2005-07-13
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 13,
2005, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Sally H.
Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: Mr. Dennis S. Rooker.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Assistant County Executive, Thomas Foley, County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of
Community Development, David Benish, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2 on the consent agenda. (Discussion on individual items are
included with that agenda item. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
__________
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: January 5, January 19(A), March 3(A), March 14(A), and March 16,
2005.
Mr. Dorrier had read his portion of the August 4, 2004 minutes, pages 1-19, and found them to be
in order.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of August 11, 2004 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Wyant had read his portion of the minutes of February 2, 2005, pages 1-20 (end Item #16) and
found them to be in order with the exception of some typographical errors.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of March 9, 2005 and found them to be in order with the
exception of some typographical errors.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of March 23A, 2005 and found them to be in order.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
__________
Item 5.2. Record Retention/Destruction of Records: Authorization to dispose of Tax
Records.
The Library of Virginia’s Record Retention and Disposition Schedule requires that paid tax
tickets be retained by the locality for a period of five years after audit. At that time, after approval by the
department head and the designated records officer for the locality, tax tickets can be destroyed, but
only after authorization from the governing body. Staff approval has been received to destroy
approximately 261 boxes of distribution records, which includes paid tax receipts for the period of July 1,
1992 through June 30, 2000.
Staff requests authorization from the Board to dispose of the above referenced records.
By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the disposition of the above referenced
records.
__________
Item 5.3. 2005 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Community
Development, was received for information.
Mr. Boyd said that it would be helpful to have the building report include differentiation between
which are inside and which are outside of the development area. Mr. Benish agreed to provide that
information. Mr. Cilimberg added that staff will break it down by area.
__________
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 5.4. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority’s Fiscal Year 2006 Budget, was received
for information.
__________
Item 5.5. Copy of August 6, 2003 Board minutes and Executive Summary, re: Cable Television
Franchise, was received for information.
Ms. Thomas said that she received a phone call from a senior citizen who had spoken with a cable
company, who told her that they could offer a discounted rate if local government requested the rate.
Mr. Davis said that he would check it out, noting that he has never heard of that protocol.
Mr. Boyd commented that his understanding was the Board did not want to get involved in cable
franchising, and wondered if there was a way to collaborate with the city instead.
Mr. Davis replied that his discussions with others have indicated that the long-term solution is web-
streaming the Board meetings instead of putting them on cable.
Mr. Foley commented that if the objective is to have the meetings available for viewing, staff would
gather more information and bring it to the next Board meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-1999-006. Special Events. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend
Sec 3.1, Definitions; amend Sec 4.12.6, Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses;
amend Sec 10.2.2, By special use permit; add Sec 5.1.43, Special events; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec 3.1, Definitions, to add a definition of “special
events,” which would be one- to three-day events such as meetings, conferences, banquets, weddings,
dinners and private parties; amend Sec 4.12.6, Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled
uses, to provide the minimum number of parking spaces required for special events; amend Sec 10.2.2, By
special use permit, to allow special events in the Rural Areas zoning district by special use permit; and add
Sec 5.1.43, Special events, to establish supplementary regulations pertaining to the prerequisites for and
the operation of special events, including a regulation that attendance at special events would be by
invitation or reservation only and not 150 persons. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 27 and July 4,
2005.)
Mr. Benish said this ZTA proposal was initiated by a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) application
which was submitted in August 1999 requesting that Tourist Lodging in the Zoning Ordinance be amended
to allow for weddings, special events, corporate meetings, or other events. This request was tabled by the
Planning Commission in April 2000, following staff’s recommendation that this request be deferred until
completion of the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Areas Plan was adopted by
the Board of Supervisors in March 2005. Following the applicant and the Planning Commission’s request to
reactivate this ZTA, a resolution of intent to amend the ordinance was passed on January 18, 2005. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item May 24, 2005 and recommend approval of ZTA
99-06 with several changes to the draft ordinance, as provided in the attached Planning Commission action
memo. (Attachment A)
Staff is providing you with the revised draft ordinance (Attachment B) reflecting all of the Planning
Commission’s recommendations and one revision suggested by staff. Following further evaluation of
temporary signs and over Zoning Administration’s concerns regarding administering this section of the
ordinance, it is no longer recommended that Section 4.15.4.d be modified to allow additional temporary
signs for special events. Property owners would be permitted, following application for a sign permit one
freestanding sign of up to 24 square feet in size, one wall sign up to 40 square feet in size and up to four
temporary signs per year. These signs are currently permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance also
allows farm/estate signs without a sign permit application up to 4 square feet in size. Staff feels this provides
adequate signage for the property owner to advertise and would not cause a proliferation of temporary
signs that could be incompatible with the character of the Rural Area and burdensome for Zoning to permit.
Mr. Benish explained that the ZTA would allow special events for up to 150 guests as a secondary
use in the rural area properties with an existing rural area use. He said that the ZTA would add a separate
definition for special events in the zoning ordinance and would allow it as a use by special permit in the rural
areas zoning district. Mr. Benish noted that supplementary regulations are proposed to ensure that the
impacts to the rural areas are minimized and these uses are scaled appropriately; provisions for parking,
signs, concept plans, setbacks, structures, reversibility, and limiting events to 24 annually have been
included in the supplementary regulations. He added that the ZTA will provide for an ancillary use in the
rural areas for structures such as barns that may need rehabilitation. During the special use permit
process, the adequacy of roads during the site would need to be evaluated and determined appropriate by
staff and VDOT.
Mr. Benish reported that the intent of the ordinance is to allow rural area landowners to have
additional uses to offset any financial pressures they may have to subdivide their property and encourage
the protection of rural areas structures, particularly historic structures and agricultural structures. He added
that this use is viewed as consistent with the principles of the Rural Areas Plan by providing alternatives to
land fragmentation, and the regulations for the special uses and the structures and any improvements
related to the special events are intended to be reversible and would not be in conflict with the rural
character as proposed under this ZTA.
Mr. Benish said staff recommends the Planning Commission approve ZTA 99-06 as drafted in
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Attachment B.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff recommended the wording as presented for use of temporary signs.
Mr. Benish explained that the original version that went to the Planning Commission recommended
additional temporary signs; upon discussion with staff and the Zoning Administrator, he said, there was
concern about enforcement of that and the proliferation of temporary signs, and it was felt that the sign
provisions under the current ordinance were sufficient to advertise these uses.
Mr. Boyd asked what the origin of this ZTA is.
Mr. Benish replied that an individual request from a landowner in 1999 began the dialogue for the
ZTA, and staff and the Planning Commission at that time chose not to move forward with that one particular
type of use change, deferring to the Rural Areas review to see whether that use would be consistent with
the new Rural Areas plan. He added that once that plan was adopted, the Planning Commission directed
staff to pick up the deferred item and move forward with it, adding that the original request is consistent with
the principles identified in the Rural Areas.
Mr. Wyant commented that it is hoped that old barns and other historic structures will be preserved
and renovated for these types of uses. Mr. Benish agreed, adding that the intent of this ZTA is to keep the
use as a secondary use, and to keep it consistent with the Rural Areas plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if there had been outreach to landowners who might apply for these uses.
Mr. Benish responded that staff has had limited contact with some people who might be able to use
their properties in some way. He added that the wineries provision fall under farm winery use even in the
case of special events, noting that this ZTA is taken from the winery language but allows more than farm
winery uses.
Mr. Dorrier asked if these events would include music events such as bluegrass festivals and the
Ash Lawn Opera.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the maximum number of guests would be 150.
Mr. Davis noted that Ash Lawn would not be covered by this, because such events would be an
accessory function to the primary use of that facility.
Mr. Benish said that the language doesn’t specifically mention music events, but does identify uses
that are examples, noting that the events would have to be by invitation.
Ms. Thomas asked about outdoor amplification and noise limitations.
Mr. Davis pointed out that noise is measured from the property line, and it doesn’t matter if it is
amplified noise or not.
Ms. Thomas said that it makes it difficult for event planners to figure out whether amplification is
appropriate or not.
Mr. Benish commented that the Commission chose to address that issue by having it addressed
with the existing noise ordinance, and the potential need to condition each event on a case by case basis
through the special use permit process.
Mr. Davis noted that there are two ways it could be considered: added on a case by case basis
where it would be necessary by special use permit; or put in supplemental regulations and removed by the
special use permit process.
Ms. Thomas said that the latter is probably best so people know what the expectation is prior to
planning an event.
Mr. Bowerman said that those problems would come to the surface at the special use permitting
process either way.
Mr. Dorrier said that cutting out amplification would cut out a lot of instruments.
Mr. Wyant asked what would be permitted in terms of lighting, especially in parking areas. Mr.
Benish replied that an applicant would be subject to the same restrictions as stipulated in the lighting
ordinance.
Public comment was invited. No one came forward to speak, and the matter was placed before
the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked what the process would be for amending a special use permit. Mr. Davis
replied that it would go back through the Planning Commission and Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Wyant, to adopt ZTA-1999-006, Special
Events. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(8)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II,
BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.43 Special events
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
: An event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) that is typically conducted on a single day, but which
Special event
may be conducted for up to three (3) consecutive days, for which attendance is permitted only by invitation or
reservation; include, but are not limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners, weddings
special events
and private parties.
. . .
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Except when alternative parking is approved as provided in section 4.12.8, the following schedule shall apply to
determine the number of required off-street parking spaces to be provided in a particular situation. If a
particular use is not scheduled, then section 4.12.7 shall apply.
. . .
: One (1) space per two and one-half (2.5) participants, plus one (1) space per employee
Special events
(includes staff, caterers, musicians and vendors).
. . .
Sec. 5.1.43 Special events.
Each special event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) shall be subject to the following:
a. . Special events may be authorized on those parcels in the Rural
Eligibility and applicability
Areas (RA) zoning district on which there is an existing and ongoing by-right (section 10.2.1)
primary use. A special event special use permit issued under section 10.2.2(50) and this
section shall not be required for special events associated with farm wineries or historical
centers, or for events determined by the zoning administrator to be accessory to a primary use
of the parcel.
b. . In addition to any
Information to be submitted with application for special use permit
information otherwise required to be submitted for a special use permit, each application for a
special use permit shall include the following:
1. . A preliminary schematic plan (the “concept plan”) satisfying section
Concept plan
32.4.1. The concept plan shall identify the structure(s) to be used for the special
event, include the area of the structure(s) in which the proposed special events will be
conducted, the parking area, and the entrance to the site from the street. The
concept plan shall address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access to
and from the street, the location of the parking area, the location of portable toilets if
they may be required, proposed screening as required by this section for parking
areas and portable toilets, and information regarding the exterior appearance of the
proposed site. Based on the concept plan and other information submitted, the board
of supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site plan in a particular case,
upon a finding that the requirement of a site plan would not forward the purposes of
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest.
2. . The applicant shall submit written
Information from the Virginia Department of Health
comments from the Virginia Department of Health regarding the private water supply
and the septic disposal system that will serve the proposed special event site, the
ability of the water supply and the septic disposal system to handle the proposed
events, and the need to improve the supply or the system in order to handle the
proposed events.
3. . The building official and the county department of fire and
Building and fire safety
rescue shall review and comment on the application, identifying all Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code and Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code issues and
requirements.
c. . The applicant shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance prior
Zoning compliance clearance
to conducting a special event. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one (1) or more
such special events in a calendar year as follows:
1. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning compliance clearance for more
than one (1) special event if: (i) the application submitted by the applicant includes the
required information in subsection 5.1.43(c)(3) for each special event to be covered
by the zoning compliance clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that
each special event is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zoning
administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would apply to each such
special event may be imposed with the zoning compliance clearance.
2. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of the first special event to be authorized by the zoning compliance
clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator, who shall
forward copies of the application to the county police department, the county building
official, the county department of fire and rescue, and the local office of the Virginia
Department of Health. As part of his review, the building official shall determine
whether the structure(s) proposed to be used for the special events satisfies the
requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code for that use.
3. The application shall describe the nature of each special event to be authorized by
the zoning compliance clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each
such special event, the facilities, structures to be used, and the number of participants
and support staff expect to attend each special event.
4. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all conditions
of the special use permit are satisfied, and imposing all conditions of such approval
required by the offices identified in subsection 5.1.43(c)(2), the zoning administrator
shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for one or more special events. The
validity of the zoning compliance clearance shall be conditional upon the applicant’s
compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance, all conditions of the
approved special use permit, the approved concept plan or site plan, and all
conditions imposed by the zoning compliance clearance.
d.. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this
Special events sites and structures
chapter, special events sites and structures shall be subject to the following:
1. . Each structure used for a special event shall
Structures used for special events
satisfy the following: (i) the structure shall have been in existence on the date of
adoption of this section 5.1.43, provided that this requirement shall not apply to
accessory structures less than one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size; (ii) the
structure shall be a lawful conforming structure and shall support or have supported a
lawful use of the property; and (iii) modifications to farm buildings or farm structures
as those terms are defined in Virginia Code § 36-97 shall allow the structure to revert
to an agricultural use, as determined by the building official.
2. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum
Minimum yards
front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side yard shall be twenty-five
feet (25) feet. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty-five (35) feet. All yards shall be
measured from structures and off-street parking areas. These minimum yard
requirements shall apply to all accessory structures established after the effective
date of this section 5.1.43 and all tents, parking areas and portable toilets used in
whole or in part to serve special events.
3. . The number of off-street parking spaces for a special event shall be as
Parking
required in section 4.12.6. Notwithstanding section 4.12.15(a) through (g), the
additional parking area(s) for special events shall consist of or be constructed of
pervious materials including, but not limited to stabilized turf, approved by the county
engineer. Asphalt and impervious materials are prohibited. If the parking area is on
grass or in a field, the applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site as
required by the zoning administrator. In addition to the requirements of section 4.12.5,
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
the parking area shall be onsite and screened from abutting parcels by topography,
structures or new or existing landscaping. Notwithstanding section 4.12.16(d) and (e),
the delineation of parking spaces and the provision of bumper blocks shall not be
required.
4. . The private water supply and septic disposal system serving a
Water and sewer
special event shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health.
5. . Streets serving the site shall be adequate for anticipated traffic
Streets and access
volume for a special event. Access from the street onto the site shall be adequate to
provide safe and convenient access to the site, and applicant shall install all required
improvements and provide adequate sight distance in order to provide safe and
convenient access.
e. . In addition to all other applicable requirements of this chapter,
Special events operations
special events operations shall be subject to the following:
1. . The number of participants at a special event at any one
Number of participants
time shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons
2. . The special use permit shall identify the number
Number of special events per year
of approved special events per calendar year, which number shall not exceed twenty-
four (24).
3. . Permanent and temporary signs advertising a special event shall be permitted
Signs
as provided in sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.8.
4. . No kitchen facility permitted by the Virginia Department of Health as a
Food service
commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may be used by licensed
caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for cooking food, to
be served at a special event.
5. . If required, portable toilets are permitted on the site, provided that
Portable toilets
they comply with the yard requirements in section 5.1.43(d)(2) and shall be screened
from that parcel and any street by topography, structures or new or existing
landscaping.
f.. A parcel subject to a special events
Prohibition of development to a more intensive use
special use permit shall not be subdivided so as to create one or more parcels, including the
parent parcel, of less than twenty-one acres in size without first amending the special use
permit to expressly authorize the subdivision. If a parcel is so subdivided without first
amending the special use permit, special events shall thereafter be prohibited on the resulting
parcels unless a new special use permit is obtained.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit
. . .
50. Special events (reference 5.1.43).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-2005-009. Briarwood (Signs #89,92&94) Public hearing on a request
to rezone approx 124 acs from PRD to Residential (PRD) w/proffers to modify the application plan for the
Briarwood PRD to change bldg separation requirements & to establish yards & setbacks. The lands
proposed for rezoning are at the intersec of Seminole Trail & Austin Dr (Rt 1575). TM 32G, P1, TM 32G
Sec 3 P A & TM 32G Sec 3 P 83. (The Comp Plan designates these lands as Neighborhood Density
providing for general usage as residential & recommended for 3-6 du/ac. The Zoning Ord provides that the
general usage w/in the PDR zoning district permits a variety of residential uses, together with certain uses
ancillary thereto that are compatible with & to not detract from one another or from surrounding districts.)
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 27 and July 4, 2005.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report which was previously forwarded to Board
members. On February 2, 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved changes to the Briarwood PRD which
allowed for changes to phasing and changes to unit types shown on the application plan, removal of one
interconnection, a commitment to provide screening for the backs of units along Camelot Drive, an addition
of 4 more units, and a commitment to provide affordable housing and curb/gutter/sidewalks on at least one
side of the street. The Board also approved modifications of Section 19.8 and 4.11.3 of the zoning
ordinance to allow building separation of 20 feet. The attachments listed at the end of this report provide
background on activities that occurred between the Planning Commission meeting of December 7, 2004
and the Board action.
As the Commission may remember from the December 2004 meeting, the applicant did not
provide all the needed documents within the necessary time frame for review at several stages in the
process. When the applicant responded to the Board’s request for information necessary for final action,
the time frame for review was again diminished. Although the applicant requested specific setbacks of 25,
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
6, and 10 for front, side, and rear yards, respectively, no action was taken by the Board. The current
request is to establish setbacks and change the building separation requirement established by the Board.
Setbacks were not established for the Briarwood PRD when it was initially approved. Consistent
administrative interpretation in recent years has resulted in the application of R-4 setbacks being used.
These setbacks are 25 feet in the front, 15 feet on the sides (with ability to reduce to 10 feet), and 20 feet in
the rear.
As staff understands it, in either late May or early June, the owner of the Briarwood property,
approached Ken Boyd about this situation and the need to establish different setbacks. Mr. Boyd asked the
Board at their meeting on June 8 to establish setbacks for Briarwood. After an hour-long discussion at the
Board meeting, the Board advised the owner that establishment of setbacks required a zoning map
amendment. The Board suggested that the owner apply for the ZMA and then it committed to review the
request at the earliest possible date. It is for that reason that the Planning Commission’s hearing is
scheduled for July 12 and the Board’s hearing for July 13.
The applicant desires setbacks of 20 feet in the front, 6 feet on the sides and 5 feet in the rear as
indicated in Attachment F. With only an abbreviated review by staff, staff believes that the setbacks should
be established at 20 feet for the front, 6 feet for the side, and 10 feet for the rear. A 20-foot front yard
allows for cars to be parked in front of a garage without extending into the sidewalk. Fire flow has been
verified as adequate in Briarwood for 6-foot side yards. Regarding rear yards, staff believes that rear yards
of 5 feet are so shallow as to make them practically unusable. The minimum rear setback staff can
recommend at this time is 10 feet. Staff notes that, if unusual circumstances were to occur and reduced
setbacks were desired, Section 8.5.5.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Director to make a
minor variation to setback. These requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Staff notes that, if this rezoning is approved, the new setbacks would apply to only the parcels
being rezoned and not to the existing development. Staff will continue to use R-4 setbacks for the existing
developed part of Briarwood. Section 8.5.5.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance also applies to this section of the
development.
Staff recommends that the applicant amend the approved application plan to show setbacks and
building separation as follows:
Front setback: 20 feet
Side setback: 6 feet
Rear setback – 10 feet
Building separation – 12 feet
Mr. Cilimberg said once these notes have been added to the application plan approved on
February 2, 2005 by the Board of Supervisors, staff recommends approval.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that at the Planning Commission last night, Mr. Wood contended the five-foot
rear setback has been consistently used and applied. Mr. Cilimberg noted that in a number of cases, that
setback has been used – sometimes adjacent to open space, sometimes where one lot backs up to
another, etc. He concluded that staff’s recommendation for the 10-foot rear setback was based on the
belief that five-feet would be too minimal in terms of use of a rear yard and in terms of the building
separation between two units back to back being as little as 12 feet. Mr. Cilimberg noted that it is necessary
that there be a provision of adequate light, air, convenient access and safety from fire, flood, and other
dangers, and protection against overcrowding of land and obstruction of light an air. There was a concern
by staff when you had a particular five-foot rear yard backing up to another five-foot rear yard that you
would have a very confined space in the back, and staff would prefer to be able to work from the 10-foot
rear yard and then allow adjustments as necessary based on the circumstances – such as open space
being behind the yard rather than another house.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Wood expressed concern that a 10-foot rear yard might encourage
decks and screen porches; under the Zoning Ordinance they are allowed in the rear yard up to four feet or
within six feet of a 10-foot line. Mr. Cilimberg said that with a five-foot setback, that is much less likely. He
added that the Planning Commission supported the 10-foot rear yard setback, but not the five, and staff
supported the front yard setback as 20 feet.
Mr. Wyant asked if you could build porches into the setback.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that covered porches can have a four-foot intrusion, but if it turns into an
enclosed porch it turns into part of the structure and must meet regular setbacks of 10 feet. He said that
having a five-foot setback and a porch would still mean the need for adequate building separations. Mr.
Cilimberg added that you cannot be within six feet of the line for the intrusion, so he is not sure that you
could put a deck or a porch in the five-foot rear yard and satisfy the ordinance requirement. You could
make it part of the structure but once you build it and start intruding into that yard, you actually have
intruded more than this ordinance would allow, which is that there be at least a six-foot separation from the
lot line.
Mr. Wyant asked if fire separations considered the main structure or if porches were also included.
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there needs to be a building separation of 12 feet, but he is not sure if
porches are included. Mr. Davis responded that he is not sure either.
Mr. Boyd asked if this was originally applied for as a five-foot or 10-foot rear setback.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in the letter of January 3, 2005, the request was for a 10-foot rear setback.
Mr. Davis read from the Zoning Ordinance: “covered porches, balconies, chimneys, and like
architectural features may project not more than four feet into any required yard, provided that no such
feature shall be located closer than six feet to any lot line.” He added that none of those features are
allowed within six feet of the property line.
Mr. Cilimberg said that if the Board uses the 10-foot setback, there are variations that might be
possible, whether or not they would be granted or not.
The applicant, Wendell Wood, addressed the Board. He thanked the Board for their promptness in
returning the item to their agenda.
Mr. Wood explained that they have built 354 houses in Briarwood, all with recorded plats of five-foot
rear yard. He said that the issues arise when there is a slope in the lot, which affects about 20 percent of
the homes. Mr. Wood added that every house has a 10 to 12-foot patio that makes affordable housing look
better. He emphasized that there has not been a single complaint from any neighbor. Mr. Wood said that
he had asked for the existing setbacks to apply, but made a mistake in the January letter and referred to the
setback as 10-feet even though every recorded plat has a five-foot setback.
In response to Mr. Bowerman’s comment, Mr. Wood assured him that the decks would not be
“back to back.”
In response to Mr. Boyd’s question, Mr. Wood explained that if the 10-foot setback is required, there
could not be patios on those homes.
Ms. Thomas said that she thought the ordinance required six feet from the line.
Mr. Davis explained that if the setback is established at five feet, then the building and the
balconies, etc., still have to be a minimum of five feet from the property line. If the setback is 10 feet, then
the main structure has to be 10 feet from the property line, but porches, etc. could intrude into the section
by up to four feet because they can’t be any closer than six feet from the property line if the setback is
greater than six feet. The difference would be one foot. If there was a 10-foot setback, it could be intruded
by four feet by the accessory additions to the building. The building would have to be 10 feet back. If there
was a five-foot setback, a building could be five feet from the property line and the accessory features
couldn’t be any closer than that.
Mr. Wood emphasized that he would not build a four-foot deck.
Mr. Davis commented that the only difference is one deck would have to be five feet from the
property line and one deck would have to be six feet from the property line.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there is more room in the front to push the house forward, but you would
have to stay within the line of either five feet or six feet. It’s a difference of one foot.
Mr. Davis said if you had a 10-foot setback, then the deck would have to be six feet from the
property line. If you had a five-foot setback, then the deck would have to be five feet from the property line.
Mr. Bowerman commented that it would not work.
Mr. Wyant noted that the houses might have to be shifted to accommodate the slope and driveway,
entrance, etc., which limits how much it can be moved.
Mr. Davis noted that the most significant difference between a five-foot setback and a 10-foot
setback is that with a 10-foot setback the main structure of the building would have to be 10 feet from the
property line; if you grant a five-foot setback, then it is possible to actually push that main building all the
way to the property line. He added that if you did that, you couldn’t have a deck, a porch, a chimney or
anything encroaching.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the biggest impact would be if the porch were enclosed because it
becomes a part of the structure.
Mr. Wood emphasized that there have never been neighbor complaints, and the plat is recorded
with five-foot rear setbacks. He added that he would not request a variance.
Mr. Wyant asked how many homeowners were enclosing their porches.
Mr. Wood replied that out of the last 250, about 15 or 20 have enclosed them and air-conditioned
them, with 15 or 20 just putting roofing and/or screen.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Board.
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Ms. Thomas said that if every house has a patio in the back, then no house would be five feet from
the property line, but the patio must be six feet from the property line regardless.
Mr. Davis reiterated that if there is a 10-foot setback, a deck or a porch could intrude four feet into
the setback to the six-foot line; however, he said, if someone wanted to enclose it and make it into a part of
the main structure they couldn’t do that if it was closer than 10 feet. If it’s a five-foot setback, then a porch
or deck could be no closer than five feet to the property line and the main structure could be as close as
five feet to the property line.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in terms of a variance, an applicant would request a modification to setback
because the property is a planned development district. He stated that this would be handled exclusively by
staff.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he is concerned about housing affordability, and said he favors the
applicant’s proposal.
Mr. Boyd agreed, adding that they’re only talking about a difference of one foot.
Mr. Wyant agreed, adding that it allows a homeowner to build up equity in their home.
Mr. Davis clarified that the front setback would be 20 feet, the side setback would be six feet, and
the rear setback would be five feet.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Wyant, to approve ZMA-2005-009 to
amend the application plan to show setbacks and building separation as follows: Front setback: 20 feet,
Side setback: 6 feet, Rear setback: 5 feet, and Building separation: 12 feet. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Update: Subdivision Ordinance - Overlot Grading.
Mr. Graham summarized the executive summary which was forwarded to Board members. On
April 20, 2005, the Board considered revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance. One of the proposed revisions
was an overlot grading requirement, which would regulate grading and drainage on smaller lots in the
development area. This provision proved to be controversial. Given the controversy, staff suggested
tabling this provision and allowing a work team comprised of County staff and Blue Ridge Homebuilder
Association members to see if consensus could be reached. The Board agreed with using this approach
and David Wyant agreed to facilitate this effort. This executive summary is a status report of that team’s
work.
th
Since the April 20 Board meeting, the work team has met as a group 4 times and also done
considerable work outside of those meetings. The work team has reached agreement on a number of key
provisions, but has not finished its work. As a result of that work, the team has agreed the lot grading
concerns can be addressed without a mandatory overlot grading plan, provided certain precautions can be
built into the development review and building inspection process. Those precautions include:
?
Driveways and pedestrian access can be regulated through the “safe and convenient access”
provision that currently exists in the zoning ordinance. This would be verified at the time of
certificate of occupancy (“C.O”) versus demonstrated through an overlot grading plan. To reduce
problems with issuance of a C.O., staff is preparing a set of guidelines that will be distributed with
building permits. A copy of the current draft is attached.
?
Slopes and vegetation requirements are existing requirements under the erosion and sediment
control permits. As such, staff can continue to regulate those provisions under the existing permits.
?
Potential drainage issues can be identified as part of the subdivision plan review. At that time, staff
can inform the subdivision applicant where potential drainage issues have been identified. The
applicant will then have a choice of either preparing an overlot grading plan to demonstrate the
adequacy of the drainage across lots or staff will “flag” the lots of concern and require a lot grading
plan as part of the building permit application. Currently, building permit applicants are routinely
allowed to use “Agreements in Lieu of a Plan” to satisfy erosion and sediment control requirements
associated with building permits. The County’s Water Protection Ordinance gives the Program
Authority (Director of Community Development) the authority to either require lot grading plans or
allow these agreements with these building permits. With this recommendation, the Program
Authority would require the lot grading plan to address potential drainage concerns.
While the work team has made significant progress, there are remaining issues. The following are
some examples:
?
What is an acceptable flow of stormwater running from one yard to the next outside of a maintained
drainage structure? The previous staff recommendation would have limited this to stormwater
running across three yards before it is directed to either the street, open space, or a drainage
structure. Many on the work team believe this
requirement is excessive. Staff continues to believe that significant flows in homeowner’s yards
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
create the perception that the drainage is not working and that perception will result in demands for
future Boards to accept responsibility and improve the drainage through expensive retrofits. The
team has not reached consensus on what is considered an acceptable flow.
?
When should overland relief be required? Overland relief is grading such that the water will not
flood houses even if the drainage structures are clogged or prove inadequate. For example,
drainage structures are commonly designed to accommodate a 10-year storm event while the
flood hazard mapping creates the perception for many homeowners that the home is safe from a
100-year storm event. The flows in excess of that handled by the drainage structures will flow into
homes if there are not adequate areas for that water to flow around homes (overland relief). Staff’s
perspective has been homeowners should have reasonable assurance their homes will not flood
even if a drainage structure becomes clogged. While the team has not resolved this issue, the
work team does recognize this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
?
What type of drainage ways are appropriate through yards? The primary focus of this issue is
when should rip rap ditches be allowed through residential yards. If allowed, should there be any
restriction on the size or location of rip rap ditches in yards? Beyond the safety concern, staff
believes this type of drainage way will be considered an unacceptable nuisance by many
homeowners and there will be considerable pressure placed on future Boards to assume
responsibility for these ditches and retrofit the drainage ways with storm sewer. The team has not
reached consensus on when rip rap ditches should be allowed.
?
Finally, the team has not decided how best to codify the drainage requirements. There is not
currently a requirement for this in either the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance, nor with the Building
Code.
It is anticipated it will take two or three more meetings to resolve the remaining issues and a team
recommendation can be presented to the Board by September.
Budget impacts will be considered with the final team recommendation.
Mr. Graham said this executive summary is intended as a status report. If the Board has any
guidance to provide the team, David Wyant and staff can carry it back to the team.
Mr. Wyant commented that the issues are not simple, but it has been good for the community to
come together and discuss them at one table.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the issue of who pays for the drainage had been resolved.
Mr. Graham responded that all these improvements would be required of the developer or builder
either as part of the subdivision or as part of constructing the house. He added that they have not delved
into issues where it might be between developers, but they are concerned when individual lots are being
bought by different builders, who are taking different approaches to how each house is built, which does
cause drainage problems.
Ms. Thomas commented that that’s exactly why an overlot grading plan is necessary. She added
that she is glad that the delineation has not been county staff versus developers. Ms. Thomas noted that
the public and future homebuyers are equally impacted. The land that was easy to build has sort of been
developed. It is the land that’s harder that’s more likely to have the erosion and runoff problems. At the
same time we have gotten to those pieces of property where we are telling developers to develop more
densely, more compactly. She added that there are going to be major problems for the homeowners if this
is not done correctly.
Mr. Wyant said that it has been very satisfying to be a part of the meetings, and group members
have been very forthright in their comments and opinions. Mr. Graham acknowledged that it is a
complicated subject, and consensus takes time.
Mr. Graham said that a rip-rap drain accommodates the same amount of water as the largest fire
hose. Mr. Dorrier noted that Albemarle has lots of critical slopes as well which make drainage very difficult.
Ms. Thomas said that the county gets complaints when the drainage is not working. The public wants
solutions.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Raintree development situation should be prevented if it all possible.
Mr. Graham said that staff will come back in September with a recommendation on an ordinance
change, and will need to do a resolution of intent to make these changes.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: FY 2006 Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Funding.
Mr. Foley summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members.
In April of 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted the FY2005-2006 (FY06) budget, allocating $265,972 for
the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) to provide bus service to parts of the County’s urbanized area. This
adopted figure was based on the Board’s direction to increase CTS funding by 10 percent for FY06 and was
significantly less than the $470,201 originally requested by CTS. After adoption of the budget, CTS
informed the County that service would need to be reduced if no additional funding was approved for FY06.
As a result, a meeting was held between the County and City to discuss how transit operating costs and
revenues might be shared differently in the current and future fiscal years. This meeting was attended by
Chairman Rooker, Mayor Brown and County and City staff. At the conclusion of that meeting, it was agreed
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
that County and CTS staff would meet to discuss development of an objective method to share costs and
revenues in the future.
While the primary purpose of discussion among staff was to consider long term options for funding
CTS, due to the City’s need to make final decisions on CTS service for FY06, the City proposed a revised
cost sharing arrangement in June that would also make service level adjustments. These changes in
service levels were primarily the result of the recently completed study conducted to identify improvements
to current CTS service. In addition to implementing these recommended improvements, the City’s proposal
also reduces the County’s cost for the improved routes by providing a credit for federal and state revenues
received by CTS. Because staff believes this latest proposal addresses needed route improvements and
also recognizes federal and state revenues as an offset to County costs, staff felt consideration of a change
to the FY06 appropriation should be brought before the Board for consideration.
Below is staff’s analysis and recommendations regarding the City’s proposal to change daytime bus
service and to address two new issues related to funding CTS night service and long-term route planning.
Staff asks the Board for direction as to whether additional CTS funding for FY06 should be provided. Staff
will continue to work with CTS over the next few months regarding long term alternatives for CTS funding.
Staff has been working with CTS to address concerns in FY06 regarding CTS day and night-time
service as well as planning for future bus routes. It should be noted the while the City has proposed a credit
for federal and state revenues, their proposal was based on a three year arrangement with the credit
beginning at 40 percent in FY06 and decreasing to 35 percent in FY07 and 30 percent in FY08. Rather
than a three year arrangement as proposed, staff believes agreement should be limited to FY06, while
discussion continues on the long term funding of CTS. These issues are outlined below for the Board’s
consideration.
Day-time Service Issues
CTS’s original budget request of $470,201 was based on a formula that allocated direct costs on a
per hour basis and gave no consideration to sharing state and federal transit operating revenues with the
County. CTS has now proposed a 40 percent credit for state and federal transit operating revenues in
FY06. This credit is approximately equal to the percent of state and federal revenues compared to all
revenues received by CTS. Again, staff believes this is a reasonable solution for FY06 and will continue to
work with CTS in the coming months to develop an objective long-term method to allocate costs and
revenues.
In FY06, CTS will implement changes to their routes based on the Charlottesville Transit
Improvement Study. These changes are illustrated in Attachment A and Attachment B. As the maps show,
Routes 5 and 7 are combined to create a new Route 5 and service on Route 10 is extended to Martha
Jefferson, and Westminster Canterbury. Each route will also see changes to its headways, or the time
intervals between stops on round trips. Route 5 will run on a 45 minute headway, where in the past
headways were one hour on Route 5 and 7, except for 7 daily peak service hours Monday – Friday, where
headways were 30 minutes on Route 5. Route 10 will continue to run on one hour headways, but buses will
travel downtown once every hour instead of half-hour. Funding for changes to Route 5, 7 and 10 with a 40
percent credit for state and federal revenues will require an additional appropriation of $16,430, which
represents a 16.8 percent increase over the FY05 budget.
Night-time Service Issues
In the past, CTS night service has been funded by two grants (each accounting for 50 percent of
Night Service costs) which required no local match. However, after the Board’s FY06 Budget Work sessions
in March of 2005, it became evident that one of the two grants will be lost, resulting in only 50 percent of
CTS night service being funded by a grant. To continue this service at its current level, the remaining 50
percent of the cost must be paid for by localities. CTS has asked the County to fund 50 percent of the cost
for Route 20 and 25 percent of the cost for Route 23 (the City will also contribute 25 percent of the cost to
Route 23). See Attachment C (copy on file) for the location of these Night Service routes.
Based on the FY04 route ridership and service hour data CTS provided, staff does not believe
continuation of Route 20 is justified and does not recommend the Board fund this route in FY06. Route 20
is the poorest performing route when compared to other night service routes on a rider per service hour
basis, serving only 2.72 riders per service hour in FY04. Staff does not feel it is justified to fund a $54,284
route with such low ridership.
However, staff does recommend providing funding to continue service on Route 23. Although this
route does not perform particularly well relative to other night service routes, serving 4.38 riders per service
hour, staff believes it is justifiable based on its considerably lower cost of $14,152. Furthermore, because
Route 23 would be jointly funded and clearly serve both County and City citizens, staff believes that
maintaining this route as a regional service is appropriate. It should be noted that none of the grant funding
for night service is certain at this time and the City may choose to make other changes to this service
depending on the amount of grant funding ultimately approved.
Long-term Planning Issues
An additional issue to be addressed is the long-term planning of CTS services. CTS requests the
County contribute $20,000 in FY06 towards an update of the Transit Development Plan (TDP) for FY07-
FY11. The funding for this study was not part of CTS’s original budget request. The City of Charlottesville
has indicated they will contribute a minimum of $60,000 towards this update and has also requested and
will receive $20,000 from the University of Virginia. The update of the TDP will help CTS appropriately
address public transportation needs in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Staff believes that a County
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
expenditure of $20,000 to update the TDP would be justified as the County strives to be a partner in working
to fund CTS and solve the area’s transportation challenges.
th
Service to 5 Street Extended/Southwood area
th
Finally, CTS requests the County again consider providing service to the 5 Street Extended area of
the County. The original CTS estimate of $169,147 for this proposed route did not include any credit for
state and federal revenues and provided service every half-hour. Under a new proposal, the route would
th
travel between Downtown and the County Office Building on 5 Street Extended with buses running every
hour Monday through Saturday, from approximately 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. CTS estimate the cost of this
route would be $49,204. Staff did not include this route in the recommended FY06 budget and still does not
recommend implementing this route in FY06. However, staff does believe further consideration should be
given to this route in the coming budget process and as a part of the long-term approach to be developed
with CTS.
The budget impact of staff’s recommendations is $16,430 to support the improved day-time service
on Routes 5 and 10; $14,152 to continue night service on Route 23; and $20,000 in one-time funds to
support the update of CTS’s Transit Development Plan for FY07-FY11, for a total of $50,582.
Mr. Foley said staff recommends that the Board approve additional funding for FY06 as outlined in
the ‘Budget Impact’ section of this executive summary. Staff will continue to work closely with CTS in the
next few months to further consider alternatives for long-term funding of CTS. An appropriation for the
amount approved will be submitted next month.
Mr. Dorrier stated that the ridership should indicate whether or not the system is working or not. Mr.
Foley replied that the study would look at where the demand would be in the future, as well as where new
routes would go and encouraging future ridership.
Mr. Cilimberg said, “ridership affects routing, but routing also affects ridership. He added that with
the Neighborhood Model outlining build out of the development areas, they are looking at routing as
important as it might be integrated into future development.
Mr. Wyant asked if the county would be involved in the study in ways other than funding. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that staff is already involved.
Mr. Boyd commented that the Places 29 Study is also covering mass transit.
Ms. Thomas said that she hopes the studies work together.
Mr. Boyd said that he wants to make sure that the studies are actually used and not shelved.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the county has made requests each year based on previous studies, but
the county’s ability to fund them has determined whether or not the requested routes actually get funded.
Mr. Foley added that if a partnership is desired, there needs to be some basis to decide where the
new investments ought to be made. He added that this study would become that basis, noting that the
University is already on board with their $20,000.
Ms. Thomas said that the county is going to have to put up their share if they really want
partnership.
Mr. Wyant commented that it is important for the county to participate to identify stops the city and
University may not be aware of.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this was being integrated with JAUNT. Mr. Foley responded that CTS is
working in cooperation with JAUNT. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is also a distinction in what they provide,
as they cannot be duplicating because of their funding structure. He pointed out that JAUNT is more rural,
and CTS is more urban.
Mr. Bowerman said that his concern is there has not been a great history of cooperation with the
city, and he hopes that this can be part of an overall improvement in that relationship. Mr. Boyd agreed, but
said that this appears to be fairly collaborative.
Mr. Dorrier said that people in the county do not know much about the CTS routes. He thinks the
county has an obligation to make sure it is well publicized.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she picked up a booklet from Fairfax that shows in alphabetized form
the businesses along each route, and she hopes the studies being done now include this information.
Mr. Boyd added that he also hopes attention is paid to the aging population in the county.
Mr. Foley clarified that there are several items for funding approval: staff recommends an
additional $16,430 for improvements to Route 5 and Route 10; an additional $16,942 for continuation of
night service on Route 23; and $20,000 for the comprehensive study of future CTS routes through the
Transit Development Plan Update. Mr. Wyant noted the total as $53,372.
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Foley said that the funding would need to come from the Board reserve or general fund
balance.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas moved to recommend that an appropriation be brought
forward to the Board for $16,430 for improvements to Route 5 and Route 10; an additional $16,942 for
continuation of night service on route 23; and $20,000 for the comprehensive study of future CTS routes
through the Transit Development Plan Update. Mr. Wyant seconded the motion.
Mr. Foley clarified that the Board did not support Route 20 because of low ridership. Board
members agreed.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Appointment: Commission on Children and Families.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Wyant, to appoint Sara Dansey to the
Commission on Children and Families with said term to expire June 30, 2007. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier said the reflector lights on the center line on Route 20 to Scottsville are making a big
difference. VDOT has installed “Slow” signage at the Walton School entrance which will help. Carter’s
Bridge is still being repaired.
__________
Ms. Thomas informed the Board that the League of Women Voters will be hosting an informational
th
meeting on July 20, 2005, 7:00 p.m. in the Main Conference Room at COB-5 Street with DEQ
representatives concerning the Moores Creek Sewage Treatment Plant, and the affect of point source
nutrients that run into the Chesapeake Bay. It is not a public hearing but open to all citizens.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked about two budget items that were set aside while staffing was working on a
proposal. One was the continuation of health insurance for retirees. Mr. Foley said the Office of
Management and Budget is still working on that issue. They hope to have that information in September.
__________
Mr. Boyd then asked about the requests for improvements to the Stony Point Fire Department
building. Staff is supposed to be working on a formula on how the County might deal with that. Mr. Foley
said staff has been through a first draft and decided to get more input from the chiefs and captains before
coming forward to the Board. Staff plans to bring it forward to the Board in September.
__________
Mr. Boyd inquired about a work session on Belvedere Subdivision. Mr. Foley said the Clerk is
working on scheduling that.
Mr. Davis said staff is concerned that if changes are requested, those would not be able to be
th
implemented and reviewed before the public hearing on September 10.
Ms. Thomas noted that the request might have to go back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Davis commented that the revised proffers from the applicant have not been received, and
there are major unresolved issues regarding right of way.
Mr. Cilimberg added that the ownership issues have been resolved.
Mr. Davis pointed out that it would be difficult for the Board to cancel the public hearing after the
rd
meeting on September 3. One option is to hold the public hearing, defer it and then advertise for another
public hearing.
_______________
July 13, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 7:40 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 11/02/2005
Initials: DM