three lots were developed, they would be developed as another RPD.
Mr. Blaine said he thinks it has to be.
Mr. Wyant asked about critical slopes. Mr. Blaine said that is an advantage of the relocated road.
There would be no road improvements within the critical slopes that could not be mitigated.
Mr. Cilimberg said in reference to Mr. Rooker’s question about the area in lots and the preservation
tract, the tract itself is about 371 acres out of 623 acres. The remaining acreage is in the four mountain
lots, plus Lot 1, plus Lots 2 through 39 that are the heart of the cluster, and the road right-of-way.
Mr. Rooker said there are 371 acres, plus 85 acres more or less in the 100-acre piece that would
be in preservation if this request were approved.
Ms. Thomas said if they can prove that they actually have the hypothetical rights, and they go
through the process of forming an RPD for Lot 1, and they put the preservation portion of that into a
conservation easement, they could use the extra three development rights.
Mr. Rooker said that is required in the conditions. If it is approved as is, then the applicant has to
create a second RPD. If he does not exercise those rights, the property is undevelopable.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Davis how that fits into what he said earlier about the change in the
statutes. Mr. Davis said the way the conditions are structured, development of Lot 1 can be approved
administratively pursuant to a special use permit approved today. Therefore, that would not be an obstacle.
Mr. Cilimberg said there would be no public hearing before the Board, but staff’s review of the
request would be the same review in terms of approval of those additional lots.
At this point, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Ms. Anabel Bowen said she is an owner and resident in Rosemont. She is speaking in her capacity
as a member of the Board of Directors of the Rosemont Homeowners’ Association and as
secretary/treasurer of the Association. She said they sent a letter to the Planning Commission. Their Board
has unanimously supported all the pieces of this special use permit request. They feel that although there
would be additional traffic through Rosemont, the placement of the lots and the adjustment to Newcomb
Mountain Lane would be a huge advantage to everyone. If one drives into Rosemont, there are about 20
lots that would look at an awful cut in the hillside plus people traveling on I-64 and others traveling in the Ivy
entrance corridor. She said the Rosemont Board has not taken a vote of all of the homeowners in that they
thought it was premature to do so. They have communicated with The Rocks saying that at such time as all
the County approvals are obtained, and when The Rocks and their developer (Haley, Chisholm & Morris)
have come to an agreement on construction and maintenance of Newcomb Mountain Lane and the
agreement is in place, their Board is prepared to undertake the relevant changes needed in their covenants
to incorporate those four lots into Rosemont. The Rocks LLC has asked that they be incorporated into
Rosemont, and thus subject to all of their architectural review board requirements, and all of their
covenants and fees which include the private portions of Rosemont Drive, as well as Newcomb Mountain
Lane.
Ms. Thomas said since she has been concerned about the visual impact, it did not occur that one of
the visual impacts would be to other homes inside Rosemont that are located higher on the property. She
assumes these houses will still not be visible to most or maybe any people in Rosemont.
Ms. Bowen said she understands that the new locations would be virtually invisible, and the road
itself would be virtually invisible. That is a huge difference. It is not so much from the lots higher up, but as
one pulls into Rosemont that they would be looking at a terrible cut across the ridge if the old approved
right-of-way were used.
Mr. Boyd said two recommended conditions have been added since the Board got its materials for
this meeting. He asked if the Rosemont Board has had an opportunity to review Condition Nos. 21 and 22.
Ms. Bowen said “no.” She said their architectural review requirements which are part of the covenants, if
these four lots are incorporated into Rosemont just like the other 57 lots, they would be subject to their
ARB’s review.
Mr. Michael Boggs said he is with Haley, Chisholm & Morris. They own three lots that are
undeveloped which would be adjacent to these three lots. They see no advantage to requiring the 50-foot
buffer. There are enough controls already, and with the Rosemont ARB having control over any tree over
six-inches in diameter, he feels it is an unnecessary condition.
Mr. Harry Bowen said he would like to reemphasize the fact they are the corner lot on Rosemont
and Newcomb Mountain Lane. If there were anyway to avoid having this they would, but on the other hand,
looking at the big picture it is clear to them that it is important that the road be extended from Newcomb
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mountain Lane to access these four lots. The environmental impact of that is minimal compared to the
alternative. He said they would see the road from their house either way it is done. The important thing is
that this road cannot be extended unless all the waivers are granted for the boundary changes that are
critical to move the houses slightly, and also for the preservation tract boundaries to be altered. That is the
only way the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension can take place. In the end, it is in the best interests of
anybody in Albemarle County who drives I-64, as well as those coming into Rosemont. He urged the Board
to consider that all of the elements are critical in order to get the road constructed with the least
environmental impact.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said changing the location of the road is very important. Moving the lots slightly back
so they are not on the face of the hillside is also important. She requested the tree preservation buffer in an
attempt to make certain that these houses would be the best examples possible of building on a
mountaintop. The applicant recognized this would be the “poster child” for development on a mountain.
They have had every incentive possible to make these houses as unobtrusive as possible. A lot of people
in the County want a Mountain Protection Ordinance and want to show that landowners can develop in the
right way. She has learned more tonight about what the Homeowners’ Association will be requiring, so she
thinks the tree preservation buffer does not need to be required.
Ms. Thomas said an attempt was made to have this development reflect what actually happens in
the Rural Areas. There are large estates in Virginia that have some housing usually occupied by a farm
manager. They afford the best opportunity for affordable housing in the Rural Areas, and they do not
diminish anyone’s property value. The wording of the condition needs some work. The intention was to say
that since there are three rights that will add to the value of Lot 1, there should be some public value for
approving that. Those three development rights could continue to float forever; this is not something the
Board has to approve. She said Planning’s staff encouraged putting the development rights on Lot 1. If the
rights are utilized, it will result in Lot 1 having a large conservation easement on it. If they are not utilized, Lot
1 will not develop further, so it effectively has a conservation easement on it already, except it would only be
a matter of zoning rather than a legal agreement. She said it could be argued that that is the public
purpose.
Ms. Thomas said that recently the Board put a lot of time and effort into affordable housing.
Usually the rural area is not the place for affordable housing. There are 46 units going into this subdivision,
and none of them will be what policemen or teachers can purchase. This was a chance to say that of the
46 units, one of them has to be affordable in the sense of being related to the land and the operation taking
place there. It is true that the trees on the big preservation tract will not require full time attention. There
are fences going in now and the landowner may want some type of manager. If another member has an
idea of how to reach that end goal, she would like to hear that idea. It is a strange and new kind of wording
and maybe it should simply say “a dwelling related to agricultural use” so it is not tied to this preservation
tract. She said there is an old building on the site. That building cannot have a working kitchen in it unless
the landowner gets a development right for it because that is considered a dwelling unit. The Board would
essentially be doing away with a building. She asked Mr. Davis if there is a way to change the wording so it
is more general rather than referring to this particular preservation tract.
Mr. Davis said the challenge is relating it to the Comprehensive Plan and/or the impacts of the
property. Simply requiring it to be occupied by someone who is in the agricultural use may not capture that.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Thomas what she is attempting to do. He said in applying the affordable
housing concept to the rural areas, it is a bit unfair because there are not the density capabilities to deal with
the high cost of land. It looks like this proposal would be asking the applicant to proffer a
$250,000 building. He asked if that is the bottom line of the request.
Ms. Thomas said he has no such development right at this point. He is not proffering it because he
does not have it. The Board would be giving it to him.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees this is a good proposal.
Ms. Thomas said the applicant is no longer the owner of Lot 1. It has already been sold and there
is a historic house on the lot.
Mr. Boyd said the Board would still be putting restrictions on any kind of future development on this
lot.
Mr. Davis said as this condition is currently worded, the first two additional development rights
would have no restrictions. If the applicant exercised that third development right, it would accomplish what
Ms. Thomas was trying to do by providing a lot whose tenant or owner would be primarily responsible for
some maintenance operation related to this property. It would not have to be their only occupation, but they
would have to have that responsibility. Whether or not that addresses affordable housing remains to be
seen, but it requires that one of these lots have some relationship to the land.
Mr. Boyd asked if this has ever been done anywhere before.
Ms. Thomas said it is an unusual opportunity.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the lot could be sold for $225,000 instead of $300,000. Then, somebody
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
who on paper had an obligation to go out and look around the property could build a $1.0 million house on
a $300,000 lot which he bought for $75,000 less because he had some loose contract to go out and look
around the property every now and then. He thinks it will be a very difficult thing to achieve.
Mr. Wyant said these are million dollar houses, and this would put something of lesser value in
there. Also, he wonders where the County is going with affordable housing. The Board has talked about
prices and now it is talking about someone’s occupation. He suggested the Board think a little more about
how it approaches the issue of affordable housing.
Ms. Thomas said the Board does not have time to think about this one. Unless it does something
tonight, the whole thing is gone. She said the Commission made a good argument that this is three more
houses than are needed in the rural area. There will be more cars on the road, more dwelling units in the
rural area, and there is no reason to give away these three development rights unless there is some public
purpose served. She said there is little affordable housing anymore. This is an old fashioned way in which
affordable housing was achieved in the rural area. It is a common land use pattern the Board seldom has a
chance to duplicate. If the Board members think the wording of this is awkward she will make a motion to
go forward with this request without allocating the three development rights whatsoever. The development
rights can continue to float and they probably never will be used.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has been trying to encourage people to use rural preservation
developments and it has not happened that often. In this case, there is someone who did it. There are 460
acres which could have been carved up into large lots. There are currently 371 acres in the preservation
tract, and there could be another 85+ depending on what happens tonight. It seems the Board is basically
“holding someone’s feet to the fire” who did the right thing. A 46-lot large lot subdivision would have been
easier to do and would have been over with. He thinks the Board should encourage people to take the step
of going into a rural preservation development, clustering lots and preserving large tracts of open area.
There is affordable housing the in the rural areas scattered throughout the County. As the County becomes
more populated and the demand for lots increases, all land is increasing in value and becoming less
affordable. He thinks the Board would be “cutting off our nose to spite our face” by not allowing these
development rights to be allocated, thus penalizing the whole concept of rural preservation development.
Ms. Thomas said the three development rights are to be given to Lot 1 and not to the applicant who
created the rural preservation development. He has already sold Lot 1 which is an entirely separate 106-
acre agricultural lot with no development rights, but which does contain an historic house. Depending on
the Board’s action tonight, it could have three additional dwelling units placed on it. She agrees that this is
an admirable alternative to by-right development, but she does not regard putting three development rights
on Lot 1 as penalizing the developers who did the rural preservation development.
Mr. Rooker asked what would happen to the three development rights if they are not allocated
tonight.
Mr. Davis said under the terms of the conditional use permit those development rights cannot be
utilized in this rural preservation development. Unless there is a future change to the zoning ordinance to
allow them to use them in a future zoning situation, they just cannot be utilized. They forfeited those by
accepting the development of a rural preservation development.
Mr. Rooker asked if they could request at a later time to seek and amend the other part of this and
exercise the right somewhere else. Mr. Davis said “no.” It is all included within the rural preservation tract.
When the Board gets into the issue for providing for administrative approval of by-right, large preservation
developments, it may wish to “open the door” to that type of thing or “close it.” That is an issue the Board
will need to address at that time.
Mr. Boyd said he is does not understand what is being talked about as to the three additional lots on
which the restriction would be placed. They are floating and they cannot build on them anyway.
Ms. Thomas said back in 1991, there were 43 development rights utilized in this RPD.
Hypothetically, they had 46 development rights, so there are three development rights they did not use
when they developed this RPD. Staff brought up the issue of the three development rights which had never
been used. Part of the motivation for bringing up the issue was if they were used on Lot 1, then the County
would get a conservation easement on the largest part of Lot 1. The fact is that if the development rights
are not assigned to Lot 1, then Lot 1 essentially has a conservation easement on it because it will never be
able to be subdivided further.
Mr. Boyd said the proposal before the Board tonight has 22 recommended conditions. If Condition
22 were left off, would that impact what Ms. Thomas has said? Does that approve, or not approve, those
three floating development rights?
Mr. Rooker said there are a series of potential actions. The fourth one would be to allot the
development rights not used in the original proposal. The Board could essentially approve the first three
lots and not approve the fourth lot, in which case these development rights would not be approved at all.
Allocating the development rights then becomes irrelevant because they are not there.
Ms. Thomas said that is what the Planning Commission recommended.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board members have a problem with allocating the three development rights.
Mr. Rooker said that is what is being debated right now.
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Davis said the Planning Commission recommended against the allocation. Condition Nos. 3, 4,
5 and 6 are the conditions that the Commission struck which would have allowed three additional
development rights. If the Board wants to allow them, it would adopt “Option 1” which restates those
conditions in a way that would work. Condition No. 22 is a condition which only has application if the Board
gives those additional development rights. It is not required to be there if the additional development rights
are given, but it addresses Ms. Thomas’ concerns about the affordability and the purpose for granting those
extra development rights.
Mr. Wyant asked if the rights can be granted and No. 22 ignored. Mr. Davis said No. 22 is not a
required condition to grant those additional rights unless from a policy standpoint the Board feels it is
appropriate.
Ms. Thomas said the owner of Lot 1 would never have to do what is listed in No. 22. They could
use two of those development rights and never get into this.
Mr. Bowerman asked how they could use two of the development rights.
Ms. Thomas said the Board would have to adopt No. 22 the way it is worded here, and that gives
them three extra development rights. Condition No. 22 says that one of those development rights should be
used for an agriculture-related dwelling. If they wanted to develop two of their three development rights,
they would never have to do anything with that.
Mr. Bowerman said if it were to say three additional lots, they would have to do all three of them.
Mr. Rooker said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd said he needs to understand what will eventually come to a vote on this request. If the
Board approved Option 1 without Condition Nos. 21 and 22, they would be given the three rights with no
conditions attached.
Mr. Rooker said there are a whole series of conditions recommended.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks they would have agreed with Condition No. 21. He asked if No. 22 is what
the applicant objects to.
Mr. Rooker said it sounds like Ms. Thomas does not disagree with the three development rights,
she just wants to see one of the development rights exercised in a certain way. He asked if that is correct.
Ms. Thomas said she is leaving that up to others. She does not think that having more lots in the
rural area is ever a good thing. But, if the Board does assign them to Lot No. 1 she thinks there should be a
public reason for doing so, otherwise it is simply adding three more lots in the rural area.
Mr. Dorrier said they clustered on the best site for the buildings.
Ms. Thomas said the three being discussed now are not the three on the ridge that were moved.
They are down at the bottom near I-64 and Dick Woods Road. A lot of it is in flood plain, so she does not
know that they will be able to find three building sites.
Mr. Wyant said he cannot see having someone who is supposed to be an agricultural major
managing a tree; trees can grow without any help.
Mr. Rooker said if Ms. Thomas wanted to make a motion including No. 22 he would support the
motion. He is skeptical about enforcement of this provision. He said substantial additional value is being
added to the property by the Board’s action. To the extent that there would be some public benefit by
having one of the lots used in a way, then he does not oppose allowing a chance for it to be affordable.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Davis has said reference to the Comprehensive Plan would make it more
understandable than what is being attempted with this language.
Mr. Rooker said there is an out in this condition because it says “An alternative use of the dwelling
unit can be approved by the zoning administrator upon a finding that the restriction above has become
unreasonable due to material change of circumstances and proposed uses consistent with the general
purposes of providing affordable housing relative to other housing in The Rocks.” He thinks that leaves an
option to the property owner to find some other potential way of trying to provide a unit that is less expensive
than the other housing in the development.
Mr. Boyd asked to what extent this would be incorporated into the existing covenants for the
neighborhood. Will there be a problem meeting those covenants?
Ms. Thomas said the covenants in Rosemont are for the lots on the mountaintop.
Mr. Boyd said the covenants will not apply to Lot 1. He is having a problem with this all being put
together into one motion. The Board might “kill” the good part of the deal because of this hang-up over the
condition at the end of it.
Ms. Thomas said she would move that the Board approve SP-2003-079, The Rocks amendment,
removing Condition No. 21. Mr. Rooker said that would be Option 1 without Condition No. 21. Mr.
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd said he would like a clarification. If this motion does not pass, could a motion then be
offered that excludes both Condition No. 21 and 22? Mr. Rooker said “yes.”
Mr. Dorrier asked that the roll be called. The motion died by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
__________
Mr. Rooker then offered motion to approve SP-2003-079, The Rocks amendment, with Option 1
as presented by the County Attorney, except for Condition Nos. 21 and 22. He can support the request
either way. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd.
Ms. Thomas said she can support it either way. She thinks the Board has lost an opportunity by
doing this, but she will not vote against the proposal in general because she thinks it has been a good
attempt to get a much better use of the land than could have been gotten otherwise.
Mr. Wyant said it also gives an opportunity to discuss issues and other options that he had not faced
up until this time.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Except as otherwise provided herein development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the
“Special Use Permit Plan….” prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated
April 2, 2004. For purposes of these conditions the plan shall heretofore be referred to as
“The Application Plan;”
2. Except for minor boundary adjustments, (as determined by the Agent), the boundaries of
Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified only as shown on “The
Application Plan;”
3. Within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1, there shall be allowed a total of four (4) dwelling
units or four (4) lots. Before a building permit is issued for a second dwelling unit, or before
a subdivision plat is approved creating a new lot(s) within the boundaries of Lot 1, a new
application plan shall be reviewed and approved administratively by the County authorizing
the dwelling units or lots. For purposes of these conditions the term “subdivision” shall also
mean family divisions;
4. All subdivisions within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 shall meet the design standards and
special provisions set forth in Section 10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes the
requirement that it be demonstrated that the additional lots combined with the other
approved lots do not exceed the actual number of lots that could have been achieved by
conventional development of the total property;
5. All dwellings and development lots within the boundaries of Lot 1 shall be located east of
the floodplain of Ivy Creek;
6. All future development lots subdivided from Lot 1 shall be no larger than 3.26 acres in
area, shall be located in a manner consistent with, and be integrated into the overall design
of the other development lots in The Rocks;
7. A minimum of ten (10) trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots, including
those permitted by Condition three, in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning
Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees
shall be installed within two (2) planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the dwelling on the lots;
8. Clearing of land shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of
access roads, dwellings, and septic fields;
9. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding
natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning. Highly reflective colors or
surfaces, or light colored roofs, as determined by the Director of Planning, are prohibited;
10. Concrete driveways visible from off-site shall be darkened to blend with the surrounding
natural environment as determined by the Director of Planning;
11. The bridge shall not be constructed until the approvals in Conditions twelve through fifteen
have been obtained;
12. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control permit;
13. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design;
14. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure
compliance with Section 30.3. of the Zoning Ordinance;
15. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations.
Private roads shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous
terrain standards. This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to
access and provide frontage to all the lots in The Rocks development except the Rural
Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 as shown
on “The Application Plan;”
16. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Commission approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard of the
private road extension at the time of review;
17. The existing road, shown entering from Rocks Farm Drive, parallel to Interstate 64 and
meandering through the Preservation Tract shall not be improved or widened except for
agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed
by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority
deems that the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road
plan and an erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the
County Engineer;
18. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract,
the rural preservation easement shall be amended to allow the modification; amendment
to the easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle
County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use permit in no
way implies or guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the
Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority;
19. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended
road maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney.
This agreement shall be recorded with the plat; and
20. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner’s Association consents to
the Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C,
18C1, 18C2 and 18C3.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-2003-012. Stillfried Lane Townhouses (Signs # 21 & 51). Public hearing
on a request to rezone 6.652 acs from R-1 to PRD to allow 26 townhouse units. TM 60, Ps 31, 32, 33 & 34.
Loc on Stillfried Lane off Rt 250W (Ivy Rd) behind Kluge Children’s Rehabilitation Center. (The Comp Plan
designates this property as Neighborhood Residential in Neighborhood 6.) Jack Jouett Dist. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24 and May 31, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request to rezone three, relatively small adjacent properties from R-1
Residential to PRD, Planned Residential Development, to accommodate a 26-unit townhouse project at the
end of Stillfried Lane. The site is situated behind the Kluge Children’s Rehabilitation Center at the end of
Stillfried Lane, which is a private road. The site is on Lewis Mountain, which gradually slopes up from the
Kluge Center and Route 250 West below. The front (northern) portion of the site is an open lawn with
numerous large poplar and oak trees. The applicant’s plan seeks to conserve as many of these trees as
possible. The rear of the property is heavily wooded and rises steeply toward the top of Lewis Mountain.
The applicant’s proposal limits grading and construction in the rear of the site and the applicant has
proffered to preserve the larger trees found in this area. There is an existing house on one of the three
parcels that will be removed.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff found several factors which are favorable: 1) The proposal meets all
applicable principles of the Neighborhood Model; 2) The applicant has provided cash to assist the County’s
Capital Improvement Program implementation; and, 3) The proposal ensures building massing and
architecture that will create a human-scale development. He then handed to the Board members copies of
the proffers as of this date that also propose to provide cash that might be used for the affordable housing
program initiative.
Mr. Cilimberg said despite staff’s recommendation for approval of the rezoning subject to proffers,
and approval of the critical slopes waiver and the internal setbacks as requested, the Commission
recommended denial of the petition due to its lack of affordable housing. Although the Board adopted an
Affordable Housing policy, a lot of work is needed to determine how to implement that policy. The
Commission is trying to achieve it to the extent possible in the projects coming before it. This was not a
project which addressed affordable housing to the extent the Commission felt it should address the issue so
consequently recommended denial. He said that any guidance the Board can provide for the Commission
and staff as to its expectations for affordable housing would be helpful. The staff did not recommend the
project with any affordable housing provisions. However, the applicant has proffered $3,000 cash for each
dwelling unit at the time of building permit for funding capital improvements or affordable housing
programs. That is shown as Proffer No. 5 in what he handed to the Board earlier.
Mr. Cilimberg said in the plan are four smaller units that will be sold at a reduced price (the larger
units cost more than $400,000 each). He handed to the Board a request from the applicant that the fiscal
impact analyst look at the project based on their price points. He said that on the second page of this
revised impact, the applicant proposes that 22 of the units have a market value of $425,000, and four of the
dwelling units have a market value of $180,000. They feel that to some extent, that provides affordable
housing.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval but the Commission recommended denial based
on the affordable housing issue. The applicant has now addressed that to the extent seen in the proffer.
He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Commission recommended denial because the project did not meet the
requirements for affordable housing. Mr. Cilimberg said it did not provide for the target of 15 percent as set
out in the policy.
Mr. Dorrier asked if less than 15 percent was being provided. Mr. Cilimberg said it was actually
zero based on what qualifies as affordable housing under the policy.
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Wyant said the project has the four units and the $3,000 per unit contribution. Mr. Cilimberg
said the four units are not in the affordable range as defined in the policy. What they have done is to
provide $3,000 per unit for the County to use at its discretion.
Ms. Thomas said there are a range of prices. It is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Boyd asked if the four units at $180,000 qualify as affordable housing.
Mr. Rooker said not quite.
Mr. Wyant said $175,000 is the limit.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that Mr. Ron White discuss that.
Mr. Ron White, Housing Director, said the applicant’s representative will talk about that figure which
he thinks may be in error.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Nick Michaels said he represents Weather Hill Homes. He said the four units mentioned will
cost between $220,000 and $240,000. Originally they tried to get the units in at $180,000.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many bedrooms are in those units. Mr. Michaels said these are two
bedroom units but are smaller units. All of the other units are 25-foot units and will sell from $350,000 to
$500,000. From the beginning, they showed plans for four units which are 16-feet wide; they were
anticipating that they might be able to deliver them at the affordable housing price. Once they began the
project, the per lot improved cost was closer to $90,000 because it is a difficult site on which to build.
Because of land costs, it may be difficult to keep the cost to even the $225,000 figure.
Mr. Michaels said they have two other projects which will be coming before the Board soon. One is
on Fontaine Avenue, and one is on Avon Street Extended. In both of those cases, they were able to provide
the affordable units in the $175,000 range. He said that when they went before the Commission they had
not expected to be discussing affordable housing. Because the policy is new and there is not an ordinance
in place, they did not think the Commission would be ready to discuss affordable housing proffers. At one
time they had proffered to keep the price of those four units as low as possible. They asked to have that
removed from the proffers submitted to the Commission because the “nuts and bolts” of the policy are not
in place.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this land lies in the development area. Mr. Michaels said “yes.” He said it is the
type of project being called for in the Comprehensive Plan. They are neighbors to a number of businesses;
all of the adjoining neighbors support this application. The University had to sell them a small piece of
property so this project could move forward. One of the neighbors is granting them a sewer easement
across his property. The third neighbor wrote a letter of support.
Mr. Rooker asked how the road is handled once it goes behind the Kluge property. Mr. Michaels
said it is shown on the site plan as Stillfried Lane, which is basically a driveway which goes up the hill. It has
a 30-foot right-of-way which is adequate. This has been reviewed extensively by the Planning Department;
road widths, curbs and street trees have been addressed and everything meets standards.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Michaels said the main reason for not building affordable housing is the
cost of the land. Mr. Michaels said it is that cost, plus the cost of developing the lot. Water has to be
brought in from Route 250. The sewer line has to be extended across two adjacent pieces of property. It is
a steep site. They have gone to a lot of expense building retaining walls and trying to save some of the
specimen trees on the site. They were not able to save all of the trees. The lower part of the site where
they are building does not have the same quality of growth as that on the upper slopes. It is a good infill
site.
Mr. Rooker asked if they are using the existing driveway. Mr. Michaels said “yes.” The three lots
are part of an original six-lot subdivision. There were covenants and deed restrictions on the lots and they
are sticking to those requirements.
Mr. Wyant asked if the buildings are three or four stories. Mr. Michaels said they are both. All of
them are built into the side of the hill. They are basically two stories with parking beneath the lowest level;
some have two floors above the parking level and some have livable space in the attic. Some of the units
could have 3,000 square feet.
Mr. Wyant asked if the Architectural Review Board had seen this proposal. Mr. Michaels said “no”,
none of the buildings are closer than 600 feet to Route 250, so the plan did not have to be reviewed by the
ARB.
Ms. Thomas asked if any of these units are going to be of universal design. Mr. Michaels said that
has been talked about. Because the site is vertical, the buildings are also vertical. They have made
provisions to provide elevators if they are called for. It would only be done if requested by enough people in
the first selling phase of the project.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Stu Armstrong said he is the Executive Director of the Piedmont Housing Alliance. They
support this project for a number of reasons. He said Mr. Vito Cetta who is a principal in Weather Hill
Homes has given his time and talent to the efforts of affordable housing. Based on this project and the
actual cost of lots, the fact that they have tried to get close to the $200,000 mark, is commendable. He said
a family of four with an income of about $50,000, at a five-percent interest rate can afford a home costing
$195,000. If they have down-payment assistance with some subsidy, they could get close to $215,000. He
said the County is struggling with a complex issue. For the last seven years, the average days a property
has been on the market in Albemarle County has been cut in half. The number of days a home is on the
market is an indicator of supply and demand. He urged the Board to support this project, and urged it help
get production up in Albemarle County.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Ron White how the $3,000 cash contribution per unit would be used. Mr.
White said if he had a program to present today, he would think the program could provide up to ten
percent of the purchase price in down-payment and closing cost assistance. If homes cost $200,000, four
people could be helped with this contribution. (Note: Mr. Dorrier left the room at 8:15 p.m.)
Mr. Boyd asked about the changes in the fiscal impact statement which were recently sent to the
Board. Mr. Cilimberg said the statement attempts to reflect what the real price of the units will be. In a
normal fiscal impact analysis, staff uses an average price. He does not think the $425,000 and the
$180,000 used in the analysis were the real prices, but it showed an increase in County revenue and
provided a net positive figure; previously it had shown a somewhat negative outcome.
Mr. Rooker said the reality is that the more homes built on a piece of property, the worst the fiscal
impact will appear. Obviously, the lower the price on the housing, the worst the fiscal impact will appear.
Mr. Boyd said it also depends on the number of additional school children factored in because that
is the County’s biggest cost.
Mr. Rooker said there is not much difference in the fiscal impact model between the number of
children assumed from an attached unit or a detached unit. The cost in the fiscal impact analysis becomes
the same almost per unit regardless of the size of the unit. Revenue increases with the price point, so it is
somewhat counter to affordable housing.
Mr. Boyd said there have been two situations tonight where affordable housing was brought up in
the approval process based on some number or some amount or some appropriateness. He thinks the
Board needs to “get this thing nailed down.” The Commission turned this request down because it did not
have 15 percent affordable housing. They obviously did not read what the Board put in the guidelines they
adopted.
Mr. Rooker said the $3,000 per dwelling unit was not on the table at the time the Commission
considered the request. His question is, what can be done with the money on the table to provide
affordable housing somewhere in the County? Based on the cost of land development, every parcel of
property is probably not going to be available for affordable housing due to the cost of producing a lot.
(Note: Mr. Dorrier returned to the meeting at 8:19 p.m.)
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with the concept, but this is not very clear in the directions provided to staff
or the Commission. He does not see any consistency being applied by staff to the numbers here. Can the
Board legally say it has to be $3,000?
Mr. Davis said proffers are voluntary. The only direction staff and the applicants have at this time is
what is stated in the Comprehensive Plan, that is 15 percent or a comparable alternative contribution. A
committee is currently working on implementation strategies. This is an awkward time to deal with this
petition.
Mr. Dorrier said this is a very real problem. The developer is saying he cannot do what he is being
asked to do. Maybe the definition of affordable housing needs to be changed. He said $175,000 may be
affordable for some, but not affordable for others.
Mr. Wyant said the developer mentioned that the site work on the property is very costly. If he
could grade easily, the site work could be kept down on the land cost, and then he could provide the
necessary affordable housing.
Mr. Boyd said that is why flexibility is needed. He said that all of the e-mails and memos received
by the Board were not in the packet for this meeting. He thought the Housing Committee would define how
to track the housing and continue to keep it affordable after the initial sale, and now it appears that they are
just going to interpret what the Board meant to say. He does not think that is what the Board asked them to
do.
Ms. Thomas said there are two committees, so she wonders if there is some confusion. There is
the longstanding Housing Committee, and then there was a special committee formed.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board had charged either one of them with interpreting what the guidelines
mean.
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Tucker said they will give some guidance for staff to use, or staff will need to bring this policy
back to the Board so it can state what it meant to do when it adopted the policy. When applications are
presented to the County, what should staff encourage in the way of proffers?
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that is what Mr. Dorrier said. He thinks the Board needs to bring this
subject back for further discussion.
Mr. Dorrier said he understood from the developer that he could build three houses for $200,000
each.
Mr. Rooker said he had said he could build four houses that probably would have a price between
$220,000 and $240,000.
Mr. Dorrier said the County is asking for three or four at $175,000.
Mr. Bowerman said that is not the request.
Mr. Michaels said that on this site, that would be difficult. On a site which was flatter and had closer
water and sewer connections, it would be more doable. Part of the problem is applying one standard to
every situation.
Mr. Dorrier said that is a very real example of what the problem is with the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Wyant said he thought it was a goal of 15 percent. The policy does not say the Board cannot
set a different target.
Ms. Thomas said the policy is part of the Comprehensive Plan. Things are supposed to be judged
on that.
Mr. Wyant said this developer could not make that $175,000 suggested price, so he proffered cash.
It is a combination, and something he has not seen previously.
Ms. Thomas said she thought from the beginning of this project that having the four units cost less
that the others was moving in the right direction. Even if “less expensive” does not mean $175,000, it will
still have a variety of housing types and prices. She thinks the proffer could be used to make these units
truly affordable.
Mr. Rooker said that comparable contribution might be used in other parts of the County. He then
offered motion to approve ZMA-2003-012, Stillfried Lane Townhouses, subject to the revised proffers
received by the Board tonight. He said this project lies in the development area, it is an infill project which is
consistent with the Neighborhood Model, it has an affordable housing component, it has good tree
preservation, it has relegated parking, and it has an innovative design. He thinks the Board will have to look
at this type of request on a case-by-case basis because there is no commercial component with respect to
this development. The Board might consider a large development with a large commercial component
differently. The Board appointed an Affordable Housing Committee to wrestle with these problems and
bring back concrete recommendations that might go into an ordinance.
Mr. Wyant gave second to the motion.
Mr. Boyd said he is in favor of this project. Mr. Armstrong had said the supply of homes needs to
be increased, and he thinks this is a good way of providing affordable homes. He said Ms. Thomas made
an excellent point that $180,000 for an affordable house is not something the Board “is stuck on.” A mixed
value of homes, and an attempt to provide some different levels of costs is good.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is working on a good policy by actually applying what it wants to do to
the requests that come before it.
Ms. Thomas said what the Board is going through now is painful, but it is also exciting. A year ago it
was not talking about affordable housing with every proposal, but now it is.
Mr. Wyant mentioned Condition No. 5 and asked who decides if the money will be used for the
affordable housing program or the Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Davis said whenever that money is to be expended, some proposal would come to the Board
for a decision.
Mr. Cilimberg said because the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request, they
did not take action on the request for a critical slopes waiver or make a recommendation on the internal
setbacks. He thinks the internal setbacks could be part of the rezoning because they are implied by the
plan of development.
Mr. Rooker said he will include that as part of his motion, as well as to recommend approval of the
critical slopes waiver. Mr. Cilimberg said it is understood that the request for the critical slopes waiver will
go before the Commission. Mr. Wyant accepted this amendment to the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date of Proffer Signature: 6.9.04
ZMA # 2003-012
Tax Map 60 and Parcel Numbers 32, 33 and 34
6.652 Acres to be rezoned from R-1 (Residential) to PRD (Planned Residential Development)
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 with the offered plans approved for development. 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) The development on Tax Map 60, Parcel Numbers 32, 33 and 34 shall be in general accord
with the plan produced by Terra Partners, LLC, dated December 19, 2003, revised April 23,
2004, entitled “The Stillfried Lane Townhomes at Poplar Glen”, herein referred to as the
Application Plan, (sheets 2 of 3 and 3 of 3).
(2) No building permit shall be issued unless and until the Director of Community Development, or
his assigns, determines that the building facades are in general accord with the architecture
plans produced by Bosserman Design/Development, dated 10/29/03, last revised 12/22/03,
entitled “Poplar Glen, Stillfried Lane Townhomes”, sheets p-1, p-2, and p-3. The façades shall
be determined to be in general accord if the architecture implements features that break up the
massing of the building, such as the porches, porticos, variations in building materials, and
gables which break up the rooflines
(3) The owner shall avoid cutting all trees (greater than six (6) inches diameter at breast height) in
the area labeled Conservation Area on the Application Plan.
(4) The owner shall bury all utilities on the project site during the construction of the townhouses,
including those utilities (electric, telephone, sewer and water) serving the UVA Cochran House
on Tax Map 60, Parcel 34A, prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any
dwelling unit.
(5) The owner shall contribute a sum of $3,000 cash per dwelling unit to the County for
funding Capital Improvements or affordable housing programs. The cash contribution will be
paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for that dwelling unit. If this cash
contribution has not been exhausted by the County for the stated purpose within ten (10) years
from the date of the contribution, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the owner.
(Signed) Mark Powell_______ (Printed) Mark Powell, VP of Weather Hill Homes, LLC 6-9-04
Signature of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: ARB-2004-031 - Seminole Place Sign Refacing. Request to reface
internally illuminated freestanding sign. TM 061W, Sec 3, P 18. Loc at Comdial property on W side of Rt
29 N, a short distance S of Greenbrier Dr.
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski said that on May 3, 2004, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed
an application to reface the existing freestanding sign at the Comdial property on the west side of Route 29
North, a short distance south of Greenbrier Drive. The proposal consisted of an opaque blue face with
white letters and white border for the upper panel, and a lower panel consisting of black letters on a white
background during the daytime, changing to illuminated white letters on an opaque background at night. In
keeping with the ARB’s practice of limiting internal illumination of cabinet signs, the ARB voted 4:0 to
approve the proposal with several conditions.
1. The letters of the upper cabinet may be illuminated.
2. The white border on the upper sign can be illuminated at night provided that the border is no larger
than 1/8 inch in width.
3. Revise the lower sign to increase the compatibility of its daytime appearance with that of the upper
sign.
4. The lower panel shall not be internally illuminated, but it may be externally illuminated.
Ms. Maliszewski said the ARB’s preferred solution is to externally illuminate the sign; in other words,
to shine a light on the sign. This is preferred because it allows consistency between the daytime and
nighttime images of the sign. Also, external lighting appears to the viewer as reflected light and allows the
focus of the sign to be on the original overall shape, color and complete design of the sign. Internal
illumination produces a fragmented sign image at night (compared to external lighting) and emphasizes the
illumination itself, rather than an element in a coordinated site design. Limits on illumination are also
intended to reduce glare, to reduce visual clutter and distraction, to provide for coordinated appearances
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
along the EC, to increase visual continuity, and to limit negative impacts along the County’s Entrance
Corridors.
Ms. Maliszewski said the ARB determined that the quantity of internal illumination proposed for the
Seminole Place sign was inappropriate and that it should be limited to the illumination of the letters and
border on the upper panel only. The ARB left open the option of external illumination for the bottom panel
in the event that the applicant preferred to have that portion of the sign visible at night. The ARB
recommended that the application, as presented, be denied.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Ben Foster said he represents Seminole Place and Hightech Signs. He said this is an
application to reface the two signs on the old Comdial Building. The sign is a legal and valid sign. In the
past it was an illuminated sign. His first objection is that when someone has a permit for a sign it gives them
the legal right to have that sign, and they have a legal right to have an illuminated sign. He does not know
of anything in the Code which would allow that right to be taken away. He said his company has refaced
many signs in the past and provided that they complied with the ARB, he has never heard of any other sign
having illumination taken away from it. That is not equal treatment under the law as required by the 14th
Amendment. When he asked the reason for taking away the internal illumination, he was told it was
because they did not like the message on the sign. The message says “leasing” with a telephone number.
He said there is nothing in the ARB guidelines saying that is not a desirable sign. Since there is no ARB
guideline to that extent, he thinks their decision was capricious and arbitrary. The law does not allow ARBs
to make up their own rules “on the fly”; they are supposed to carry out the guidelines that are published.
Finally, restrictions cannot be applied to signs based on the content written on the sign. He said there are a
bunch of reasons why he is appealing this. It is not a particularly important sign. There are no aesthetic
questions. It has plain text and it is replacing plain text. There is no reason to say the lower panel should
not be illuminated. The lower panel complies with the ARB guidelines in as much as it is to have the
background blacked out and the text only illuminated.
Ms. Thomas said she sees on the rendering of the sign the words “opaque background - only text
will illuminate” but to her it looks to be the opposite. The text (Leasing, etc.) shows in black, and the
background is white. Mr. Foster said the ARB wanted to know the colors of the sign by day. They changed
it at the request of the ARB to have a white background by day with blue text; at night it would have a black
background with white text. This is exactly what the ARB requested, in every respect.
Mr. Rooker asked if the original Comdial sign was approved by the ARB. Ms. Maliszewski said that
sign predated the ARB.
Mr. Rooker asked why the ARB did not approve internal illumination for the bottom sign. Ms.
Maliszewski said the ARB determined that it would be an excessive amount of internal illumination.
Mr. Dorrier said the original Comdial sign was hard to read, so this proposed sign does contain
more illumination. That is what a sign is supposed to do.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not understand the difference. He asked Mr. Foster if the lower sign
had an opaque background and the letters were white, would that create a problem. Mr. Foster said “no.”
The letter would be blue in the daytime and white at night.
Mr. Rooker said there is a difference between the old sign and the proposed sign because the first
sign did not come before the ARB. In his mind the only issue is whether the ARB is applying its guidelines
consistently with respect to signs. He said the ARB voted 3:0 on this proposal, and at least one member of
the ARB is a member of the business community. He does not think they were inconsistent in making their
decision. Unless the Board wants to second guess the ARB on its aesthetic decisions, he sees no choice
but to support their decision.
Mr. Bowerman said he will support their decision, but does not understand it.
Mr. Boyd said he has a different viewpoint. If the ARB denied internal illumination for the bottom
part of the sign because they thought that was excessive, is that defined someway in the ARB guidelines?
Ms. Maliszewski said the guidelines do not limit illumination to a certain area or size.
Mr. Boyd asked how the word “excessive” is addressed. Mr. Bowerman said it is just their opinion.
Mr. Wyant said if this were just one sign, they would probably internally illuminate the whole sign.
Mr. Davis said a scheme was adopted by this Board in the 1990s to regulate the Entrance
Corridors. It was deemed to be too difficult to adopt an ordinance that addressed every conceivable sign or
building face that might be proposed on an entrance corridor. State law allows this Board to appoint an
architectural review board. The ARB exercises on a case-by-case basis what the EC should look like
based on guidelines adopted by this Board and guidelines which have been developed by the ARB for
consistency. This particular sign is consistent with the way the ARB has addressed other signs on the
entrance corridor. There has been a consistent preference for external illumination rather than internal
illumination. That can be seen along the corridor for signs which have been reviewed by the ARB. Mr.
Davis said he agrees with Mr. Foster that the discussion as to content of signs is not a legal basis for this
decision. Neither staff’s recommendation nor the ARB’s decision was based on content, and it is a legally
supportable position of the ARB. An appeal of the ARB’s decision to the Board of Supervisors gives it the
option to affirm, reverse or modify that decision. He suggested the Board apply the guidelines consistently.
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
In this instance, he believes the decision of the ARB is a consistent application.
Mr. Boyd said he would agree if this were a new sign. It is not a new sign, it is not a new
illumination, it is not a redesign, basically it is just changing the lettering on an existing sign. Mr. Davis said it
is a non-conforming sign.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think it is fair to the business world that if they change the name of their
business, they have to change the illumination on their sign. He does not think that is an appropriate
regulation. If they changed the style or the size, that is one thing, but they should not have to change the
basic format of the sign just because they change their name. He is in favor of the sign with the internal
illumination. He appreciates what the ARB says, but he does not agree with them.
Mr. Bowerman said the ARB makes these judgments and they are consistent in what they do. He
does not always have to agree with them, but they are consistent in their application of the guidelines, and
he will not vote against the ARB.
Mr. Boyd asked where the consistency is.
Mr. Bowerman said they have been consistent in approving other signs along Route 29.
Mr. Boyd asked if when someone changed the lettering on an existing sign they also had to change
from internal illumination to external illumination.
Mr. Rooker said when changes to signs were requested, the County has interpreted that as coming
within ARB guidelines. It may be a non-conforming sign, but when a change is made to that sign, at that
point the sign has to comply with existing guidelines. That has been a consistent application of the
principles of the ARB, not only for signs, but in numerous other applications.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that if it is an existing sign, and all that is being done is to change the
lettering, unless it is some kind of obtrusive language, he challenges that as a consistency the ARB should
make. He thinks the applicant should be allowed to change the sign. He disagrees with the ARB’s
approach.
Mr. Rooker said if the decision falls to the ARB, is their decision consistent with past practices? The
answer to that appears to be “yes.” Unless the Board wants to get into second guessing all the past
practices that have led up to this, or the Board wants to put in place some specific guidelines which it
dictates on aesthetics, he does not see how the ARB can be overruled on this request.
Mr. Dorrier said he does not want to get into that issue, but he would like to know why the ARB is
against internal illumination. Ms. Maliszewski drew the Board’s attention to the Executive Summary. She
said the impression and the appearance of an externally illuminated sign is very different from an internally
illuminated sign. If you look at a site in the entrance corridor as an overall design, an externally illuminated
sign is viewed at night as an element in an overall coordinated development. For an internally illuminated
sign, at night it is the light itself that one is looking at. It is not a piece of an overall coordinated development
Mr. Wyant asked if this request is considered as one sign. Ms. Maliszewski said “yes.”
Mr. Wyant said if this were one sign of 32 square feet and it was internally illuminated, that would
be consistent to him. This sign actually has less than 32 square feet in the upper portion, so he thinks there
is an inconsistency. He views this differently from Mr. Boyd. He thinks there should be something saying
that only 32 square feet can be internally illuminated.
Mr. Rooker said he would not object to the ARB looking at its guidelines to see if there are better
guidelines which could be used so applicants would be more certain as to what is allowed or not allowed.
Mr. Tucker said the ARB is currently reviewing those guides, and staff hopes that in July they will be
ready to discuss in a work session.
Mr. Foster asked if he could make a comment. He said in answer to Mr. Dorrier’s question, the
ARB is not against internal illumination. They demand that every shopping center sign be internally
illuminated with channel letters which are internally illuminated with neon which is far brighter than any of
these cabinet signs being talked about now. He thinks there is total inconsistency to say this sign which
shows white lettering is wrong. It looks like a dimmer version of a channel-letter sign at night. It has white
letters on a black background. The channel letter signs which the ARB requires are much brighter white
letters on a black background. He thinks it is totally inconsistent.
Mr. Rooker said he will move to affirm the decision of the ARB on the Seminole Place Sign
Refacing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
__________
Mr. Davis said the motion failed, so the Board actually took no action on the appeal. The Board
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
must now take affirmative action to approve the sign if it is going to do that today. This is new territory for
this Board; it normally does not take action to approve signs.
Mr. Boyd said he would offer motion to approve the sign as originally proposed by the applicant.
Mr. Wyant offered second to the motion. He said the bad thing about this is that the Board must
wait until July to get the guidelines, so it could be setting a precedent in the meantime.
Mr. Davis said the guidelines are just being updated; these are not new guidelines.
Ms. Maliszewski said the recommendation in this instance would be the same based on the
proposed revisions to the guidelines.
Mr. Rooker said that means that under the new guidelines this sign would not be approved.
Mr. Boyd asked what will be included in the guidelines that is not a part of the guidelines now. Ms.
Maliszewski said there is a lot in the proposed guidelines that is not in them now, and there is more of an
explanation as to why internal illumination is not appropriate.
Mr. Boyd said it will still be an arbitrary decision; he agrees that is necessary.
Ms. Thomas said what the Board is doing is just replacing the ARB’s judgment with its judgment.
The last time she remembers the Board doing that, it was a landscaping issue. To her eyes, that piece of
property “sticks out like a sore thumb.” What the ARB does is to bring a sense of consistency all along the
corridor. If the Board starts picking out individual signs and applying its judgment as to what is aesthetically
pleasing, it might as well give up on the entrance corridors. Today, Route 29 North is one of the most
attractive entrance corridors seen anywhere because there is consistency. They are little things, but there
are shrubs of a certain size that are in front of most of the buildings, things that do not catch the eye. In
fact, that is the point. There is a consistency along that corridor that makes everybody’s property worth
more because they know that everybody else’s property will have to follow that consistency. She thinks the
Board will live to regret it if it puts its judgment over the ARB’s judgment and simply takes appeal by appeal
and applies what it thinks looks nice instead of using the consistency principles which she thinks both legally
and aesthetically have to guide the decisions the ARB makes.
Mr. Bowerman said there are two members of the ARB who are business people.
Mr. Boyd said he is looking at this differently; if they were going to tear down the existing sign that
would be a different situation.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Boyd is putting his judgment over the ARB’s judgment; there is no way to get
away from that.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks there should be some grandfathering capabilities, just like in a zoning
decision.
Ms. Thomas said that is Mr. Boyd’s judgment that he is putting over the ARB.
Mr. Boyd said a zoning decision stays with the land.
Mr. Rooker said when changes are made to a sign, or changes are made to a property, the ARB
has consistently applied their criteria to that sign, etc. Mr. Boyd is saying that should not be done.
Mr. Boyd said that is not what he is saying at all. No one has demonstrated to him that this is
consistent with ten other decisions the ARB has made in the past three or four years.
Ms. Thomas said if Mr. Boyd would like to wait and have them come back with that kind of
information, she suspects they could furnish such information. In that case, the Board should not make a
decision tonight if that is going to be the basis for Mr. Boyd’s decision.
Mr. Boyd said his decision is based on the fact that he does not feel this changes anything that is
not already there in the sign.
Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Thomas both said that is Mr. Boyd’s opinion.
Mr. Boyd said his opinion can be his opinion and it does not mean that he is against somebody or
against some group.
Mr. Wyant said if he were a business person on the entrance corridor and had two signs like this
defined as one, but could not light 12 square feet of that sign, and another business person had 32 square
foot he could light, he does not think that could be defended in court. He thinks there should be some rule
that everybody has up to the same amount. Really huge signs are not allowed anymore in the entrance
corridor, but there should be the same amount of lighting available to them.
Mr. Rooker said part of the application of the ARB guidelines is an effort to apply consistency of the
size of the sign in relationship to the building. That requires a little bit of case-by-case determination. There
is a limitation in the Sign Ordinance on the size of signs. Beyond that, there is the ARB application in the
entrance corridors. Their decisions are based on a set of guidelines which they are in the process of
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
enhancing. To say I would approve this sign because it was there before and it is no worse now than it was
before makes no sense to him when the ARB has consistently required changes in signs to comply with
their guidelines. That has been a consistent practice, so to say otherwise here would be to overrule them
based upon their consistency.
Mr. Bowerman said the ARB makes a whole broad range of decisions in terms of what it approves
and what it does not approve. Lighting is a small part of what they do. He agrees one hundred percent with
the ARB in all their other applications. Occasionally he may have a different opinion about a sign, but it is
their decision.
Mr. Dorrier said the consistency argument is a fine argument to make, but this is a public body
separate from the ARB and it can apply its common sense when looking at these issues. He said the sign
Comdial had could barely be seen, and it makes no sense to him that refacing it with a sign that can be
seen, cannot be approved.
At this point, Mr. Bowerman moved the question.
Mr. Davis said he would point out that if this motion dies by another 3:3 vote, the application has
been denied, and the applicant will have to reapply to the ARB.
Mr. Dorrier asked that the roll be called.
Mr. Boyd said he could withdraw his motion.
Mr. Bowerman said if Mr. Boyd withdraws his motion, he will make another motion to approve the
sign.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Boyd was withdrawing his motion. Mr. Boyd indicated he was not
withdrawing the motion. Mr. Dorrier asked that the roll be called. The motion died by the following
recorded tie vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
__________
Mr. Davis said if the Board wants to reconsider the prior motion that was denied, there could be a
motion made to reconsider that vote, it should be voted on, and if it passed, the previous motion would be
alive so it could be voted on again.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the vote would come out any differently.
Mr. Davis said he does not know that anybody on the losing side would vote differently given the
consequence that there is no sign at all at this point and there would have to be a reapplication which will
again be reviewed by the ARB.
Mr. Wyant said the ARB would have new guidelines in place by the time it came back to them for
review.
Ms. Thomas said it has been stated that those guidelines are not going to be any different relating
to this issue.
Mr. Rooker said he will make a motion to reconsider the motion he made previously to affirm the
ARB’s decision. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Davis said the original motion is now before the Board again for reconsideration.
Mr. Wyant asked if this can be deferred until the Board sees the revised ARB guidelines. He thinks
a month of deferral would be better for the applicant.
Mr. Boyd asked how long it would take to get this request back before the ARB.
Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Malieszewski if there is anything in the proposed revisions to the guidelines
that is any different on the issue of internal versus external illumination. Ms. Malieszewski said there is
nothing other than additional clarification of why external illumination is preferred over external illumination.
She thinks the results would be the same using those revised guidelines.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board ended up in a stalemate again, how long it would take for the
application to go back through the process. It would give the applicant the option of withdrawing his
requirement for internal illumination if he wanted to do that. Ms. Malieszewski said the next filing date is
about ten days away, and the meeting date would probably be six weeks after that.
Mr. Rooker said if the Board affirmed the decision of the ARB the applicant could go ahead with the
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
sign according to the guidelines established in their decision.
Mr. Boyd said he understands that.
Mr. Rooker requested a vote on the motion.
Mr. Wyant said he assumes the Board’s discussion of these questions goes to the Planning
Commission and the ARB so they know the Board’s concerns. He thinks they would address those
concerns in the next round. He just does not know what their guidelines are until they are received. He
would hate to put an applicant through another eight weeks or more. That is his concern.
Mr. Davis said the Board members will have an opportunity at the July day meeting to have this
discussion with the ARB.
Mr. Tucker said when the Board discusses those guidelines it can debate whether to make
changes to the guidelines. There will be a recommendation from the ARB, but Ms. Malieszewski has said
the guidelines would not change. The revised guidelines will just give further clarification as to why they
have made particular recommendations.
Mr. Dorrier asked that the roll be called.
Mr. Wyant asked to have the motion restated. Mr. Davis said the motion is to affirm the ARB’s
decision on this request.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Wyant asked when the public hearing is scheduled on the Crozet Master Plan. Mr. Tucker said
it is scheduled for August 11.
Mr. Wyant asked what the Board will be approving at this public hearing and if it will change zoning.
The word “conceptual plan” has been mentioned over and over. He has concerns about Jarmans Gap,
Vine Street and Main Street and thinks the Board needs to discuss it so when it gets to the public hearing
and it is looking for a motion, the Board members will know what they are voting on.
Mr. Tucker said this is an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan; there will be no decisions before
the Board concerning zoning.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks this is the first master plan of this type so he wants to be sure everything is
done right.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to do that also. He would like to have a summary of the implications of
the changes which will be made to the Comprehensive Plan. He is struggling with that decision.
Mr. Bowerman said there were Comprehensive Plan amendments of this magnitude for both the
Hollymead Town Center and Albemarle Place.
Mr. Boyd said in those cases there were developers ready with the money to do those plans. That
is not the case for the Crozet master plan.
Ms. Thomas said since the change goes with the land the Board at its peril assumed it had a
developer with the money to do what was planned. The Comprehensive Plan or the zoning goes with the
land and the Board has made mistakes in the past thinking it goes with the person.
Mr. Boyd said he wants to know what impact adoption of this plan will make on the current owners
of property.
Ms. Thomas agreed that it would be a good discussion to have.
Mr. Wyant said he is meeting with a couple of the “key players” in Crozet and he would like to have
some directions from the other Board members.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks Mr. Wyant and Mr. Boyd are not sure what adoption of this master plan
will mean. He would like to suggest that staff meet with them and talk about what it really means. The
entire Board could do this if it wished to, but he thinks the other Board members have a better sense of
what will occur.
Mr. Boyd said he wished that conversation had taken place before the Board adopted the Housing
policy with the 15 percent stipulation. It appears that has become the law now, and he wants to be sure the
Board will not be establishing just one guideline for Crozet.
Mr. Rooker said this will not take away any zoning for Crozet, but it will say this is a puzzle and this
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
is the way we would like to see it put together. When zoning changes are made they can fit into that puzzle
and when proffers are made the Board will know what improvements should be built based upon the
priorities established in the master plan. It will be a tremendous benefit to the area.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Boyd and Mr. Wyant would meet with staff and then if they still wish to
discuss this, it can be done at a later meeting.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks the informational meeting held in Crozet was a good meeting. He met
with people after that, and there were some misconceptions which he dispelled, but not all of them.
Mr. Boyd said this plan will change the potential density of an area next to a resident’s home. He
thinks it should be made clear to that person that this is happening.
Mr. Tucker said it is never wise to wait until there is a request for a rezoning before the Board; the
residents should come to Board meetings when changes to the Comprehensive Plan are being discussed.
People don’t seem to understand that.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said the Birnam Basin is being filled, but he does not expect there to be any
dramatic changes.
Mr. Boyd asked whose project this is.
Mr. Bowerman said it started in 1982 when there was a flood in that area. This was a detention
basin at the head of where all the water started. There were a series of seven basins installed to help
prevent flooding on Route 29, Branchlands and further downstream. Mr. Tucker said the work is being
contracted, but the County will manage the project.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he and Mr. Wyant met with Mr. Bill Moses and talked about the wine industry. He
said six out of ten awards at the recent Governor’s Cup in Wine went to people in Central Virginia. The top
award went to someone in the Crozet area. He said Albemarle County is becoming a leader in the wine
industry in Virginia. He recommended that when the Board discusses economic development, it meet with
Mr. Moses who is head of the Virginia Wine Growers’ Association, and discuss issues involving the wine
industry, generically not specifically.
Mr. Tucker said staff will be seeking some advice from the Board in July concerning economic
development. Then at some future date, the Board could invite some industry people to speak.
Ms. Thomas said the wine industry is a relevant issue for the Mountain Overlay District because it
turns out that higher up on the mountain is better for the grapes.
__________
At 9:15 p.m., motion 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 (3) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding the acquisition of property for public use.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
At 9:45 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Boyd 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.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was immediately adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
June 9, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 05/04/2005
Initials: DBM