2004-08-11
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 1
A regular meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
August 11, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., in Room 241, Second Floor, 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, Substitute Clerk, Sharon C. Taylor, Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Development
Process Manager, Bill Fritz.
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. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier invited comments from the public on “Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda.” He
pointed out that there were five persons who had signed to speak. He asked that comments be limited to
no more than three minutes.
Mr. Eddie Giles said he is a resident of 1550 Garden Court. He said he was speaking on behalf
of the residents of Garden Court about the building that is adjacent to their homes. They thought this
building was built for office spaces. Now they have found that it is a Planned Parenthood Clinic. He is
not speaking against what they are doing, but is concerned about its location. It is located between two
churches and is a tenth of a mile from a school system. They feel it should be located in a commercial
area for a service that happens near a hospital. He asked the Board to please think about its decision
and revoke the permit for this building. They are concerned about their safety. Sometimes this type of
facility causes people to protest, sometimes get violent and sometimes set fires. Some of their houses
are adjacent to this building and it is a possibility this could happen and these houses catch fire.
Basically, they are asking that the Board think about this. Hopefully, the decision the Board makes will be
that this permit is revoked and this building be located in a better place, maybe near a hospital. He
thanked the Board for listening and said he hopes the Board’s decision is a wise one.
__________
Ms. Melissa Meeks said she is present to speak about a matter that is not related to the Planned
Parenthood matter. She has come to the Board as a representative of Charlottesville NOW. She had
handed to the Board members a draft proclamation which declares August 26, 2004, as Women’s
Equality Day. She said this day is in remembrance of all of those women and men who have worked to
develop a more equitable community, a community that acknowledges both the real similarities and the
important differences between men and women. She said women are still losing their individual rights in
Virginia and across the Nation. She said it is important for the governmental body to recognize this day
where inequality and discrimination are suspect and ultimately are not to be tolerated. She asked that the
Board pass this proclamation.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board would consider this proclamation at the end of tonight’s meeting.
__________
Mr. Tobey Bouch said he is a resident of Albemarle County and a member of the Central Virginia
Family Forum. Last month their organization, along with 130 residents of the County, approached this
Board and requested revocation of the permit under which Planned Parenthood is operating its abortion
hospital at 2964 Hydraulic Road. They explained the distinction between the approved use and the
current use, detailed in two forms handed to the Board (no copy was given to the Clerk). The Board’s
response, with only one exception, has been complete silence. The Forum has seen no vote, no
dialogue and no correspondence. On August 3 Planned Parenthood opened for business. Therefore, he
comes to the Board this evening to introduce the new neighbors. Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge
is a member of a larger coalition of abortion providers known as Planned Parenthood Federation of
America. Their president, Gloria Felt, says Planned Parenthood’s emphasis is on sexual and
reproductive self determination. He said many in the community believe in the misnomer planned
parenthood, but the facts speak for themselves. He said their emphasis lies almost wholly in distribution
of birth control to youth and provides abortions for unwanted pregnancies, particularly for young
minorities. He said their website encourages calls to the nearest abortion provider for assistance in
overriding parental consent laws by obtaining a judicial bypass from a judge. In 2002, Planned
Parenthood distributed 2.2 million contraceptives to women and girls, distributed 60,000 contraceptives to
men and boys, provided over 600,000 emergency or morning-after contraceptive treatments, performed
227,000 abortions (a 38 percent increase from 1997), and referred only 1963 adoptions (an 80 percent
drop from 1997).
Mr. Bouch said the Planned Parenthood Federation of America has performed 3.2 million
abortions in the past 25 years and has absorbed over $2.5 billion in local, state and federal grants and
contracts in just the last 15 years. The local affiliate, Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge received
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 2
$1.2 million in government fees and contracts last year alone. We, in the Charlottesville area, love to cite
the fact that we have been named the best place to live in America. Apparently, Planned Parenthood
agrees. They have seen fit to establish one of the first comprehensive regional abortion clinics here just
one-half a mile from our high school, among our churches and residences. They slipped in under the
auspices of an office building and we, being the accommodating folks that we are in America’s number
one city, are refusing to enforce a zoning ordinance which has played such a critical role in creating this
ideal community. This Board must act. The residents of Albemarle County refuse to allow our zoning
laws to be twisted. We are committed to exhausting every avenue to ensure that our community’s
integrity is protected. If you will not dialogue with us, we will speak to the Circuit Court and the Board of
Zoning Appeals. The signed petitions (which he did not bring with him), represent the fact that their
numbers are growing daily and they are not going away. He thanked the Board for their time.
__________
Mr. Robert McCready said he is Executive Pastor at Covenant Church located on Rio Road. He
came to voice their concern regarding this facility located on Hydraulic Road just a few miles from their
church facility and just a stone’s throw from the community’s high school. They are concerned about this
Board and its ability to act upon this. The church has been in the community for over fifty-two years and
has one of the largest congregations in Charlottesville. He reiterated that his congregation is very
concerned about what is happening here. The reason they are so concerned is not only that they oppose
this facility morally, but also because Covenant Church and the other religious communities in
Charlottesville will be picking up the pieces of the lives of the women who go in this facility and have
abortions, and then experience trauma and mental anguish five or more years in the future. Therefore,
they ask this Board to act on behalf of the community and on behalf of the churches. He asked that there
be an up or down vote on the permit as it relates to this facility. He asked the Board, as the elected
leaders, to please act. He thanked the Board for their consideration.
__________
Mr. Mike Sharman said he would distribute copies of his extended remarks (on file). He is an
attorney working with the Central Virginia Family Forum to help them find a regulatory, legislative or
judicial remedy to stop the use of Planned Parenthood’s Hydraulic Road property as a regional abortion
hospital or medical center. He recognizes that the Board and the Forum may be co-adventurers on a
long road whose end cannot be seen. The two groups may at times be on different sides of the issue and
may even be in conflict, but they can work cooperatively together to resolve this issue.
Mr. Sharman said the opinion given to the Board by County Attorney Larry Davis at the July 14,
2004, Board of Supervisors meeting was that Planned Parenthood’s current use could only have been
challenged years ago when the existing special use permit was approved for a different purpose by a
different applicant. The County Attorney’s opinion framed a classic “Catch 22” problem for both the Board
and the public. One of the other opinions given to the Board by the County Attorney was that Planned
Parenthood’s current use at 2964 Hydraulic Road for medical purposes came within the definition of
professional office use granted for the prior applicant years ago. The spring 2004 issue of the newsletter
for Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge stated that Planned Parenthood needed to “hire an architect to
ensure that we (Planned Parenthood) can construct a hospital in the space provided at 2964 Hydraulic
Road.”
Mr. Sharman said taking Planned Parenthood at its word it intends to use 2964 Hydraulic as a
hospital. But, perhaps this Board may choose not to take literally Planned Parenthood’s words that they
are using 2964 Hydraulic Road as a hospital. In that case, Albemarle County Code, Chapter 18, Section
3.1, defines a medical center as being “An establishment wherein medical care is provided on an
outpatient basis as distinguished from a hospital or a professional office.” So what Planned Parenthood
is doing is either a hospital, as they said it is, or it is a medical center, as the Code defines it. Their facility
is certainly not a professional office. Albemarle County Code, Chapter 18, Section 3.1, also defines office
as “A room or a group of rooms used for conducting the affairs of a business, profession, service industry
or government.” Administrative office and professional office, as identified in this chapter, are opposites.
Your Code states it. They are not a professional office. They are what they say they are, either a
hospital or a medical center.
Mr. Sharman said that in accordance with Albemarle County Code, Chapter 18, Section 17.2.2, in
order to operate the hospital on R-10 zoning they must seek a special use permit, which they did not do.
Planned Parenthood could not have sought a special use permit for a medical center in R-10 because a
medical center is not permitted within R-10 either by special use or otherwise. Planned Parenthood’s
stated intention to use their property as a hospital or its codified intent to use it as a medical center is
willful noncompliance with the special use permit chapter and with the conditions of the special use permit
such that this Board could revoke the existing special use permit for 2964 Hydraulic Road under its
authority in Section 31.2.4.4.
Mr. Sharman asked the Board, as the Pastor has, to act. It is in the Board’s authority and
obligation to the citizens who had no vote, no voice and no ability to dissent on this issue. He thanked the
Board for its time.
Mr. Dorrier said everyone who had signed to speak has done so. He asked if there was anyone
else who had any remarks to make. There being no one, he asked Larry Davis, the County Attorney, to
give the Board an update on the legal status of this matter.
Mr. Davis said the approval of this special use permit was taken by this Board in 2002 when it
approved a professional office space. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the Planned
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 3
Parenthood use is in fact a medical office which is allowed as a professional office under that special use
permit. The Board would only have authority to deal with this issue if there were substantial
noncompliance with one of the conditions of the special use permit for the professional office use. He
does not know of any fact being brought forth as to noncompliance with those conditions. Therefore, this
Board has no role in determining whether or not that use should continue at that location. The only issue
raised tonight which is different from those brought up at the previous meeting is whether or not, because
the facility was constructed to some hospital standards, that transforms the use to a hospital or to a
medical center. The Zoning Administrator made the initial decision that it was a medical office. At his
request she has reviewed the zoning clearance that occurred last October and has decided that the
determination still stands. In her mind there has been no change of facts that has changed the nature of
the use. Simply because the building was built to hospital standards does not change the professional
office, medical office use of the building. There is not a new set of facts for this Board to deal with. It is
outside of the Board’s authority to revoke the special use permit. The Zoning Administrator’s decision
stands and it is her opinion that this is a medical office for purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and is an
appropriate use at that site based on the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier asked if any member of the Board had any comments or questions.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Zoning Administrator’s decision can be appealed to the Board of
Zoning Appeals. Mr. Davis said he did not believe it can be because the time for that appeal has passed.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board understands the feelings of those present tonight about the matter, but
presently the permit has been validly issued and the Board has no authority to interfere.
Mr. Boyd said he is still struggling with the whole definition of hospital since the people who have
moved into the building have defined it that way themselves. It was said tonight that the building has
been designed to hospital standards, but that does not mean it will be a hospital use. With a clear
understanding of what medical procedures will be performed there, where does the Board get a good
determination as to whether that constitutes a hospital or not. Mr. Davis said the Zoning Administrator
looks at what the use of the building is proposed to be and makes that determination.
Mr. Boyd asked if that was clearly defined by the applicant. Mr. Davis said the proposed use was
disclosed by the applicant and the Zoning Administrator looks at those facts and makes a determination.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Davis was talking about the applicant from two or more years ago, and not
the current applicant. Mr. Davis said he is talking about the current applicant, the applicant who made
application for an occupancy permit in October, 2003.
Mr. Boyd asked if they made mention of it being a hospital facility. Mr. Davis said they disclosed
the proposed use of the building, and had the complete building plans as part of that application which
were fully considered by the Zoning Department.
Mr. Boyd asked if they feel comfortable that there was no false pretense made in the use or
purpose of the building. Mr. Davis said there was no false pretense.
Mr. Sharman asked to make a clarification. Mr. Dorrier asked that his remarks be brief.
Mr. Sharman said the County Attorney is correct in that the application by Planned Parenthood on
October 31, “2004”, which was their first mention ever, they put down that they were asking for a zoning
clearance as an administrative office, education office/medical clinic. They never mentioned they were a
hospital. The first mention that they are a hospital was in their own newsletter and then in the newspaper.
This Board never approved any medical office. When the Board approved the special use permit, it was
approved for a professional stated reason of a real estate and insurance office. He thanked the Board for
allowing him to interject.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier thanked everyone for coming tonight and expressing their views.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
motion
Ms. Thomas offered to approve Items 5.1 through 5.5 on the Consent Agenda, and to
seconded
accept the remaining item as information. The motion was by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. SP-2003-70. Gregory R. Gallihugh - Nextel Partners (Sign #59). Request to allow
construction of personal wireless fac w/wooden monopole, approx 126 ft in total height & 10 ft above the
height of the tallest tree w/in 25 ft. The proposed fac includes flush-mounted panel antennas & ground
equipment. This application is being made in accord w/ Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM74, P2C,
contains 2.78 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Dick Woods Rd (Rt 637) approx 1.25 mls S of the intersec of Dick
(Deferred from July 7, 2004.)
Woods Rd & I-64. Samuel Miller Dist.
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 4
An E-mail had been received from Ms. Valerie W. Long (McGuire Woods) stating that her clients
wished to have this application withdrawn.
At the request of the applicant, this petition was withdrawn.
__________
Item 5.2. ZMA-2003-05. The Meadows Expansion Amendment (Sign #57). Request to rezone
26.843 acs from PRD to PRD to allow addition of 40 new dwelling units at The Meadows residential
community. TM 56, Ps 14C & 14C1. Loc on Rt 240 (Crozet Ave) approx 1/4 mi N of Intersec of Crozet
Ave & Rt 250W (Rockfish Gap Turnpike). (The 1996 Comp Plan, Land Use Plan designates this property
as Neighborhood Density Residential [3.01-6 du/ac] in the Community of Crozet). White Hall Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 26 and August 2, 2004.)
This item had been removed from the agenda since the Planning Commission had not yet
taken action on the petition.
__________
Item 5.3. Ordinance regarding real estate property taxation exemption – Amending Chapter 15,
to set public hearing for September 1, 2004.
It was noted in the staff’s report that in a November, 2002 referendum, Virginia voters approved
an amendment to the Virginia Constitution shifting responsibility for granting most property tax
exemptions from the General Assembly to the localities. Since then, the General Assembly has enacted
Virginia Code § 58.1-3651 to outline the circumstances and procedures under which localities may grant
property tax exemptions. Though Virginia Code § 58.1-3651 effectively grandfathers property tax
exemptions existing as of January 1, 2003 (when the Constitutional amendment took effect), it does not
address properties seeking exemption after that date. Unless a property is constitutionally exempt (such
as government, religious, cemetery, or educational property), any and all post-January 1, 2003,
exemptions must be granted at the local level, either by designation (specifically naming the organization
and property) or by classification (exempting the general class or use of property).
In responding to this shift in tax-exempting authority, the Board has at least three options. The
first option within the Board’s discretion is to do nothing. Localities are not required to adopt new tax
exemption ordinances. The state Constitution would continue to exempt some, but not all, of the same
types of properties currently enjoying exemption. For example, the state Constitution would continue to
exempt church or religious property used “for religious worship or for the residences of their ministers.”
However, without a local ordinance, other types of new church-owned property (such as new church
vans), and other new property not named in the state Constitution would be taxed.
A second option is to adopt a local ordinance to address how properties desiring tax-exempt
status may become exempt. The ordinance drafted by staff would adopt the classification standards of
the Virginia Code that applied prior to January 1, 2003, and extend those same exemptions to new post-
2003 properties. Without such a local ordinance, unless constitutionally exempt all properties that were
not exempt as of December 31, 2002, would automatically be taxed. For example, fraternal lodges
exempt as of December 31, 2002, would remain exempt; but without a classification ordinance, any new
lodges would be taxed simply because they were not exempt at the time that the General Assembly’s
exemptions were grandfathered, and the County has not yet established that all fraternal lodges, by
classification, will be exempt.
A third option would be to adopt some but not all of the pre-existing classifications. This would
eliminate tax-exempt status for properties in the eliminated classes lacking exemption on January 1,
2003, unless the Board granted tax exempt status by designation.
Staff recommends the second option, adoption of an ordinance to exempt all classifications of
property that previously existed on the state level. This approach maintains a continuity of how properties
are treated for tax-exempt purposes and allows new property obtained by owners who would have
qualified for tax-exempt status in 2002 by classification to qualify for tax-exempt status for the newly-
acquired property.
Following the General Assembly’s own enabling legislation, the suggested local ordinance has an
effective date of January 1, 2003. This effective date is designed to address the tax-exempt status of
properties during tax years 2003 and 2004, from the time the state Constitutional amendment became
effective. Without a 2003 effective date, taxes for the years 2003 and 2004 would technically be due on
those properties that the Board chose to exempt by classification after January 1, 2003. The 2003
effective date would close any gap for properties that were not exempt prior to January 1, 2003, but would
be tax-exempt if the staff’s drafted ordinance were adopted.
The proposed ordinance would not affect the Board’s current policy of declining special requests
for exemption by designation for property that does not otherwise qualify by classification. While
properties meeting the ordinance’s objective criteria to qualify by classification would qualify for
exemption, the ordinance does not designate any new entity (not otherwise meeting the classification
criteria) as exempt. The ordinance, however, does outline the procedures required by State law for
considering any future special designation requests. Such requests could be approved or denied by the
Board at its discretion.
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 5
Staff recommends that the Board set An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 15, Taxation, Article X,
Real Estate–In General, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding Sec. 15-1004,
Property exempt from taxation by classification and Sec. 15-1005, Property exempt from taxation by
designation, for a public hearing on September 1, 2004.
By the vote set out above, the Board ordered the ordinance advertised for a public hearing
on September 1, 2004.
__________
Item 5.4. Set public hearing for September 1, 2004, to include W. A. Wells property (Loc on Polo
Grounds Road) in the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional areas.
It was noted in the staff’s report that this is a proposal to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Areas to provide water service to two parcels which are 2.3 acres and 2.2
acres in size, located on the south side of Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road). The properties are adjacent
to the Rivanna River and are located across from the entrance to the Montgomery Ridge subdivision
(under construction). The properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas, and are designated as Rural Area in the
Comprehensive Plan. The properties’ current water source is a spring located across Polo Grounds on
Tax Map 46, Parcel 23B. The applicant is requesting water service due to potential threats to the spring’s
viability as a water source. The immediately adjacent properties to the east and the west are not located
in the Service Authority’s jurisdictional areas. All properties located on the north side of Polo Grounds
Road are within the Service Authority’s jurisdictional areas for water and sewer service. Water lines will
be constructed within the Montgomery Ridge subdivision and the ACSA estimates that once water lines
are complete, they will be approximately 800+ feet of the applicant’s property.
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer to
the Rural Areas:
?
Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p.125).
?
Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating the Jurisdictional
Areas (p.125).
?
Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in
cases where the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; or, 2) public health and/or safety are in
danger (p.125).
This request has been made because the condition of the spring serving the properties is being
compromised due to surrounding development. There are very limited opportunities to locate a new well
on the properties, due to the location of drain fields and because portions of the properties are located in
the floodplain. The applicant has submitted preliminary information which indicates attempts to locate
wells on the property have not been successful due to dangerously high contaminates in the water. Staff
has requested that the applicant provide more information from the hydrologist and also the Health
Department. It is anticipated that this information will be available in sufficient time for the staff to review
prior to public hearing.
The request appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy for the provision of
public water service to the Rural Area subject to further information to be provided and reviewed
regarding on-site options for providing adequate service to the sites. In order to allow for a timely review
of this request given the applicant’s current situation, staff recommends that the Board set a public
hearing for its September 1 meeting to consider providing water service to the existing structures on Tax
map 46, parcels 23D and 23D1.
Discussion
(: Ms. Thomas asked why the Board would take up this change in the jurisdictional
areas when there is still a request pending for a change in the Ivy area. She asked if it will be heard
soon. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had the Ivy area as part of the Board’s questions regarding what services
are available in that area and what undeveloped properties might get service.
Ms. Thomas said she is not opposed to holding a public hearing on this request, but she hopes
the Board can get an update on the other question soon.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board directed staff to advertise for a public
hearing on September 1, 2004.
__________
Item 5.5. Update on Red Hill Water Supply for contaminated wells.
It was noted in the staff’s report that County staff has been working with the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) on a study to find a replacement water supply in the Red Hill area. The
study is needed due to a major groundwater contamination incident originating at the Trading Post on
Route 29. So far, 11 wells have had petroleum products detected, and seven have had carbon filtration
units (cfu’s) installed, some for many years. DEQ has already expended significant funds on
investigations and pump and treat systems, and the plume is far from contained. DEQ is very concerned
that a permanent, reliable water supply be provided for the impacted properties and those at risk for
contamination. For this reason, DEQ approached the County early in 2003 to seek help in studying and
setting up the replacement water supply.
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 6
The recent history of this project is summarized below:
?
At its March 5, 2003 meeting, the Board authorized County staff to work with DEQ to facilitate
a long-term water supply solution.
?
On December 10, 2003, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign an interagency
agreement with DEQ. The agreement allows the County to procure consultant services to
study and recommend a replacement water supply, with all study costs to be reimbursed by
DEQ.
?
DEQ and the County held a public meeting at Red Hill School on April 22, 2003 to inform the
public about the situation and seek input on whether a replacement water supply would be
supported.
?
A Request for Proposals was developed, and after a competitive process, Golder Associates
was chosen to conduct the study.
The study involves evaluating the feasibility of various water supply configurations: individual
replacement wells, shared wells, or a community water supply. The work is divided into two phases.
Phase 1 is a preliminary groundwater investigation, and Phase 2 involves more detailed geologic and
engineering work to analyze particular water supply options. Golder has completed the Phase 1 report
and is ready to proceed with phase 2 when given the notice to proceed.
In Phase 1, Golder studied geology, water quality issues, land uses, existing wells, and bedrock
fractures in the Red Hill vicinity. Phase 1 identified three potential water supply options and 15 potential
well sites for replacement water supply. Replacement of individual wells on each impacted lot (or shared
between two or more lots) were not found to be a feasible option due to water quality and quantity issues.
That left only a community water system or extending public water to this area as options. Golder
outlined the following three options for a community water system in the Phase 1 report:
1. A small community water supply to serve the 11 impacted properties. Staff has serious
concerns with the long-term viability of such a system. Past experience has shown that fixed
operating costs for a system this small make it cost prohibitive except where one of the
property owners assumes the management responsibility. Even where some property owner
assumes the initial management responsibility, experience has shown there is eventually
some gap in management that results in supply problems and those problems create a
demand for the County to assume responsibility of the system. If the public (County) were to
manage this system, the fixed operating costs of the system would make it prohibitively
expensive for the properties without significant public subsidies. As such, staff believes this
option should only be considered as a last resort and it does not warrant further study at this
point.
2. A medium size community water supply to serve the 11 impacted properties plus additional
properties immediately surrounding and/or down gradient from the contaminated plume that
may be impacted in the future. This system configuration would include any property with a
potential for future contamination, including Red Hill School and possibly the Southern Hills
Subdivision. Staff believes this system is the smallest size that has any chance of long-term
viability while remaining cost-effective. Staff believes the Phase 2 study can determine if this
option is a viable, cost-effective solution.
3. A larger community water supply to serve properties along Route 29 between the Trading
Post and Crossroads (Route 692 and Route 710). This system would effectively create a
water system capable of supporting a village sized community. Golder considered this option
because larger community systems tend to be the most reliable and this area is known for
poor groundwater yields. While staff agrees this system offers the best chance of long-term
viability, it also creates policy issues with regard to rural land use. As such, staff believes this
option should only be considered if Option 2 proves impracticable and the Board of
Supervisors is ready to consider the associated rural land use issues.
Golder is ready to proceed with Phase 2 of this study. Phase 2 would include hydro-geologic and
engineering work on a smaller number of sites to assess the feasibility of a water supply system,
including cost estimates for both the initial construction and long-term operations of the system. Staff
believes this work needs to be completed before the Board could consider approval of a community water
system or extending public water to this location. As stated above, staff believes Option 2 is the most
prudent from a water supply and County policy perspective. Staff would like Golder and DEQ to proceed
with Phase 2 at the earliest time possible. Subsequent to that work, staff would propose to come before
the Board to review the findings and see if other options should be investigated further.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize it to proceed with Phase 2 of the study using Option
2. This study would include detailed hydro-geologic and engineering analysis, as well as cost estimates
for both construction and long-term operations.
Discussion
(: Ms. Thomas said she agrees with the staff’s recommendation. She thanked staff
for the work that has gone into dealing with this situation.
Mr. Wyant said he worries about putting anything into the rural areas because he thinks people
will want to hook to the infrastructure. He wonders if it should be for medium or maximum use. He thinks
it would allow more development in that area, and the Rural Areas plan amendment is not before the
Board at this time.
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 7
Mr. Davis some there are some tough decisions for the Board to make once it receives all of the
information.
Ms. Thomas said this simply allows staff to have the consultant go ahead with the goal of having
a medium-sized community water supply because a larger community water supply would be contrary to
the present Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan. The small one is so inefficient that the Board is
encouraged to go with a medium size. Also, she thinks medium size makes sense because uniquely it
includes a school. If a contamination plume is moving toward the school, it will be a particularly sensitive
issue.
Mr. Boyd asked the cost of Phase 2 and asked who is paying that cost.
Mr. Tucker said DEQ is paying.
Ms. Thomas said DEQ has spent thousands of dollars providing carbon filters for each of these
houses, but they are not willing to tell the landowners that they will continue that forever. The landowners
are left with almost worthless houses. The current situation creates a huge expense yearly, so both
landowners and DEQ want some alternative solution and DEQ is paying for it.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized staff to proceed with Phase 2 of
the study using Option 2 as set out in the Executive Summary.
__________
Item 5.6. Copy of application filed with the Virginia State Corporation Commission by Verizon
Virginia Inc. and Verizon South Inc. for approval of Plan for Alternative Regulation (Case No. PUE-2004-
, was received for information.
00092)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2004-00018. Leroy and Helen Moyer – ALLTEL/Nix Way (Sign #64).
Public hearing on a request to allow construction of personal wireless fac w/monopole, approx 80 ft in
total height & 10 ft above the height of the tallest tree w/in 25 ft. The proposed fac includes flush-
mounted panel antennas & ground equipment, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord, which allows
for microwave & radio-wave transmission & relay towers in the RA. TM 92, P 56B3, contains 8.98 acs.
Znd RA & EC Overlay Dist. Loc on Rt 53 (Thomas Jefferson Pkway), approx 1.3 mls E of intersect of
Thomas Jefferson Pkway & Rt 795 (James Monroe Pkway). Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public
hearing was published in the Daily Progress on July 26 and August 2, 2004.)
Mr. Fritz presented the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is an application for a personal wireless service facility
located on Route 53 about one and one-half miles east of Route 795. It is the second facility on this
property. It is ten feet taller than the tallest tree nearby. It would be classified as a Tier II type facility.
The request was reviewed extensively by staff for compliance with the personal wireless service policy. It
was found to be in keeping with that policy. Visibility is limited from the site. It uses an existing access
road, so there is minimal earth disturbance, and utilities are currently available on site.
Mr. Fritz said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 27, 2004, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval but modified Condition No. 10 to clarify that it was ten feet taller than the tallest
tree. There was some discussion regarding whether or not the pole was wood or metal. The applicant
had requested a metal pole and the Planning Commission recommended approval with a wood pole.
That was also reviewed by the Architectural Review Board which supports the application with either a
wood pole or a metal pole. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Pete Caramanis, representative of Alltel, spoke. He said this is an application for a treetop
wireless facility that will provide wireless cell phone coverage along Route 53. The site is good because
on the side of the road there is a very steep embankment which is basically all that one sees. The tower
is above that embankment and set back from the road. That minimizes visibility. They had originally
asked for a metal monopole pole and the ARB had no problem with that request. The Commission
wanted a wood pole because the existing tower on the site is wood; they wanted consistency. This
qualifies as a Tier II application under the proposed revisions to the policy, which means it could be done
by right whether it is wood or metal. The policy makes no preference between the two.
Mr. Caramanis said they are proposing metal because a wood pole of 80 feet would require that
20 feet go into the ground. That requires a pole of 100 feet and the only place to get trees that big is in
California. The tree would have to be transported from California getting permits from every state through
which the pole would be transported. In addition, Route 53 is narrow and it would be extremely difficult to
get the pole to the site and would require that the road be closed when that was done. Metal poles can
be transported in sections. He said the policy makes no differentiation between the two; as long as metal
poles are painted with a matte brown finish they blend in just as well. He asked the Board to allow them
to build on the site using a metal pole. It would be easier and would avoid a lot of risks and problems.
The end result would be no worse for anybody. He asked that the Board approve the application with a
change to allow a metal pole painted matte brown. The equipment on the site will be painted matte
brown. He offered to answer questions.
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 8
Ms. Thomas said she tried to contact the property owners and was not able to do so. She asked
Mr. Caramanis if he knows their opinion regarding the type of pole.
Mr. Caramanis said they actually prefer a metal pole, although he is not sure of their reasons.
Alltel feels metal is better because the wires are inside the pole rather than on the outside. The poles are
designed to collapse on themselves, so the Moyers have more confidence with the fact that the structure
would be sounder with the metal.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Caramanis had that in writing. Mr. Caramanis said “no.”
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said the Board did not have the Commission’s action letter on this request. He asked
if the Commission’s conditions are the same as those recommended by staff.
Mr. Fritz said they are the same with the exception of Condition No. 3 where they changed the
“seven” in front of the number ten to read “ten”. The first sentence in Condition No. 3 reads: “The top of
the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet above the top of
the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet.”
Mr. Davis said the staff’s recommendation was ten. Mr. Cilimberg said the first staff report had
the number seven at that point with a ten in parenthesis. The minutes show the correct condition.
Ms. Thomas said she was going to argue for a wood pole because she has been on the Moyer’s
property. She was interested in the Commission’s opinion that two wooden poles would look better than
a change in materials. She was not able to ascertain what the Moyers prefer. It is not a huge piece of
property so the poles are not far from their house. If they prefer metal, the County does not have a policy
for requiring wood.
Mr. Fritz said it is simply a matter of consistency.
Mr. Rooker said the metal poles collapse on themselves and the wood poles cannot. He can
understand on a smaller piece of property why the owners would prefer to have the metal pole. Since the
current policy does not discriminate between wood and metal, he does not see any reason not to allow a
moved
metal pole. He then for approval of SP-2004-00018, Leroy and Helen Moyer - ALLTEX/Nix Way,
subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission except for Condition No. 4, allowing
a metal pole painted matte brown.
seconded
Mr. Wyant the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with
the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment
building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan
entitled, “Alltel - Nix Way Site”, dated March 24, 2004, and provided in this staff report
with Attachment A (copy on file);
2. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises
the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation;
3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed ten
(10) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet. In no case shall the
pole exceed eighty (80) feet in total height at the time of installation without prior approval
of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit;
4. The monopole shall be made of wood and painted a dark brown natural color or be made
of metal and painted a dark matte brown natural wood color;
5. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to
the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications
set forth in the application plans;
6. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas
be more than twelve (12) inches;
7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
8. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one (1)
inch in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the
pole;
9. No guy wires shall be permitted;
10. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 9
shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane
running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the
purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or
lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the
lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply;
11. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the
lease area shall not be permitted;
12. Size specifications and other details, including schematic elevations of the equipment
cabinets shall be included in the construction plan package;
13. Site grading and all construction around the facility shall be minimized to only provide the
amount of space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment
cabinets. Graveling of the total lease area shall not be permitted; and
14. Revise the shape and layout of the lease area and grading to avoid negative impacts to
the trees identified as numbers 109,118, 244, 246, 254 and 268.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
15. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has
been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator;
16. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or
vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified
arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall
specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be
removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All
construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including
necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree
conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of
Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees
within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200)-
foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; and
17. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site
plans for construction of the facility. During the review of the application, Planning staff
shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use
permit have been addressed.
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
or to any facility operation, the following shall be met:
18. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet
above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or
reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator;
19. Certification confirming that the grounding rod’s: a) height does not exceed two (2) feet
above the monopole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one (1)-inch, shall be
provided to the Zoning Administrator; and
20. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper
than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to
the County Engineer are employed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
21. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the
Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal
wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which
equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider; and
22. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall
be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is
discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is
discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to
guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the
Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a
letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned
upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction
of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
_______________
Public hearing
Agenda Item No. 7. CPA-2003-007 – Crozet Master Plan. on a request to
amend the Land Use Plan section of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by replacing the existing
profile of the Crozet Community with new land use policies, guidelines, recommendations, goals &
strategies for future development within the Crozet development area. The amended profile will include a
guide that identifies the purpose & major findings & recommendations resulting from the Crozet master
plan study; provide strategies for implementing the proposed Crozet master plan, including strategies for
business & economic development, affordable housing, funding improvements, & for implementing the
plan; & provide guidelines for the process & form of development within the Crozet development area
through narratives, maps, illustrations & site development guidelines, including recommendations for
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 10
public services, public utilities, social services, schools, historic areas, parks & recreation, greenways, &
transportation. This amendment also will establish new comprehensive plan land use designations for the
Crozet development area & change existing designations throughout the Crozet development area, as
shown on the map entitled "Master Plan: Place Type & Site Development Guidelines Map." (Notice of
this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on July 26 and August 2, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Crozet Master Plan is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. It has
been reviewed by the community, by the Planning Commission and by this Board. It is before the Board
tonight for a public hearing. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the CPA amendment.
Staff has posted on the wall tonight the Plan maps recommended to the Board for approval by the
Commission of this CPA amendment. These maps show “place type” and “built infrastructure” as well as
“green infrastructure”. Essentially the maps focus on arrangements and relationships of land uses to
infrastructure and to natural areas. Also displayed is a map of the existing Comprehensive Plan, which
has been the more typical land use map of the County for some time. This particular change will
introduce a different approach to how the County plans for land use that is more tied into form and
relationships of use and will be focused on neighborhoods, on centers, and try to promote a combination
of uses in Crozet for the vitality of the community.
Mr. Cilimberg said this Plan will be a guide for future land development and decision-making, on
services, and on infrastructure investment. It is not zoning and it does not mandate specific actions. It
provides the basis for desired initiatives and decisions that affect the community. As a new level of
planning in the County, this is indicative of what might typically be seen in an urban comprehensive plan.
It is a sense of planning for a city or a very urban community yet it looks at it based on Crozet's character
and history. It obviously has attempted to reflect more than just building out Crozet. The Plan focuses on
patterns of development, design and form, the location of facilities more than the County’s comprehensive
planning has done historically. It recognizes the need for flexibility and mixing uses and locating facilities
to accomplish desirable community form.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission felt it was very important to have the following statement
included on the maps; “As an adopted part of the Comprehensive Plan, it is intended as a general guide
for future development and systemic change in the community of Crozet, it is advisory in nature and with
accompanying maps, charts and other supplementary information, it sets forth the County’s long-range
recommendations for the development of land within the Crozet boundaries.” He said the Plan’s real use
to staff can be exemplified by how it was recently considered as it related to the Old Trail development.
One of the key features of the Crozet Master Plan is a Western Avenue. It was shown on the plan in
what appeared to be a specific location; there is a whole network of roads that would be oriented to
Western Avenue. In reality, getting on the ground with the development’s concepts, the developer felt
they could meet the intent of Western Avenue but not necessarily in the precise location called for by the
Plan. Staff believed that what the developer proposed accomplished that intent and provided for the
desired access in the project, and also provided for a road that the Plan felt was critical to the community
of Crozet. He said that when lines are seen on the maps of each of these plans, they are not prescribing
specific locations and specific connections that will be made in every location shown. There will be
variations. In some cases different kinds of infrastructure and transportation systems will develop that will
accomplish the intent that supports the continued development of Crozet in an urban form.
Mr. Rooker said he understands this plan does not lock in the specific location of features shown
on the map. He asked who has the power to decide whether something is within reasonable perimeters
with the Plan at time of site plan submittal. Mr. Cilimberg said at site plan stage, only certain features can
be requested to be incorporated as part of development of a project. If the ordinances that govern site
plans or subdivisions do not precisely say that things have to be put in a certain location, that could not be
required. Even if the County’s ordinances called for that, a developer could only be required to provide
that to the extent that they were willing to do so. There are particular features such as road which might
be necessary in a certain location and if the developer were not willing to accommodate that, the County
could only require that they put a note on the plat that there might be a road located in a certain location
in the future.
Mr. Davis said it would depend on whether the property was developed under the existing by-right
zoning, or whether they had to come before this Board with a proposal for rezoning. If a rezoning
required approval of a master plan or a sketch plan of that site, this Board would have the authority to
make that determination as to where a particular feature should be located as part of that legislative
decision. If the development were done by-right, it would depend on whether existing ordinances
required any particular feature.
Mr. Rooker said the Plan mentions the possibility of trading zoning districts in which case the
enforcement of improvements would be much better. Mr. Cilimberg stated that is correct, but that would
be in the implementation measures of the Plan. He said the Board would review any infrastructure
proposals as part of the Capital Improvements Program. That has typically been based on what plans
call for. The emphasis of the CIP will be on the particular major projects that are identified in the Crozet
Master Plan and how to program them in future years. There are certain roads shown on the Plan which
are crucial to the community, but he does not think it can be expected that they will be built in the exact
locations shown on the Plan. But, within the Board’s discretion it can accept locations which meet the
intent without being actually built on the line shown.
Mr. Cilimberg said the document, maps, and associated tables before the Board tonight were
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
that incorporates the Crozet Master Plan document. It is inclusive of the strategies for implementation,
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 11
the process and form of development, and the tables and two maps he mentioned. From staff's
standpoint, it recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment unless the Board feels that
some additional review is necessary, particularly to incorporate the Critical Elements of the Plan. He said
the Board will soon be receiving the Urbanization Committee recommendations on how to approach
urbanization in the County and those recommendations might influence the implementation aspects of
this Plan. With that and the CIP process coming up, it is recommended that the implementation aspect of
the plan be taken up as part of the decision that will be made with the Urbanization Committee’s
recommendation.
Mr. Rooker asked if the recommendation it to take that out now. Mr. Cilimberg said “yes.” Staff
would want to look at how to make that happen so the Plan still fulfills all the expectations the Board has
for a Plan document.
Ms. Thomas asked that Mr. Cilimberg explain exactly which pieces of paper in front of the
members tonight would be the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. She said the Board has
recommendations by sector, the Crozet priorities, implementation strategies, cost and strategies for
funding improvements, and the maps. She asked for the staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Cilimberg said it starts with the guidelines. There are aspects of the Strategies for
Implementation that would still need to be in the Plan. The actual projects and cost and timelines would
be part of what is deferred for consideration as part of the Urbanization Committee recommendations.
The Process and Form of Development, Section 3, stays. The Crozet Priorities section states what is
most important and there is the associated timeline. If the Board is going to wait for the Committee’s
recommendation, it would want to wait on the timeline and have that reviewed as part of that
recommendation. The maps would remain, and the tables that describe the particular Crozet Place
Types and Design Guidelines and also the section that describes the street design. The thoroughfare
types cross-section examples would be part of what the Board would act on. He said if the Board is
ready to take action, staff would make a final attempt to put the document together in the form that
reflects the Board wishes. The implementation aspects would be deferred for discussion as part of the
Urbanization Committee’s work.
Mr. Dorrier said one item that has not been discussed has to do with funding. He does not know
if this is the time to do that. Mr. Tucker said that has been withheld at this time and will be brought to the
Board this fall as part of long-range budget projections when the Urbanization Committee report is
received.
Mr. Rooker said he assumes that Table I, Daily Volumes on Key Roadways, in the Transportation
section is not part of what would be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that was
actually associated with a couple of maps that gave volumes on roads based on the master plan
scenario. The tables were to reflect those volumes based on the Master Plan being developed as called
for. It would be part of the Plan as well as the associated two maps.
Mr. Rooker said it shows the existing volume on Jarmans Gaps Road as 220 vehicles per day.
He asked if that is accurate. Mr. Cilimberg said he would have to check that because obviously it is not
220.
Mr. Boyd said he was glad to hear that staff would rework some of this because it is confusing to
him.
Mr. Tucker said after the public hearing tonight, staff will take this document, refine it and place it
back on a consent agenda in the future for the final decision.
Mr. Boyd said he was glad to hear the emphasis from the Planning Commission. He thinks it
should be emphasized that this plan is advisory in nature. He said when these things get into the
Comprehensive Plan they seem to become more than just advisory, in fact, a very definite plan to follow.
That would scare him because this particular plan needs to be flexible. He does not think staff should
start to lay down rules. He is concerned that by interpreting this to be so specific, it will drive the private
sector into doing by-right developments which is not what is wanted at all. He is scared that this process
would be considered to be very specific and he thinks the development community would shy away from
it not wanting to go through the hassle of explaining why they want to put a road “here” rather than
“there.” He said a lot of this is seen in North Pointe and some other developments.
Mr. Cilimberg said he can only say how the Old Trail development worked.
Mr. Boyd said when the County starts getting into the commercial sectors of the Plan, it could be
much more complex than just moving a road a little.
Mr. Cilimberg said a by-right section is being done in Old Trail; it has already been approved on
Ballard Field Road. The Crozet Master Plan has been helpful to them in planning that by-right section.
They did not have to lay the development out like the Plan called for, but they felt it important to do so,
and it actually gave them the opportunity to lay out that part of the development in a way that was
beneficial to their overall plans. The obvious challenge is addressing infrastructure. That was one of the
reasons why the public commented on the need for concurrency of infrastructure with development. That
is why the Commission, in its recommendation, also emphasized the need for looking at and providing the
funding necessary for the infrastructure which will support the Plan. He thinks that will be a critical aspect
of the Urbanization Committee’s recommendations to the Board.
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 12
Mr. Wyant said the thoroughfare design element may be applicable in other areas as other
master plans are formulated. In looking at the existing Comprehensive Plan, there are things which he
thinks need to be eliminated. It is not just in Crozet where there is a thoroughfare design. Mr. Cilimberg
said staff will be bringing the Transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan to the Board to discuss
revisions. Staff has been pursing ideas with VDOT concerning the tables and cross-sections for over a
year. Also, the recent adoption of CHART needs to get the proper reflection in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Wyant said the existing Comprehensive Plan does not have a definition of “hamlet”, so he
thinks that if the Board adopts this Master Plan, it will need to be changed in other parts of the Plan. Mr.
Cilimberg said the master plans will be unique in how each area is addressed. The next one is for the
northern development area, and he thinks there might be new terms associated with that plan.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Loach spoke. He said one fact stood out in the process of developing the master plan
for Crozet. It was the consistent participation of the community. Once the bulk of the upfront work was
completed, the Community Association appointed a steering committee to work with Planning staff to
refine the plan. Consistency was the position the community took from the inception to the completion of
the Plan that stated any acceptance of the plan was predicated on the County providing the necessary
infrastructure to support the growth it would bring. The Community Association now finds itself in the
unfortunate position of questioning the Master Plan because of the absence of necessary funding to
provide the total dollars identified by the consultants to implement the plan. From the beginning, the
community realized that funding would not be provided upfront. They did ask that a series of trigger
points be established to set the funding wheels in motion. The community has told all involved that the
factors associated with these triggers were negotiable. They applaud the fact that the Planning staff was
able to obtain $160,000 for sidewalks in Crozet, but this amount is short of the $3.0 million necessary for
completion, and the community should not have to wait for infrastructure funding until grant money is
available. He said that in the seven years since DISC began, knowing that infrastructure improvements
would be needed, no funding has been put aside. At the same time, the Board was able to give $35.0
million in tax breaks to the wealthiest in Albemarle County. He said the plan is costly, but the County
knew that and at least the master plan gives a dollar value that allows us to ask “how much of us can we
afford?”
Mr. Loach said there is a second issue looming which may have a significant impact on the
question of growth in the community of Crozet. That is the role of the recent rural area plan. The plan is
not a plan for protection of the rural area, but for acceleration of development. In a recent discussion on
the radio, Mr. Bowerman stated that no development rights would be reduced under the plan. If this is the
case, and based on the fact that there are 55,000 development rights in the rural area, it is clear that
acceptance of the plan would negate the need for development areas as a measure to preserve the rural
area. If the development potential is not going to be reduced in the rural area, then the only thing that
development areas will do is increase overall population in Albemarle County and the associated tax
burden such growth brings. For that reason, he thinks the current residents in development areas (which
are now over 50 percent of the population), should have the right to give an opinion on whether they wish
to stay in a growth area program. In conclusion, this leaves two questions. First, will the County work
with the community of Crozet to develop a funding plan that meets the needs of the master plan. Second,
will the residents of Crozet accept a fourfold increase in population in face of a rural plan that makes
development areas obsolete? He asked the Board to table any motion for acceptance of the master plan
until it can answer the first question and the community can answer the second.
Mr. Mike Marshall said he is president of the Crozet Community Association. He said there was a
strong consensus in Crozet to develop the master plan. A lot of community effort went into the plan. The
message from the people in Crozet is to “do it.” He would like to say something about the principle
behind the master plan and would like to reinforce the point about flexibility made earlier. The roadways
shown are not meant to be prescriptive but are meant to illustrate the concept of interconnectivity, not
necessarily a location. The master plan has two main principles designed to get around some of the
historical problems in development in the County. One is to emphasize downtown Crozet the same way
that the City emphasized downtown Charlottesville and avoid commercial developments on Route 250
West. The second principle is to maintain as much of that as possible as a bypass around the more
intensely-developed areas. In considering requests, if the Board asks itself if it favors the historical
business district and if it preserves as well as possible a clear and unobstructed bypass around that
district and votes in concert with those principles, he thinks the Board will come out in the spirit of plan
and with the best decision in those cases. The town people think the County has “called the right play”
for the situation and are now looking for the play to be executed.
Mr. Marshall said there are three things the County will be called upon to do to make the plan
work. People have to be attracted to the downtown area. Recently there has been a business
renaissance in town with lots of new businesses. People are coming forth in the spirit of the plan and
taking a risk in the town. Now, they need to see something from the County showing the County will
support its own plan. This morning there was a ceremony about the sidewalk money that was granted to
Crozet. They need the County to come forward as expeditiously as possible and make the sidewalk
improvements, particularly under the railroad bridge. This is an obstacle that prevents pedestrians from
getting from the north business area to the south business area, but it is more symbolic because they
want to know if the County will follow through. He said there are three main expenditures which only the
County will be able to do, and they are critical to the success of the plan. To attract people downtown, all
the public functions need to be downtown; the post office and particularly the new library. The Board
heard that Western Avenue is being provided by Mr. Beights in Old Trail, but for Eastern Avenue there
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 13
are two critical connections which no developer will make. One is across the railroad to Route 240 on the
north and the other is the bridge across Lickinghole Creek in the south. He said Eastern Avenue is
essential in directing traffic toward downtown. He thinks both of these connections should go into the
CIP. Then the Board should figure out how to get a library, and how to cross the railroad tracks and build
a bridge across Lickinghole Creek. If those three things can be achieved by the County, in years to come
it will show that the Crozet Master Plan was a success.
Mr. Gil Griffis said he is a resident of White Oaks subdivision in Crozet. He said all know that
development is coming to Crozet, and also know that development is changing the community from a
relaxed and rural community to one that is crowded and suburban. They devoted a lot of time and effort
to help create the master plan for the community. They helped designed the new Crozet that will soon
become a bedroom community to Charlottesville. They have done their part and now ask that the elected
officials do their part by funding new roads and facilities. They ask for immediate funding to build a new
Eastern Avenue and to widen Jarmans Gap Road. They ask for a new library and for the funds to keep it
open. They are asking that the County provide the crucial infrastructure for the growth areas it
encouraged to be built.
Ms. Marjorie Shepherd said she does not live in Crozet, but has been a teacher at Henley Middle
School since 1986. She knows the County cannot charge impact fees like the rest of the country can, but
the County does have some say in the proffers that come from developers. She is concerned about
communications between all the parties in the growth of Crozet; the schools, the School Board, Board of
Supervisors and the Planning Commission. She said the schools and other public services have wish
lists that can be consulted when there are proffers proposed. She thinks the people who approve
development should first consult those in charge of the school grounds. She thinks the current pathways
of communication for information about growth have gaps and too many pieces are found out after
approval, and too many opportunities lost. She thinks developers should pay more or their fair share of
the impact from the houses they build. The community of Crozet should see more of the money being
made in Crozet.
Mr. Neal Williamson said he is a representative of the Free Enterprise Forum. They are a
publicly-funded think tank located in Albemarle County. Tonight the future of the Crozet community is
being discussed. The mantra through the discussion has been about new urbanism and mixed use
whenever possible. The FEF is interested in what the residential community will be mixed with. Last
week this body spent 30 minutes debating why Albemarle County could not have an employee “dedicated
to economic development.” The concept that any county would not want economic development is
troubling. Over the past couple of years people have asked him why Albemarle County has an anti-
business reputation. He can point to last week’s minutes for an answer. Economic vitality is a critical part
of the plans for any locality, especially Crozet. The Crozet Master Plan provides for an economic
development officer (in Albemarle it will be called a Business Facilitator) to promote economic
opportunities within this part of the growth area. The FEF believes the function of this position should
include an ombudsman role identifying and eliminating the regulatory hurdles that prevent Albemarle from
attracting more new businesses as well as retaining older operations. Since this master planning started,
Albemarle has lost two major employers in Crozet. What has the County done to replace those
employers? The FEF believes business goes where it is welcome. Based on last week’s discussion,
coupled with Albemarle County’s onerous regulatory environment, the FEF believes it is living up to its
anti-business image.
Ms. Kathy Johnson said she is a resident of Crozet and wished to make a PowerPointe
presentation. She showed photographs of “downtown” Crozet and what she classified as its stunning
physical beauty. It has a long tradition of being just far enough from Charlottesville to have its own
business district, have its own services, and its own library. At a time when people wonder if children will
know what it is like to grow up in a small town, the children in Crozet know that. Crozet has a traditional
history. She showed a picture of a former cold storage facility, a cooperage where apple barrels were
made, a barber shop, small family-run businesses, and a farmer’s market. She said that is the good
news. The bad news is that Crozet is behind in infrastructure. There are many things which are required
to make downtown the place it deserves to be. There are new businesses in town, so this is not the time
for the County to continue doing business as usual. New businesses have opened up and made a
commitment. She said the focus on downtown is important. Full funding goes hand-in-hand with the
plan. The recommendation tonight is to separate the funding from the physical plan, but because there
are many unknowns as the plan exists, she is afraid the funding would get lost in the larger urbanization
process. She urged the Board to take the Commission’s recommendation which was to provide full
funding for the plan, and not separate one part from the other. Instead, continue to work with the
community to try and make Crozet the place it deserves to be.
Mr. Paul Grady said he lives in beautiful downtown Crozet. He said by the end of the evening the
Board members will be tired of hearing about the need for infrastructure funding. He said Eastern
Avenue is a very important part of the overall success of the Crozet Master Plan. Unfortunately there are
two big items associated with Eastern Avenue; a bridge over Lickinghole Creek and the railroad
underpass. The bridge would cost more than twice what the underpass would cost and would take
residents away from downtown. The railroad underpass would channel traffic toward downtown as well
as eliminate the need for traffic to use the Western Ridge bridge to traverse the railroad tracks, he hopes
the Board will consider the railroad underpass as the highest priority new project in Crozet, and fund it
immediately. Since the decision has been made to only rebuild the eastern half of Jarmans Gap Road,
he thinks enough money has already been allocated to complete that project. He asked that the Jarmans
Gap Road project be moved up in the Six-Year Plan. He knows there is concern from the Methodist
Church about losing some of their parking lot for the street widening in its present location. Others do not
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 14
like the fact that Tabor Street and Jarmans Gap Road are so close together but do not align. He
suggested moving the intersection of Jarmans Gap Road and Crozet Avenue to the north side of the
Methodist Church and align it with the new Main Street. The stop light could be located there. He
suggested that the first block of the new Main Street from Crozet Avenue to High Street be included as
part of the Jarmans Gap project. This would make Tabor Avenue and Jarmans Gap Road far enough
apart so that the large trucks going to the lumber yard would have a safer entrance. The stop light at the
square could be removed, and the entrance to the square be closed to traffic and the square become a
park and the restaurants there could create outdoor cafés. He hopes that Mr. Connelly, owner of the
lumber yard, would see what a benefit this would be to the community as well as increase his property
value and that he would donate the right-of-way for the first block of the new main street.
Mr. George Mickey said he is a resident of greater Crozet. He said some feel the master plan is
something to celebrate and there are others who think it is a disaster. He believes the master plan has
only as much importance as the Board chooses to give it. Two years ago the citizens of Crozet were
asked to participate in the process of drawing up the master plan. Some believed this was a choice
between growth and no-growth. It was not. Crozet’s choice was between the Board approving all up-
zoning requests inside the growth area with no plan to help create a plan that might influence the Board’s
decisions. Hundreds of citizens chose to put on paper what they wanted to preserve in the face of the
onslaught of growth coming their way with or without a plan. The final plan reflects fairly closely what the
active citizens in the community felt was the best shape for the development. The question now is how
the Board of Supervisors will use this plan since it is not an execution plan. The Board is not going to
build the community shown on the maps. Instead, developers will come before the Board one by one and
ask to have their property up-zoned. Some of these proposals will fit nicely into this map and others will
not. When the requests do not fit either the spirit or the letter of the master plan, what will the Board do?
When the infrastructure does not keep pace with current development, what will the Board do?
Mr. Mickey said everyone in this room tonight knows that infrastructure will not keep pace with
development. The developers will cry that they have property rights. He said they do not have any right
to up-zoning. No one has the right to endanger a community by developing it beyond the safe capacity of
its roads. The property rights of millionaire developers do not trump safety concerns for everyone else.
He said the only value to the master plan is that it gives the Board justification to say “no” to developers
who fail to respect the wishes of the existing community and who hold no responsibility for preserving
safe traffic levels. He asked that the Board say “no” when faced with these decisions.
Ms. Karen Maupin said she is a resident of Crozet and was involved with the process of the
Crozet master plan. She said it is not a plan to control growth but to accelerate it. Residents do not want
Crozet to become the infrastructure capital of Albemarle. Please do not show her the money. Show her
less pollution and less traffic. Before Crozet is rezoned, consider that past environmental policy has
opposed sending new commuters through rural areas. Why has this policy recently been ignored for
Crozet and Scottsville? Why begin new rezoning in Crozet? Supposedly this plan claims to eliminate
development rights. She said Crozet residents are not that naïve. With this plan, land zoned at one lot
per acre would contain, at a minimum, four homes per acre. How would this lower the population of
Crozet? If the Board wants to use Crozet’s excess water for Charlottesville’s water crisis, consider that
when these rezonings are passed this option will not be available. She said the Board has bi-partisan
support to remove Crozet as a growth area. It would be environmentally safer, it would not cost millions,
it would not be commuter driven, and it would be a bargain when compared to the master plan. Trends
change, bureaucracies come and go and urbanism will be forgotten fifty years from now. However, the
mess built in Crozet will last forever; it will be an eyesore on western Albemarle’s landscape forever.
Accelerated infrastructure and growth is not what makes Crozet special. She asked that the Board
consider options other than rezoning Crozet.
Ms. Judy Burbes said she is a resident of Crozet and also worked with task force groups on
various parts of the plan. She thinks the majority of citizens feel this is a good solid plan. It is not perfect,
and will not be. The key thing to the whole success of the plan is infrastructure and its’ funding. She
thinks that funding must be available and be kept in tune with where we are in the plan’s development.
Ms. Barbara Westbrook said she was born in Crozet fifty-some years ago. She attended Crozet
Elementary School. She understands the County owns the school and she wonders why it could not be
the library along with being a community center. She knows there is a wish to bring people to the
downtown area, but if Crozet is going to increase to ten or twelve thousand people it is ridiculous to try
and bring that many people to downtown Crozet. The Old Crozet School is not that far from downtown.
When most people get in their car and go to the post office they do not walk to the pharmacy, they get
back in their car and drive to the pharmacy. Then they drive to the library. Many think Crozet will be a
walking community, but everybody gets in their car to drive a half block to the grocery store, etc. She
would like more thought given to use of the old Crozet Elementary School.
Mr. Carroll Connolly said he owns the lumberyard in Crozet. He thinks staff has done a great job,
but does not agree with about half of it. A gentleman said something earlier about the lumber yard
donating a right-of-way. He would like to go to that man’s house and see if he would donate a right-of-
way through it. That does not happen in today’s time. He said he grew up in Crozet and been there all of
his life. In 1968 he went to work in the lumberyard as a truck driver and never would have believed he
would own the yard some day. He said the lumberyard has a right-of-way which is called Route 1217 and
it comes through what everybody else calls “the square.” The lumberyard already lets people park their
vehicles on that right-of-way. He could use another right-of-way into the yard but it is inconvenient. If he
refused to let them use this right-of-way, six businesses would be out of business because there would be
nowhere for their customers to park. His family already supports everything in Crozet in all sorts of way,
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 15
from the churches to the high school. There is no bill for buying hardwood lumber at Western Albemarle
High School. As to funding a new road, it will not happen, the lumberyard cannot afford it. They are a
hardworking family. The lumberyard is over a hundred years old. Funding needs to be considered as
does the future of Crozet. Today he talked with Ms. Thomas and everything in the plan looks nice if you
look at it one way. But it is very inconvenient for him to get his trucks into the lumberyard. They accept
that inconvenience and give to the community of Crozet because they are parking in his 40-foot right-of-
way which runs from the old Christmas tree over to the sidewalk. It is a VDOT state highway that people
do not realize is there. As far as him giving or donating part of his land (his whole family has worked hard
there for the last 20 years), it is not going to happen. The main reason is that they could not afford to give
that kind of property away and continue to run their business. They have a good business but it takes
every penny to keep it going. Running a business is a hard proposition and they are proud of how they
cleaned up that lumberyard and made the community look good. He said the lumberyard will not be
donating land for a highway.
Mr. Ross Stevens said he is concerned about the parking situation in downtown Crozet. All
commercial uses are based on customers finding parking spaces. At this time, everybody is borrowing
parking spaces from Mountainside. If anything happened at that building, there would be no parking
spaces. All of the restaurants and others along the square are using that parking. He said Mr. Connolly
has been helpful with the parking situation. Part of the land across from the square is owned by the
railroad and it cannot be counted as parking area. If anything happened to Mountainside and that parking
not available, many of the restaurants and stores could not operate because they would not have the
amount of parking required by the County. That leads to sprawling development out on Route 250 and
historic downtown Crozet would be lost. He asked that the Board keep in mind where all of these people
will park so these businesses can continue to prosper.
Ms. Karen Arch said she lives on Jarmans Gap Road close to Half-Mile Branch. She said roads
and safety features are important for all the developments being built which empty onto Jarmans Gap
Road. There are many young families with lots of kids. Last night she walked from her house to get into
Gray Rock subdivision. There are no shoulders on Jarmans Gap; it is a dangerous road. A couple of
months ago she was talking with a business person in Crozet about whether to widen Jarmans Gap and
have sidewalks, and he asked her why bicyclists feel they have the same rights as an automobile. She
does not feel that way and purposely makes sure they get off the road in order for her to go through; she
feels she has that right before they do. She thinks safety needs to be funded now rather than later,
particularly to make the road safe for the kids. She would love to get on her bike and go to a restaurant in
Crozet. She asked that Jarmans Gap be funded before the problem gets any bigger.
Ms. Rhonda Reeve said she is a new business owner in Crozet. She asked for infrastructure.
She said people in her restaurant say daily “thank you for opening this restaurant.” It is a place of
community. Crozet is growing and it needs additional infrastructure to support its growth. She lives one
mile from the restaurant and would be able to walk or ride her bike if Route 240 were not so busy.
Instead, she drives and takes up a parking space that could be used for a customer or someone who
cannot walk or ride a bike. She asked that the Board fund infrastructure. She said the requirement for 13
parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for a restaurant is crazy. There is not enough space available in
downtown Crozet for parking of that sort. She said they put a patio on the back of their restaurant hoping
to get a space to have outdoor seating; it is 16 feet by 20 feet. They need three parking spaces for that
and residents are not allowed to cross the thoroughfare to get to the restaurant because of safety issues.
She said other businesses have broken this rule so there is no consistency. Also, the three spaces and
the patio in the back are in keeping with the entire master plan for Crozet. She has been to a number of
other areas in the center of Crozet to find these three spaces no one wants to give up their parking
because it has to be recorded in a deed. This is not just her issue, but is an issue all over Crozet. There
is a need for parking, a need for community and a need to develop this area so the entire community can
enjoy all that is offered. This would encourage growth in the center, not just restaurants, but with retail
and other community centers for children.
Mr. Skip Plitt said he lives in Waylands Grant. He said there is something special in Crozet. He
realized that about six months ago when he lost his job. His job brought him to this area and the
outpouring of support was beautiful. He had lived in numerous towns in Texas and had never seen such
a warm and inviting community as Crozet. He wholeheartedly recommends the suggestions brought
forward about infrastructure. Last week one of the developers brought out some Planning Commission
members from Staunton. They looked at his neighborhood and some other neighborhoods. What Crozet
has is obviously special to people outside of Albemarle. He asked the Board to come to Crozet on a
Saturday and go to the farmer's market. Visit the neighborhoods. He commended Planning staff saying
he met them in May and they have done a great job. He does not envy any of their jobs because what
they are facing along with other issues is a big task.
Mr. Ryan Miracle said he is a recent resident of Crozet from Charlottesville. He is a little late
getting into this discussion. He asked that there be some consideration in the planning for pedestrian and
bike paths with some open green space in between them and the road. Hopefully different parts of the
County could be connected to the City with bike paths off of the road, with consideration for Vespas or
mopeds. There are a lot of people in the County and City who could use these paths, and it would cause
less sleepless nights for the spouses of those hardheaded people who are riding bikes on Routes 250
and 240.
With no other member of the public rising to speak, Mr. Dorrier closed the public haring and
placed the matter before the Board.
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 16
Mr. Wyant said a grant award was announced today, and he would like to thank the people who
worked on that. It is $160,000 from VDOT with a 20 percent match by the County. It will be used to work
on the problem at the railroad underpass. He has found that the people in Crozet are nice and friendly. It
is a great community to live in. It used to be a big agricultural community, but that is being lost.
Mr. Wyant said he is a civil engineer and a report was just released saying that at the national
level and the state level, infrastructure would get a grade of D+. All over the country, people are facing
the same problems. He said there is a need for jobs in Crozet. He has lobbied to get a new County
employee to spend one hundred percent of their time working in the community. He thinks that person
needs to work on public/private partnerships to get businesses there. He has talked with people about
getting a culture center in the Old Crozet School. He said there used to be a movie theater in Crozet, so
things like that are needed and also activities for children. Someone called him today about funding a
recreational facility which would involve an indoor pool, a track and a therapy center.
Mr. Wyant said the Crozet Master Plan is a concept plan. He understands Mr. Connelly’s
comments about the road into Barnes Lumber. This is a 20-year plan, and he would like to see what is
written to go into the Comprehensive Plan before the Board approves this plan.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Wyant to explain his last comment.
Mr. Wyant said this whole Crozet Master Plan is not going into the Comprehensive Plan, but just
sections. He knows Mr. Tucker said it can go on the Consent Agenda for approval, but he thinks the
Board would want to make sure that things are covered when it gets the report back for those sections
because not everything the Board received tonight is going into the Comprehensive Plan. The funding is
already taken out, but he said the Board is going to narrow the information down and not have the detail
of what is in the paperwork tonight. He would like to see that, but he has no problem with moving forward
with the Plan as it.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Wyant supports what Mr. Tucker said earlier to basically have staff bring
back to the Board the package which only includes the Comprehensive Plan language rather than a lot of
the extraneous detail the Board has before it tonight.
Mr. Wyant said “yes.” He thinks the Board needs to talk about infrastructure and funding. He
does not want to leave these people hanging. If this is number one being done in the County, the Board
needs to show its support. He knows the other Board members have things in their district which need
funding, but there needs to be some serious talking, maybe at the Board’s retreat in October. He thinks
the Board has to talk about funding because it is sorely needed to make this thing happen in Crozet,
otherwise it will become a bedroom community with traffic going back into the City. There are plans to put
in new water lines now. But a lot of work has to be done there to make this plan happen.
Mr. Dorrier said when it comes to infrastructure, the Board should set its priorities and then
decide what it can afford now and what will have to wait until later.
Mr. Wyant said the plan has it mapped out, but the County had slid some already. He thinks the
Board needs to go and revisit that thing and put together some realistic timelines so the folks will know
when to expect stuff. He said there is already by-right development going on. He knows the Board
needs to talk about developers using by-right development without coming to the Board so the Board can
work on things through proffers.
Mr. Rooker said there are tools to deal with that; in the future the Board might want to implement
overlay districts. Additional entrance corridor districts could be created so the County would have more
control over the form of development even if it went in as a matter of right. He has been a strong
supporter of master planning Crozet. Even without infrastructure, the plan is a great advantage to the
community. Even before this master plan was drawn, Crozet was designated to build out to about 12,000
people. It is still scheduled to be built out to about 12,000 total population. The master plan provides the
community with a guide for how that development should occur. It provides the community with a guide
for the infrastructure needed to make that work. It provides the community with an opportunity to set the
priorities for that infrastructure.
Mr. Rooker said the Board needs to acknowledge that a lot of the infrastructure recommended in
the Comprehensive Plan is currently in the CIP for funding. Being in the CIP means a project is in the
five-year funding plan for infrastructure that the County has committed to. A new library is in the Plan for
$5.378 million and the Henley Middle School renovations are in the CIP for $4.433 million. Additional
high school capacity shows at $7.5 million. A new Crozet Elementary School, $12.388 million; St. George
Avenue sidewalks shows at $124,000; downtown sidewalk streetscape shows at $300,000; Railroad
Avenue sidewalk shows at $67,000; design of road projects related to various neighborhood master plans
shows at $200,000 each year going forward; a street lamp program is committed to in the CIP but the
amount has not yet been determined; road construction revenue sharing for traffic calming measures are
in the plan but the amount has not yet been determined.
Mr. Rooker said a lot of infrastructure money has been committed to Crozet in the CIP. Prior to
this time more than $75.0 million has been spent on infrastructure around Crozet that is creating capacity
in certain areas far beyond the current population. He said all of these commitments have been made
based on the current tax rate in the County. There are a lot of demands for funding. He said his district,
the Jack Jouett District, already has the kind of density Crozet is expected to have 20 years from now.
Jarmans Gap Road is scheduled for improvement, and today it has about 2,000 vehicles per day,
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 17
whereas in twenty years it is expected to have 4,000 vehicles per day. Georgetown Road and Hydraulic
Road in his district get between 16,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day today. There are a number of
improvements to Georgetown Road which have been waiting for a long time. Crozet has not fallen
behind other areas of the County in terms of the commitments which have been made for infrastructure.
He said most of the County’s funding for roads comes from VDOT, some of it is federal but it also comes
through VDOT.
Mr. Rooker said the County is on a Six-Year Plan with VDOT. Secondary Road Plan funding this
year is 30 percent less than it was four years ago. The Board just got the schedule for 2010 and the
County is expected to get 25 percent less funding in 2010 than it got this year. That means 2010 will be
at about 50 percent of what it was back in 2000. During that period of time, the cost of construction for
roads has about doubled. He hopes the citizens will talk to their legislators. The State is currently
significantly under-funding infrastructure. Without some additional revenue for transportation and other
infrastructure projects, major projects will lag behind. Jarmans Gap Road was already moved a couple of
years because there is not the State funding to move the project along quicker. He strongly supports the
Plan. When it is passed he hopes this Board will follow the spirit of the Plan in making future land use
decisions that may impact Crozet.
Mr. Dorrier said it is important to realize that this is a 20+ year plan. It will not happen overnight,
but he thinks that tools which will make it work can be put into place.
Ms. Thomas said she attended almost all of the master planning meetings. She has respect for
the people in Crozet who participated in the planning process. She said this public hearing has just
demonstrated what happened at those work sessions. It was never mindless or “knee jerk” and the
challenges and disagreements were always brought up. She commends the consultants and County staff
because they truly listened to the people and changed things along the way. She thinks this public
hearing has laid the challenge at the Board’s doorstep. She appreciates Mr. Rooker pointing out that
there has been a lot of money put into Crozet. She is always despairing of people who think growth takes
place without cost. It has tremendous costs. This Plan will have costs so the Board needs to get serious
about the money it is going to take and when the Board will come up with that money. She is so
concerned that she is almost tempted to vote against the Plan because she is distressed that the Board is
separating the approval of the Plan from the agreement to come up with the funding. On the other hand,
that kind of agreement cannot be made until a few more steps have been taken. The Board’s Five-Year
Financial Plan which shows how much money will be available in that period of time must be worked on.
She appreciates that staff is working on that plan in a responsible way. She thinks retrofitting would be
much more difficult. She said the Board needs “to hold its feet to the fire.”
Mr. Boyd said in his district there is a tremendous amount of growth planned in the Pantops
Mountain area and on Route 20 North. There is a lot of concern about infrastructure in that area. He is
not making that an excuse for not funding this Crozet Master Plan, but this Board will need to take a
serious look at the next step. The design work has been done and there is a good plan. The Board has
to figure out a way to fund it. To do that, he thinks the Board has to reach out to the business and
development community. He thinks these will need to be pubic/private partnership arrangements. He is
concerned about some of the things Mr. Rooker mentioned about ways to prevent development in Crozet.
He would rather see the Board get into a “carrot situation” rather than a “stick situation.” He thinks the
County can work with the development community and hopefully get them to “anti-up” a lot of the costs
for the infrastructure out there. The County needs to reach out to them. He does not think they need to
be “beat over the head and say you have to do it this way or you cannot build.” He thinks the County
needs to meet them half way and promote the economy out there. The CDA thing was mentioned in this
Plan and it needs to be looked at. He said this Board “needs to step up to the plate” and figure out how to
get this thing done.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks that is a good point to make. He said Mr. Neil Williamson said
Albemarle is closed to business. He said Albemarle is not closed to business. It is open and willing to
work with the business community. He thinks the Board has taken a step in the right direction by hiring a
business facilitator. With this plan, he thinks it is the old adage of “a glass half full” or “a glass half
empty.” He thinks it is half full and the County needs a chance to show what it can do that will be first rate
for all of the citizens.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to emphasize what Ms. Thomas and Mr. Rooker both said.
Infrastructure costs will be considerable for the entire County. There is a five-year plan and a strategy,
but it will have to be put into place. In order to fund it, it will take something major, whether it is borrowing
money or having bonds. Private/public partnerships will not build a lot of roads and other things. The
County got $11.0 million from the developers of Hollymead Towne Center. That was only to offset what
those developers were doing, there was no funds in addition to that. He said the Board has a financial
analyst who has spoken about the County’s bond rating. He thinks the Board needs to look over a
number of years to see who will pay for this infrastructure, and how it will be funded.
Mr. Wyant asked if the Urbanization Committee will take all of the comments made here tonight in
consideration when they work on the CIP.
Mr. Tucker said their work is not just focused on Crozet. This is a big county. The Committee will
look at the urbanization issues and policies for the entire County. Crozet is obviously ahead of everyone
else in the planning process. He said if the items Mr. Rooker listed were added together, more than
$30.0 million has already been committed for Crozet in the CIP through the year 2011. If the items that
are not in the CIP yet were added, it would be another $18.0 million. He recognizes that everyone feels
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 18
there has to be infrastructure, and staff does not disagree. The Committee is looking at all of the issues
the County will be facing and the policies which will be needed to help design all of the urbanized areas of
the County.
Mr. Wyant said the existing Comprehensive Plan does not show an Eastern Avenue.
Mr. Tucker said that is true. He said Mr. Rooker mentioned that these are state roads. Some of
the things which are not funded yet are items that Mr. Boyd talked about. It is hoped that some can be
public/private partnerships. He said the County has got to work with the state and encourage them “to
step up to plate.” These are state roads, they are not County roads, and the State needs to do something
to help the situation. Some other way must be found to provide the funding necessary not only to
maintain the current roads, but also the roads needed in the future.
Mr. Wyant said he would like some consideration given to bikes and sidewalks. Maybe it would
be possible to get people out of their automobiles if those facilities were available.
Mr. Rooker said there has been a shift of state costs to the localities over the past five years at an
alarming rate. Transportation is an area where it is being seen because VDOT is funding the County less
and less. The County has not been in the road building business; it did Berkmar Drive and a couple of
small projects, and has participated in the revenue sharing program. He said the Board will have to
decide sooner or later whether it wants “to take up some of that slack.” In order to do so, revenue
sources will have to be found and that could mean creating service districts, or seeking state authority to
have a gas tax for this area. He said if the County is going to take on these kinds of obligations, the
Board will have to get serious about finding ways to fund the obligations.
move
Mr. Wyant said he would to accept the Plan as sent to the Board, but reserve the right to
review it at the next meeting.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there should be any conditions put on the motion, or should the Board just
accept the total plan as presented tonight.
Mr. Wyant said it would be without the funding as presented to the Board earlier tonight. That is
the way this came to the Board.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board needed a motion at all. He thinks the Board has decided to
support the staff bringing back a clean copy of the Comprehensive Plan amendment which can be acted
on either on the Consent Agenda or pulled off for discussion. Hopefully that will take place at the next
meeting.
Mr. Tucker said it can be included on the regular agenda.
Mr. Wyant said he preferred that.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff will have to put together all of the language references, changes, etc.
reflecting what was recommended to the Board.
Mr. Wyant said in the case of Hollymead there were some referrals back to the Comprehensive
Plan. He hopes that can be done with this amendment.
Ms. Thomas said she has not heard anybody suggest there is anything in the proposal that they
are opposed to. If there is, now is the time to discuss it.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have anything that he is opposed to, but does not know what the final
product will look like. That is why he thinks it is important to have that document in hand before acting.
Mr. Cilimberg said the document was forwarded to the Board as the Comprehensive Plan
language with the associated tables and maps. He asked if the Board is saying it does not want the
entire document in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Boyd said staff has already stated that some of the things will not be included. There will not
be the schedule or the funding.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff understands that.
Mr. Rooker said at the beginning of the meeting Mr. Tucker stated that certain things would be
included and certain things not included in the final plan which will be acted on at the Board’s next
meeting, or as soon as staff brings it back. He said anything excluded now will be acted on at a later
time. There are components of this which will go forward quickly, and there were a couple of things
recommended by Mr. Tucker to be considered at a later time.
Mr. Tucker said it is staff’s intent to bring back a document which is “the” document it believes the
Board supports and something the Board can see all in one document.
Mr. Boyd said this is a guideline and not a set plan. He does not want to see requests for
projects come to this Board recommended for denial because they do not match what is in this plan.
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 19
Ms. Thomas said the Board has the ability to disregard that. She said every proposal comes to
the Board with a report on its fiscal impact. That does not keep the Board from approving it. She finds it
useful to see what that impact might be. She thinks staff will do the same thing with this plan. The Board
can then consider how much of that it pays attention to.
Mr. Rooker said every member has to use his own discretion and decision-making when a
rezoning or a special use permit application comes to the Board. He said if rezonings come to the Board
which are not consistent with the master plan, it is unlikely he would support the request. That is true of
the existing Comprehensive Plan. When rezonings come before the Board now and he does not think
they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, he generally does not support them. This is going to
be a Comprehensive Plan change. There are specifics in it. Every Board member can vote however he
wishes to vote on any particular proposal. As for himself, if it does not meet the spirit of this
Comprehensive Plan amendment, he will be unlikely to support a rezoning.
Mr. Boyd said he is not saying “spirit” but is saying “exactness.” He is concerned this will be
considered by people who want to develop property, who want to open businesses or do things in this
community, as being too difficult a process to get through and they will go the by-right route. That is what
bothers him about this whole thing. It can be said it is only a plan, but Mr. Rooker is already saying that if
requests do not match this plan or are not in the spirit of it, he may not vote for it. He thinks that will
cause people to not want to go through this process.
Mr. Rooker said the alternative is to have what there is now, no plan.
Mr. Boyd said that is not what he said.
Mr. Rooker said people can develop as a matter of right anyway. The Old Trail development just
went through this process, and they basically matched the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Boyd said that was encouraging.
Mr. Rooker said for some of the property owned by Kessler & Associates they have indicated that
they intend to pretty much follow the plan. There has been a buy-in by some of the larger landowners in
that area. Obviously some people can go their own way and develop as a matter of right, and legally
there is nothing the Board can do about that. He does not think this plan will make it difficult for
developers. He thinks that ultimately it will make it easier to know what is expected, and to come in with a
plan that fits into the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Rooker was reading more into his statements than he said. He is saying that
as long as we can continue to work as we did with the Old Trails community, this is a great thing. We
need to plan, to move forward with it, we need the funding for it, but we also need to be flexible.
Mr. Wyant said the Old Trails development is a good example. He thinks the note the Planning
Commission put on the map says a lot and close attention needs to be paid to that. He is in favor of it as
a conceptual plan.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff had the consensus it needed.
Mr. Tucker said “yes.”
Mr. Dorrier said a decision on this matter will be deferred until a meeting in the fall.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said she attended a meeting called V-TRANS which was the hearing that VDOT and
VDRUP held. Essentially all the transportation components of the state were there. There were people
from the airports and ports present. The airport person had the most interesting presentation about the
cheap little jets that will make it possible to move people so inexpensively that he claimed they would be
replacing lanes of roads.
Ms. Thomas said there are some things it does not do, and she made some comments at the
meeting. She was heartened when they said they had been hearing the same things around the state.
One of them was that they should think more about the moving of people and not just the movement of
vehicles.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board has been requested to adopt a proclamation for Women’s Equality
moved
Day. She then to adopt a proclamation regarding the anniversary of the constitutional
amendment that gave women the right to vote.
Mr. Rooker said he would suggest that the Board just pass a motion making August 26, 2004,
Women’s Equality Day, without getting into the long wording which had been furnished the Board since
the Board had not received the language in time to thoroughly review it. He does not necessarily agree
with that wording. He agrees that we need to strive to create equality in our society for all categories of
people. He asked that Ms. Thomas amend her motion to simply designate August 26, 2004, as Women’s
Equality Day.
August 11, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting)
)
(Page 20
Mr. Davis said the Board might just take the “Therefore be it resolved” paragraph and adopt that
language.
Mr. Dorrier agreed that the one paragraph said it all.
Ms. Thomas said that is similar to what the Board has done in other years.
motion
Mr. Bowerman offered to include the one paragraph in the proclamation. The motion was
seconded
by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted language read as follows.)
RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
hereby proclaims
August 26, 2004,
as
WOMEN’S EQUALITY DAY,
in remembrance of all of those women and men who have worked to develop a more equitable
community, a community that acknowledges both the real similarities and the important
differences between women and men.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she had received a request from the 1984 class of Western Albemarle High
School that they be recognized in a resolution. However, they are having their reunion before the end of
the month which does not give time to word anything, so she asked that the Chairman send a
congratulatory letter.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, at 8:20 p.m.
the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 07/13/2005
Initials: DBM