2004-11-03
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 3, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., 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,
and, Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. John Martin said for the past seven years a cádre of citizens have been working on water
supply matters toward the goal of having an adequate future water supply. During this time, water supply
planning has been controlled almost entirely by a small, tight bureaucracy. Except for one 18-month period
in the water supply history, citizens have been treated basically as impotent nuisances. Many thousands of
dollars have been spent on public relations consultants who in a few public meetings, the last on
September 21, seemed to be intended to manipulate public opinion rather than to inform or allow input
from citizens. Things have gotten so bad now that citizens are required to pay ten cents a page for those
documents not provided by RWSA in its packet. Citizens requested that they be allowed to attend the last
regulators meeting September 23, but that request was denied. As a result of these events and ongoing
concerns, citizens decided to organize and host their own meeting with federal and state regulators. That
meeting will be held on November 4th at 10 a.m., at the Department of Game and Inlands Fisheries office
in the Fontaine Research Park.
Mr. Martin said they have also invited two members of the Supervisors and two members of County
staff, along with Mayor Brown from Charlottesville and Mr. Tom Frederick, with the understanding that Mr.
Frederick will attend as an observer. Their purpose is to share with the regulators what this group knows
and what it does not know. They have some specific ideas on the water supply alternatives which they
would like to advance. They know there is a joint meeting of the Board and Council scheduled for
November 11 to discuss the water supply. He knows the meeting is scheduled at COB Fifth Street in a
conference room and he does not believe it will be big enough to hold members of the public who would
like to attend. He hopes the initiative the citizens are taking will facilitate matters. They look forward to a
greater dialogue with RWSA in the future and hope all can work cooperatively together to bring this to a
conclusion. After the amount of work they have done as citizens, they have found it necessary to go outside
of the community to be heard.
Mr. Rooker asked if other members of the Board can attend this meeting if they are not
participating. Mr. Davis said that is not a problem as long as the members do not meet or make decisions
or discuss business as board members.
Mr. Martin said if that is the case, all Board members are welcome to attend.
__________
Mr. Tom Loach said the Board will be discussing the Crozet Master Plan later today. He said the
Crozet Community Association recently voted to reject the Crozet Master Plan based on the unwillingness
of the County to negotiate a long-term infrastructure funding plan. The Association also voted to support no
additional rezonings that would result in a higher density in Crozet than that allowed as by-right
development. The Association is finally taking a stand on the issues of growth, development and
infrastructure. In a local newspaper it reports that people in the Rivanna District took the same stand when
they had a meeting about their master planning exercise. He quoted Mr. Boyd as saying: “With little funds
coming from Richmond to build new roads, the County cannot possibly make all desired fixes.” Mr. Loach
said the people in Crozet are going to get in a situation where they are waiting and waiting for road
improvements, but do not see any. He said a Mr. Dimberg said after that meeting that he was encouraged
by a sense of rising opposition to development. He thinks that is where most growth area residents are
headed. He said the County cannot afford the infrastructure needed and the citizens will not be put in a
position where their quality of life is deteriorated because of it. The era of second-class citizenship for
growth area residents has come to an end.
__________
Mr. Steve Ashby said he was a member of the MPO until this last March and worked on a number
of issues concerning transportation. He came today to ask that the Board consider a comprehensive
transportation system. He sent copies of his presentation to the Clerk before this meeting. He said the
County’s Department of Social Services and the County’s Housing Department recently moved to the new
County Office Building on Fifth Street Extended and did not provide any public bus service for the 15
percent of the people who need those services. He thinks bus service needs to be provided for these
people. Transit is also needed in the growth areas along with sidewalks, bike paths, etc. He knows these
things are in a plan, but he would like to see a commitment by the Board to work with the City on extending
transit; he thinks an authority is needed. He also thinks there is a need to look at rail service since rails go
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
through areas which have a huge population. He is glad to see that transit issues are a part of the agenda,
and he asked that the Board consider his idea.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner from the Piedmont Environmental Council spoke next. He said that in the past 12
months, the County has lost Walter Perkins, Bill Finley and Charlotte Humphris. He said these three
people loved this County and its residents at a level that is unexcelled. He has been asked to read into the
public record the text from September, 2002 when the Piedmont Environmental Council gave Charlotte
Humphris its lifetime achievement award. He read: “Charlotte Humphris has been the most important
proponent in the protection of Albemarle County’s rural areas and natural resources for the last quarter
century. As a decision-maker on the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors from 1989 to 2001, and her
association with a number of non-profit organizations, Charlotte directed the course of events toward
environmental protection and growth management more substantially than any other individual. The way in
which she is able to marshal the facts and make effective use of logic and persuasion made her a
commanding presence on the Board. As early as 1974 when Charlotte served on the Grand Jury
investigation of Albemarle County government, she worked as a strong advocate for ethical public service.
She herself was a model of enlightened, principled and steadfast public servant while on the Board of
Supervisors representing the Jack Jouett District. Charlotte has long been a leading voice for the protection
of the Albemarle County watershed championing the downzoning of the watershed in 1980 despite the
intimidation of lawsuits used by the opponents of that action. She advocated architectural review and a
strong cell tower policy. Her support of the Lighting Ordinance and the Acquisition of Easements programs
was vital to their passage, and she served as the Board’s representative on the Historic Preservation
Committee. In the City’s threat of reversion to town status, Charlotte was a strong defender of the County.
As a central figure of the Virginia Association of Counties’ Board, Charlotte insisted on the State meeting its
fiscal responsibilities and advocated rural protection. Serving on the Metropolitan Planning Organization for
12 years and serving as its chairman, she led the opposition to the Route 29 Bypass which threatened to
waste $200.0 million and damage the reservoir watershed. Albemarle County and the surrounding region
is a greener, smarter, and more livable place for her attention to it, and the standard of public service
heightened by her example.”
Mr. Werner said he would like to add a personal note, and referred to the death of a young man
recently. He said that he has coached lacrosse at Albemarle High School for the last eight years, and
coached nine years prior at high schools in Northern Virginia. He said that in his years of coaching he has
had to deal with the loss of too many young people from vehicular accidents. He urged that everybody sit
down with any teenager they know and show them articles recently published in newspapers, and talk to
them about this matter. It is really hard to work with these young people and have them deal with the death
of a friend.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Walnut Creek Park Recognition.
Mr. Dorrier said he takes great pride in announcing that Walnut Creek Park in Albemarle County
has been named the best outdoor recreation site in the community as part of the “Best of C-ville” 2004
Award Program. He said “Walnut Creek Park is one of the County’s three swimming lakes, and boasts one
of the most scenic locations in the region. It stands near Carters Bridge in the Scottsville District. We are
extremely proud and appreciative of the hard work and dedication of those Parks & Recreation staff
members who keep Walnut Creek such a desirable and attractive recreational space for our community.”
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks & Recreation to come forward.
Mr. Mullaney said Walnut Creek is a special place. It is the first property in Albemarle County that
was purchased and constructed solely for a parks and recreation purpose. The other parks were built as
water supply facilities; parks and recreation facilities were developed later. He asked Mr. Matt Smith, Parks
Superintendent, and Mr. Ronnie Jones, Park Foreman at Walnut Creek, to come forward and accept the
award on behalf of the department. He said Matt has been the Parks Superintendent for the past 30 years.
He is the heart, soul and brains behind the parks and maintenance operation. Ronnie has worked for the
County for 27 years, and even after that time he still works harder and eats more than any two people that
he knows. He also recognized Mr. Otis Rush who could not be present, but he is Ronnie’s assistant. Otis
has worked for the County for 21 years. He said Ronnie and Otis take care of the parks in the Scottsville
District, which include Walnut Creek, Totier Creek, Simpson Park, Dorrier Park, Scottsville Community
Center, and four boat launches on the James River, one of which is in Howardsville. They cover a lot of
territory and provide coverage seven days a week. He said he appreciates what they do, and he thanked
the Board for taking time on its agenda to recognize them.
Mr. Dorrier said he would also like to thank them for helping to launch the keel boat at the Lewis &
Clark Park last week.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Presentation to 2004 Olympic Equestrian Silver Medalist, Kim Severson, Linda
Wachtmeister, owner, and “Dan”.
Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. Severson and Ms. Wachtmeister to come forward. He read from a
proclamation:
On behalf of local government and the citizens of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors would like to honor and recognize
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Kim Severson, Linda Wachtmeister and
Winsome Adante “Dan”
for their outstanding efforts in bringing an Olympic Individual Silver Medal and a Team Bronze
Medal home to the United States and to Albemarle County.
Kim Severson trains out of Plain Dealing Farm in Scottsville, Virginia, and works for Linda
Wachtmeister, the owner of Dan;
Kim won an individual Silver Medal and a team Bronze Medal in the Equestrian event at the 2004
Summer Olympic Games in Athens, Greece.
Both Kim and Dan had to recover from major injury and illness to compete in the Athens’ Olympics.
Kim, Linda and Dan have brought great attention and respect to Equestrian events locally,
nationally and internationally as a result of their success prior to the Olympics, and at the Olympics
Games.
On behalf of our entire community, it is with great pride and appreciation that the Board of
Supervisors commends Kim, Linda and Dan for their achievements and for the honor they
have brought to our County with their performance. We extend our appreciation to everyone
on Plain Dealing Farm, including the farm manager and grooms, who comprise the team that
supports Kim and Dan.
We also recognize the many workers employed in a variety of facets in the equine industry
in our community whose hard work and dedication makes possible the success of Dan and
the many other outstanding horses that call our area home.
Mr. Dorrier then presented gifts to Ms. Seversen and Ms. Wachtmeister, the owner of Winsome
Adante “Dan”.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr.
Rooker, to approve Item 7.1 and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda for information. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
___________
Item 7.1. Resolution to accept Sunflower Fields Drive in Blue Hills Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County’s Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Blue Hills Subdivision, described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) dated November 3, 2004, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Blue Hills Subdivision,
as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 3, 2004, to the secondary
system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department’s
Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * *
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1) Sunflower Fields Drive (State Route 1760) from Route 743 to the cul-de-sac, as
shown on plat recorded 11/04/2003 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2429, pages 396-404, with a 40-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.23 mile.
Total Mileage – 0.23 mile.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
___________
Item 7.2. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for September 21, 2004, was received for
information.
__________
Item 7.3. Copy of application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Verizon Virginia Inc.,
and Verizon South Inc., for approval of a plan for alternative regulation (Case No. PUC-2004-00092) was
received as information.
__________
Item 7.4. VDOT Monthly Report for November, 2004, was received as information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Ms. Diantha McKeel, Chairman, Albemarle County School Board, was present at this time. She
said the School Division has begun a Strategic Planning Process in order to update its Mission and Goals.
There have been meetings of focus groups throughout the division including students at all levels. The
strategic planning cycle will be completed by April, 2005. Next spring, the School Board will meet with the
Supervisors and have a combined meeting on strategic planning for Albemarle County. She thanked the
Board for allowing the School Board to include a question on education in the community survey focusing
around the County’s strategic plan.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board was pleased with the results of the County Community Survey.
An unprecedented 92.3 percent of local residents who have children attending Albemarle County schools
expressed satisfaction with the education their children are receiving. With approximately 30 percent of
Albemarle County citizens having children in public schools, that is a satisfaction rating of 85 percent. She
said this was impressive when compared to national survey results.
Ms. McKeel said Dr. Castner has appointed members to a Redistricting Committee to review
existing school boundaries and possibly recommend new areas to be served by each of the county’s
schools. Convening a Redistricting Committee was recommended by the Long-Range Planning
Committee, and that recommendation was endorsed by the School Board.
Ms. McKeel said enrollment as of September 30 was 12,356 which is 105 students more than on
September 30, 2003. This is an indication that the division is growing. She said the class size report for
2004 was received by the School Board on October 14, the report being taken from the week of September
13 (mean class sizes are shown in the written report).
Ms. McKeel said Teacher Performance Appraisals have been the subject of a lot of work for a
couple of years. During the last school year, a Steering Team and Revision Committee worked hard to
make changes in the process to align the evaluation process with division instructional goals. The groups
made changes in the current model, developed a process for field-testing the changes, and created a plan
for training Leadership Team members in effective application of the revised model. The Leadership Team
has completed training on the new model, and over 100 teachers have volunteered to participate in a field
training pilot program. They will meet in the spring of 2005 to provide feedback before the new model is
implemented throughout the division.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board has scheduled a joint meeting with the Charlottesville City
School Board on November 11 to receive an update on the Charlottesville-Albemarle Fund for Public
Education and to receive a presentation by educators at the UVA Curry School on the “Teachers for a New
Era” grant shared with the City and the University of Virginia.
Ms. McKeel said development of the 2005-06 School Division calendar has already begun. They
are getting word out to parents that school will begin on August 22, 2005. The Division is also complying
with state requirements; responding to religious, cultural and community needs; and, developing a calendar
that will protect work and staff development days so that days are not lost to snow days. Also, they want the
calendar to include a week-long spring break that cannot be used for makeup days.
Mr. Bowerman asked if days are added to the calendar if there need to be snow makeup days.
Ms. McKeel said they are building into the calendar professional development days. In the past,
there would be a professional development day scheduled, but it would also be used as a snow makeup
day.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the School Board is dealing with the snow makeup days.
Ms. McKeel said they have established an order of snow makeup days; usually days have been
identified for this purpose at the end of the school year. They are still trying to establish a calendar in
tandem with Charlottesville’s School System; they have done this for a couple of years and hope to
continue to do so. If it can be done, it is great for the whole community and for CATEC as well.
Mr. Rooker asked how close the mean class sizes were to targets in those areas.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Dr. Kevin Castner said the State has a requirement for a class size from one to 18 students for K-2.
All of the other class sizes have been a community priority for low class sizes. The Division reached a
balance which it has been maintained for the last several years. Class sizes have not necessarily gone up,
but also have not gone down. This community is holding its own with favorable class sizes.
Mr. Rooker asked if they are in line with the School’s strategy on class sizes.
Dr. Castner said “yes.” The average does not show where there are kids with greater needs and
class sizes might show as one to 15, but in reality the Division is probably drifting toward 23+ students in
some of the upper level classes.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9a. Transportation Matters: Transportation District Funding Options,
Discussion of.
Mr. Davis said because of a shortage of funds at the State level, the Board and staff have been
looking at ways to find more creative ways to expedite road projects. One idea looked at is the formation of
a transportation district. He will address today how a transportation district may be funded.
Mr. Davis said a transportation district created under Title 15.2 of the Virginia State Code has no
taxing authority to raise funds on its own. It can only be funded by agreements with other entities. A
precedent has been established for one transportation district, the Northern Virginia Transportation District,
which has been granted special taxing authority by the Virginia General Assembly. That precedent is for a
two percent sales gross retail tax on the sale of motor vehicle fuels.
Mr. Davis said the General Assembly has considered in the past other requests for that enabling
authority; as recently as last year it did not act favorably on any of those requests. He understands the City
of Charlottesville has asked that the enabling legislation be added to its legislative agenda this coming year.
That is something this Board may want to consider if it is interested in creating an independent funding
source or a transportation district.
Mr. Davis said there are two other means for funding a transportation district. One is that it could be
funded by General Fund revenue from the County. To effectively deal with the large dollar amounts of
identified transportation needs, it would require some type of approach to allow bonds to be issued. For a
county to issue bonds it would require general referendum approval by the voters and there is precedent for
that. Last night Chesterfield County supported a large general obligation bond for transportation
improvements. He understands it was approved by 85 percent of those voting.
Mr. Davis said there is another approach which is innovative and has not been used by any locality
to date. A transportation district could be formed just for Albemarle County or it could be formed as a multi-
jurisdictional district. The boundaries of the transportation district have to be established, and most likely
the boundaries would be the boundaries of the jurisdictions themselves. That creates a district in which
money can be spent on transportation improvements within that district and gets by the confining
requirement of not being able to spend County money in someone else’s jurisdiction. Projects could be
done regionally to accomplish regional transportation goals.
Mr. Davis said there is now a twist possible due to a legislative change which became effective last
July. In addition to forming a transportation district, a service district could be formed to fund transportation
improvements. Bond counsel has said that an overlapping service district could be formed on top of a
transportation district. The advantage is that a service district can levy a dedicated tax to pay for
transportation improvements. That is the positive side; the negative side is that there would have to be a
decision to actually levy a special tax to pay for the transportation district improvements. Based on the
assessed values in the County and in the City, to achieve approximately $3.0 million of revenue in this
calendar year there would have to be an additional two-penny tax levied in that service district. The amount
of the tax would depend on the projects funded, and whether that money could be used to leverage a
revenue bond. Based on the information he has at this time, if that dedicated service district tax funding was
contractually obligated to the transportation district, the transportation district could issue revenue bonds
based on that dedicated revenue stream.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that could be done without voter approval.
Mr. Davis said that approach would not require voter approval because the transportation district
has the authority to issue revenue bonds without general referendum approval. He said those are three
options; it can be confusing and complicated. He said staff believes a transportation district has advantages
for addressing regional transportation needs if VDOT does not have the money to pay for them. Ultimately
the cost to pay for those improvements must be paid by someone. Unless the General Assembly
authorizes a gasoline tax, a burden falls on the County and the City to impose some form of revenue
enhancement strategy.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Davis to explain what the City specifically did at its meeting this week. Was it
one of the three items explained?
Mr. Davis said he understands the City adopted a legislative package asking for authority to levy a
two-percent gasoline tax for a transportation district to be formed either by the City, the County, or the City
and County. It was not limited to the transportation district that was envisioned by the General Assembly in
2004.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County is part of that action by Council. Mr. Davis said “no.” They
simply were looking for enabling authority that would allow this option if it were to be explored further.
Mr. Dorrier asked if other counties have set up transportation districts. Mr. Davis they have not,
although the idea has been explored by localities. The drawback to localities, other than those in Northern
Virginia, has been the lack of authority to fund a transportation district independent of the locality, and the
reliance on VDOT to fund projects. In the State at this time VDOT is not funding projects so he thinks it is
an option localities will be looking at seriously. Last year the Fredericksburg area explored the same issue
and asked the General Assembly to allow them to impose a two-percent gasoline tax if they formed a
transportation district. That request was not successful; he understands they have not pursued it further in
light of that denial. He said Spotsylvania County is trying to form a much smaller transportation project;
they are forming a special service district and will try to fund that out of property taxes.
Mr. Wyant asked if the Fredericksburg request was denied because the General Assembly was
looking at the nine VDOT districts in the State.
Mr. Davis said there was another piece of legislation that actually proposed to create nine service
districts that had gasoline taxing authority within each of those, and that bill also was defeated. The
Northern Virginia Transportation District is actually a transportation district which ranges from Stafford
County to Fairfax, and it was created back in 1980 primarily to fund the mass transit system in Northern
Virginia. It was expanded to other projects. He said transportation funding is going through a state of flux.
Everyone is looking for alternatives, but to date there have not been a lot of options provided by the State
that would allow localities to deal with transportation issues.
Mr. Wyant said a problem in forming a district with the City is that all would have to agree on what
projects would be funded.
Mr. Davis said there is a process that is codified that has to be used to create a transportation
district. If a multi-jurisdictional district is formed, the City and the County would have to agree to create it,
they would each have to hold a public hearing and adopt an ordinance, they would have to appoint
members to a commission that would form the transportation district’s governing body. That governing
body is an independent political jurisdiction from either the City or the County. There is a process which
must be used to identify and agree on projects within the transportation district. They have to share those
with each of the jurisdictions in the district as well as with the Commonwealth Transportation Board. There
would still be a process to identify and fund projects even after a transportation district were formed.
Whether or not it would be beneficial for this Board to determine if there is agreement on those projects
before forming a transportation district is something this Board needs to examine.
Mr. Dorrier asked if an argument could be made that this is just another layer of government, and it
really does not provide the benefits needed.
Mr. Davis said it is definitely another layer of government, but it may or may not have advantages to
create it. The counties have not been able to get taxing authority for a gasoline tax to fund local
transportation projects. If the County could get the authority to impose a gasoline tax, there are funding
advantages to forming a transportation district. The other advantage for a multi-jurisdictional transportation
district is that money can be pooled to build projects regionally rather than just focusing on projects within
your own borders. In some instances that may be advantageous to a regional transportation system.
Mr. Rooker said in reality the County has a number of projects which are crucial to the
transportation needs of this area and there is no funding in sight from the State. Even if State transportation
funding is enhanced, he does not see those projects which have been approved in the County’s 20-year
plan getting funded anytime in the next decade. Most of those projects have regional transportation
implications. An example is the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange. That is a $20.0 to $25.0 million
project and if it is not built, the Meadow Creek Parkway and Route 250 Bypass will function worse than the
day before the Meadow Creek Parkway is opened. He said there are other projects that have regional
transportation implications such as, the Southern Parkway, the Eastern Connector, etc. There are other
improvements which came from the 29H250 Study such as adding a lane from Hydraulic Road down to
Route 250, adding a ramp on the 250 Bypass, etc. Those projects might be done through a transportation
district. He is suggesting that the Board not “put our heads in the sand.” The Board has an obligation to
recognize the needs and to try and find creative solutions to get them done. He suggests that when the
Board meets with City Council on November 11 that this concept be discussed with Council.
Mr. Rooker said a transportation district is probably the only way the County can join with the City to
fund projects that affect both jurisdictions. He does not think the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange,
which is a project totally with the City, can be built solely with County money. He cannot see the City
funding the Southern Parkway which is entirely within the County. If there were a regional transportation
idea with a funding mechanism on which all agreed, that may be the only way to approach regional
transportation projects that will not get funded by the state. He thinks this Board should join with the City on
the legislative request. It would only be asking the Legislature to provide a funding mechanism which may
or may not be used.
Mr. Boyd said he has a problem with the “chicken and egg” on this. He thinks Mr. Rooker is saying
to establish a funding mechanism and then worry about what it would be spend on. He thinks the Board
should zero in on what roads could realistically be built no matter how they were funded, and then get a
cost on those projects. In regards to a regional district, he does not agree that is the only way the City and
County can mutually fund a project. What is being done with the courts is an example of how the City and
County have worked together without creating some district. He is not sold on applying for a regional
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
planning district until there is some idea about an agreement among the participants about what roads
would be built.
Ms. Thomas said there is a big difference between the Board sitting here and saying it needs a tax,
and the community coming to the Board and saying it wants those projects to move and to give them a
method so they can be built. She said the community does not know what this Board has been discussing
today. She said a number of people recently met with members of the 5C’s Committee. The Committee
strongly urged the Board and others to get an agreement on some projects so the public has a better idea
of what is to become of them. She said a referendum in Northern Virginia failed last year because people
did not have enough trust in where the money would actually be spent. She said the 5C’s Committee thinks
a group of people outside of this Board and City Council should look at the list of projects and see which
ones everyone can agree on, and then bring back suggestions as to how to fund them. She thinks that in
the end they would say a transportation district was needed with taxing ability. The community is a long way
away from saying that. If the Board goes forward with a proposal in the legislative program to have a
transportation district, simultaneously there should be agreement to forming a community committee to
look at whether that is the way transportation improvements will have to be funded because there is no
other alternative. She said the Board is going to lose unless it brings the community into the discussion.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with what is being said. He is not in a rush to decide on the funding
mechanism. He is in a rush to get something going in this process so the Board is not sitting here at the
same time next year not having taken any steps toward solving what is becoming a more acute need in the
community. Hopefully the Board can meet with the City on November 11 and carry this conversation
further. Perhaps, the two bodies can talk about specific projects at that time. They might talk about
creation of a joint City/County Committee and how it might be composed. The MPO has a 20-year road
plan and there is no way it will be funded.
Ms. Thomas said people talk about the $250.0 million road plan as if that was the price of a wish
list. It is quite the opposite. That amount of money is what the MPO was told to use as a maximum for the
next 20 years. It does not reach the needs of the wish list. The real needs in this community are not limited
to $250.0 million, but it is a larger figure.
Mr. Rooker said initially he brought up the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange, and that is what
got him interested in doing something as quickly as possible. In 2008 construction is scheduled to start on
that road unless funding is pushed back again. Presently it will start construction without any plans for an
interchange at the 250 Bypass which is a real traffic problem and a real cost problem if it is pushed off and
done later. Whatever the Board does, he hopes a decision can be made quickly. He said that CTB
member Mr. Butch Davies has said he will go to bat for the County if it creates a transportation district or a
service district to issue bonds. He would try to get VDOT to put in a third of the money for the servicing of
those bonds. He said that substantially leverages local money. There may be other methods of funding
that will not attain that kind of leverage. He thinks the Board wants to accomplish the most it can with
taxpayer dollars jointly working with the City and VDOT.
Mr. Boyd said he is struggling with Mr. Rooker’s idea that the Board should move forward with the
service district proposal because he is not really in favor of that at this point.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Boyd did not understand what he said. He thinks the Board should go ahead
and meet with the City. The service district does not require legislative approval. It is already allowed.
Then there is the issue of how that service district might be funded. The legislative proposal the City put out
deals with that. If the Board does not want to deal with that now, that is fine with him. He thinks the Board
should meet with the City and further these discussions about a service district.
Mr. Boyd said he is in agreement with that, but he does not want to move forward with any talk of a
funding mechanism. He thinks the key to this is that VDOT will be more receptive to giving more money if
there is agreement as to the projects wanted. Up until this time, it has been his observation that the Board
and Council have never been able to come together on a united front as to what must be funded. He thinks
that should be the focus of the discussion.
Mr. Rooker said that is a misconception. There is a 20-year road program. There is a priority list.
That is a combined City/County plan and VDOT actually joins in that. There is a Six-Year Plan adopted by
this Board for secondary roads. There is everything, but funding. No matter what mechanisms are looked
at, in order to get serious about transportation where up to $100.0 million will need to be raised, at some
point there has to be a funding mechanism.
Mr. Boyd said that maybe the player that was not present in past agreements was VDOT. He has
heard that they did not live up to what was expected of them in the 20-year plan. Forgetting what happened
in the past, at this time there has been some disagreement over the Meadow Creek Parkway and whether
an interchange is needed, and who will fund an interchange. He thinks the Board’s emphasis should be put
on a list of projects everyone can agree to with the City, find out how much they will cost, and then work on
the funding. He was going to talk about this when the Board got to the subject of the CIP, but he is looking
at the CIP and the County is dumping millions of dollars into projects that are already at a high satisfaction
level, things like building libraries. He is not saying the libraries should not be built, but right now there is a
96 percent approval rating for the libraries. There is $6.0 million shown over the next five or six years for
Transportation Matters and he does not know what that means. He would like for the Board to direct the
CIP Technical Committee to look at what might actually be funded. The County is looking at double digit
increases in property values in the next couple of years. The County is looking at an eight-percent increase
in revenues. Does the Board need to start prioritizing where that money is spent? Does the Board need to
say transportation issues are so important that they need to be put on the top of the list and then see how
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
they can be funded without any kind of change in the tax structure?
Mr. Rooker said he does not care how they are funded, but two things need to be kept in mind. A
number of the projects on the 20-year Road Plan were agreed to by the City and the County and they are
either high priority projects for both jurisdictions or multi-jurisdictional projects, so a funding mechanism
needs to be found that involves both jurisdictions. Second, a funding mechanism is needed that can issue
bonds. Third, a funding mechanism is needed that VDOT will agree to in order to partially service those
bonds so the County can leverage its money. As long as those things are kept in mind he does not care
what mechanism is used. He thinks that all possibilities should be examined to find the best one.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has a timing issue. If whatever the Board decides to do requires that
some type of mechanism be approved by the General Assembly, that legislation only enables the Board to
do something. If something is not put in for next year’s legislative session, then it must wait another year.
Simultaneously, the Board could start working on the projects which might be funded (the MPO has already
outlined a lot of the projects). It does not look as if the General Assembly would approve a transportation
district or a gasoline tax, but assuming they did, the Board would then decide if it wanted to use the gasoline
tax or just redirect funds in a different direction.
Mr. Boyd said he is afraid that if the Board starts moving in that direction the community’s focus
would be on the tax issue as opposed to what roads are needed.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board should take a specific project such as the Meadow Creek
Parkway interchange and decide on that issue alone instead of taking 15 issues on at one time.
Ms. Thomas said that was the issue which prompted the original memorandum from Mr. Davis as
to the Board’s options which led to this discussion today. It turns out that the County cannot give money to
the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange all by itself. There are three ways that the County and City could
work together on this project.
Mr. Dorrier said the cost of all the needed projects around the City amounts to an astronomical
price.
Ms. Thomas said she agrees and thinks it would be better to focus on a few projects on which there
is agreement. It would counter VDOT’s feeling that an agreement is never reached which is not fair
because the MPO has had agreements for years. In terms of reading the newspaper, one would think that
an agreement is never reached. She thinks enabling legislation for a transportation district would be good,
but she does not think the General Assembly would ever give the County the ability to tax in a transportation
district without it first holding a referendum. Whenever they have given taxing authority to local
governments in recent years that has been their model. If the Board puts off trying to get enabling
legislation for a year in order to get a better feeling in the community that this is the direction desired, in the
long run that may save time. She hopes the Board does not have to do that, but if that is what comes out of
the discussion with Council, she thinks that in the long run there would be a much smoother process.
Mr. Dorrier said this Board will have to agree on the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange before it
goes to the City.
Mr. Boyd asked if there are any solid cost figures for these projects.
Mr. Rooker said there is no way to get a solid cost on any project without spending some
engineering money to create a design for the project.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the City had done that.
Mr. Rooker said the City took some money out of the Fontaine Avenue project to try and get
engineering work on the interchange.
Ms. Thomas said prior to that the person who was designing McIntire Park as a recreation area
drew some things and that is why people assume things.
Mr. Rooker said there is a huge difference between preliminary estimates for projects built around
the state compared to their actual cost. It comes about after the actual engineering work starts, and the
cost of materials has gone up.
Mr. Boyd said he understands that, but at least there is a budgeted number.
Mr. Rooker said once some engineering work was done on an interchange, that number could be
tied down. Every project is going to have a good range until there is some engineering work. There is no
money in the County’s Six-Year Road Plan for the Southern Parkway (Fire/Rescue has written the Board a
number of times discussing the necessity of that roadway) because VDOT has never agreed it can be built
as a secondary road project. That area is growing, and it is not adequately serviced by fire and rescue
because there is no connector road between Avon and Fifth Streets.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Rooker is getting to the point. A budget needs to be established and to him the
sequence would be to determine what projects the Board wants to do, get some idea as to the costs, and
then work on the funding mechanism.
Mr. Rooker said he does not care how the Board goes about this. He does think the Board needs
to recognize that there is going to be a cost and the funds have to be found somewhere. He thinks the
Board should find a way to issue bonds, leverage the County’s money and do it multi-jurisdictional.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this Board wants to contribute to the share of funding of the Meadow Creek
Parkway interchange. He thinks the Board needs to decide that first.
Mr. Rooker said the Meadow Creek Parkway interchange is in the 20-year road plan. It is in the
City’s jurisdiction area. Rather than pick out just one project and decide whether to participate in its’
funding, it would be his recommendation to go through the process, have the meeting with the City on
November 11 and talk about these projects. Perhaps the two bodies can come up with a list at that
meeting of the projects that might be included in a multi-jurisdictional effort. That is just Step 1 of 15 steps.
Personally, if the Board takes Step 1, he is in favor of doing something multi-jurisdictionally. Second, he
thinks there should be agreement on a list of projects. Also, he thinks the idea of a community committee
is a great idea.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought the MPO was supposed to be the joint City/County vehicle for this sort of
thing.
Ms. Thomas said they are, but there are times when they think not enough of the community is
involved.
Mr. Bowerman said most people do not know what the MPO is, what it does, or what it
recommends.
Mr. Rooker said the members of the MPO have discussed this at the last four or so meetings, and
the members of the MPO, City/County/VDOT, all have indicated that they are interested in moving forward
with a multi-jurisdictional mechanism to fund some of these projects. He and Ms. Thomas are bringing that
idea to this Board in advance of the meeting with the City so hopefully something concrete can be
accomplished at that meeting.
Mr. Boyd asked if the MPO has a priority listing of road projects.
Mr. Rooker said it is a 20-year plan, and projects have to be listed in that plan before they can be
put into the six-year plan. The six-year plan has a list of projects which have funding allocated over a period
of time. Then there is the secondary road list which is prioritized. But there are 86 projects listed, and there
is no funding for anything below 12.
Mr. Boyd asked if the MPO has ever sat down and decided whether to do a few $10.0 million
projects, or just this one $50.0 million project. That is the real question in his mind.
Mr. Rooker suggested that Mr. Boyd look at the six-year plan which is on the TJPDC’s web site.
There are different funding pots of money. There is primary road funding, bridge money, enhancement
road projects, etc. Someone asked at a meeting why improvements were being made to Court Square and
that money was not being spent on a road. The answer is that the money came from an enhancement
grant fund and that money could not be used for a road project such as the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Boyd said he knew that, he was just using that as a joint effort between two groups where
money was brought together.
Mr. Rooker said the six-year road plan is actually given to the MPO by VDOT. The MPO goes
through it, but only has limited influence over the plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if the MPO is the mechanism needed to narrow down that list to a buildable
number of projects.
Mr. Tucker said the quickest process is to use the MPO. They have studied this .
ad infinitum
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board could request that the MPO come up with a short list of projects.
Mr. Tucker said that is an alternative.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Ms. Thomas’s idea is at some point wise. It would be helpful and it might
be after the MPO creates the recommended list.
Mr. Tucker said the Board could then focus on a certain number of projects rather than on the 20-
year list.
Mr. Rooker said a committee which included a member of this Board and a member of Council
could then be created, with representatives of several other groups in the community to look at the funding
mechanisms.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Bowerman said that is the key. He thinks this Board can now go forward with meeting with the
Council and talk about these issues. He thinks Mr. Davis has given the Board a list of ways in which it can
act, but he thinks there needs to be a short list the City and County will agree on. He thinks a transportation
district is a good thought, but there is nothing else the Board can do today.
Ms. Thomas said the reason she is in favor of some community committee being formed early
rather than late is partly because of some of the questions asked today. She said it is really an arcane skill
to be on the MPO. The print almost requires a magnifying glass to determine the funding source, where it is
coming from, how much it is, and then to know the implications of that funding. There are implications
based on whether it is State or Federal money. She said they have spent years honing these skills, but
somewhere along the way they lost the community which thinks the MPO is not doing anything. They have
spent hours in meetings. She thinks the earlier a citizens committee is involved, the better. There has been
a citizens committee working for two years on what the projects should be but not the funding because they
were assuming the continuation of VDOT funding.
Mr. Dorrier suggested setting up a blue ribbon committee with a member from the 5C’s Committee,
the League of Women Voters, and some transportation people and a couple of members of this Board.
Mr. Rooker suggested talking this over with the City on the 11th because it needs to be a joint
approach. He said there is an MPO meeting on the second Monday of each month.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a consensus among the Board members to recommend a blue ribbon
committee to Council.
Ms. Thomas said the Board is supposed to let VACo know if it wants to put in a request for enabling
legislation for a transportation district. If the Board does not make a decision until after the joint meeting
with City Council, it will probably be too late to add it to VACo’s list.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board would still have time to go to the General Assembly.
Mr. Tucker said it could be requested of the County’s legislators. It just would not be part of
VACo’s list.
Mr. Davis said he does not know if the Fredericksburg area is asking for that legislation to be
introduced again this year. It they do, Albemarle could ask to be joined to that request.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9b. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Brent Sprinkle, Acting Resident Engineer, said it is VDOT’s goal to have the Six-Year
Secondary Road Plan approved and into VDOT’s Central Office by the end of the calendar year.
__________
Mr. Sprinkle said an issue came up recently having to do with the Airport Extension runway project
on Route 606 and Route 743. VDOT’s traffic engineering staff will review that again. He sympathizes with
the issues that have been brought to VDOT and he hopes to come to a quick resolution and move forward
with the project.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked about the proposed completion date for the Airport Road project. Mr. Sprinkle
replied that it should be in late summer/early fall of 2005.
__________
Ms. Thomas said there is a Route 250 West Advisory Committee appointed by this Board. She
wanted to be sure Mr. Sprinkle acquainted himself with them, and met with them. The contact for that
committee is Mr. Juan Wade, the County’s Transportation Planner.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned that there is an ongoing concern about the entrance from a proposed
development on Route 250 West being called White Gables. She asked that VDOT work with the
neighbors and developers about that entrance. Mr. Tucker said the property is directly across from
Birdwood Golf Course. Mr. Rooker said the idea was to have a joint entrance for the two projects with an
internal road in front.
__________
Ms. Thomas said this Board took an action on the Faulconer Construction appeal that requires
Faulconer to work with VDOT to find some solution.
__________
Mr. Wyant said he has some engineering issues with drainage and sight distance. He asked that
someone contact him so he can ride around and look at those issues.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10a. Existing Infrastructure Cost Share Policy: Sun Ridge Road Improvement
Project (continued from September 1, 2004).
__________
Agenda Item No. 10b. Existing Infrastructure Cost Share Policy: Key West Dam Repair Project
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
(continued from September 1, 2004).
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said this item was last discussed by the Board on
September 1, 2004. At that time, the Board asked staff to look into policy implications surrounding the
expenditure of public funds on these projects and to consider alternatives and a basis for cost-sharing with
the residents who made the requests. He said that in both cases the facilities needing repair/replacement
are on properties previously dedicated to public use, but which were never accepted by the County for
maintenance, repair or replacement. For this reason, they are unique projects. That makes them different
from requests that might come to the County where the land was clearly private land, or the maintenance
on that property was clearly intended to be private maintenance.
Mr. Foley said that rather than dealing with these requests as a policy issue of the Board, staff feels
it is appropriate to deal with these two projects based on the facts in front of the Board. In the future, should
the County get requests to take over private roads, staff would present some criteria for Board
consideration for taking over those roads. Staff did a lot of research with other localities as part of making
this recommendation. He said this may not be as broad of an issue as was presented to the Board
previously.
Mr. Foley said as to the request concerning Sunridge Road, staff feels there was a clear intention
that this road be turned over to VDOT after it was upgraded to meet VDOT standards. Unfortunately, at the
time of construction of this subdivision the road was not built to state standards. He said there is right-of-
way for the project. For that reason, staff feels the County should participate at a high level with public
dollars to bring the road up to state standards. In the September 1 executive summary, staff listed several
ways in which this project might be funded. Staff feels the County should proceed with this project, either
with County funds, or through pursuit as a Rural Addition project.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much funding would be needed. Mr. Foley said $75,000 is needed for
Phase II so that both phases could be done together; that is a total of $150,000. The Board previously
approved $75,000 for this project. He said it is important to note that additional land beyond Phase II was
also dedicated to public use, but has not been discussed. Because no request has been made regarding
this property, the Board may want to consider abandoning the right-of-way on the property beyond Phase II
to avoid additional expense in the future.
Mr. Bowerman said it is clear the Board should abandon the right-of-way beyond Phase II. He
thought the Board took action to do that back in 1999. Mr. Tucker said it was not done.
Mr. Foley said if the Board is going to move forward with this project, staff wanted the Board to be
aware that the action taken today should include abandonment of that right-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a drainage structure in Phase II that goes down to Wakefield Road.
Mr. Foley said he thinks something exists, but has not been maintained.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that structure is in the public right-of-way. Mr. Foley said that is his
understanding. He said if the Board indicates its intent to do this, staff will follow up with a list of actions to
be taken.
Mr. Bowerman said he would encourage the Board to approve this request.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this situation can be prevented in the future by having a road bond. Mr. Foley
said all projects are bonded now; this situation began over 30 years ago.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff can assure the Board that this is really a unique situation. This situation
sounds the same as a situation at the West Leigh Lake dam.
Mr. Foley said he had noted in the executive summary that staff does not know how many situations
of this type are in the County at this time. They do not think it is common, but there may be some that could
come up in the future. These circumstances are so unique it is not possible to determine any particular
number in the same situation. He would not be surprised if others popped up.
Mr. Wyant said the quicker the Board moves on this project, the less costly it will be because road
construction companies will soon be shutting down for the winter. He envisions this as putting down stone
and base, and then next spring it would be in line to be paved.
Mr. Foley said staff had been coordinating with VDOT on this project. It has been waiting for a “go
ahead” from the Board.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve staff’s recommendation to
appropriate an additional $75,000 for completion of Phase II of the Sunridge Road project and to abandon
the remaining right-of-way beyond Phase II of the project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Foley said staff sees the situation with Key West dam as being different from that at Sunridge
Road. Although the property was dedicated to public use, neither VDOT nor the County intended to take it
over for maintenance, repair or replacement. That is clear from the record. For that reason, staff feels it is
reasonable to approach the residents with some type of a cost-share request. In the staff’s report, there are
some alternatives listed for the Board to consider. There is no strong objective basis for saying what the
cost should be. Staff has said there could be a percentage cost-share based on what the Board feels is
appropriate for all current or ongoing costs. That would include any repair, maintenance, replacement
today and in the future could be based on a percentage determined by the Board. Also, it might be limited
to just the residents’ share of the ongoing maintenance costs. That could be one hundred percent of the
residents’ responsibility.
Mr. Foley said the capital costs for the repair (which the Board gave direction on previously based
on the engineers’ alternatives) was about $350,000 annually. Ongoing maintenance costs are expected to
be between $2,000 and $5,000 per year. He said everything could be shared with the residents, or the
residents’ share could be limited to just maintenance costs on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Dorrier asked the staff’s recommendation on draining the lake. Mr. Foley said at the
September 1 Board meeting, staff had recommended that due to many obstacles, draining the lake may
not be the best solution. That might be the subject of litigation by some of the property owners around the
lake. There was a question about whether a Federal Wetlands permit would need to be obtained. Also,
there are residents there who are opposed to draining the lake. That is still an alternative, but at that time
the Board said to go forward with Option #3 which basically called for repairing the dam according to the
engineer’s recommendation.
Mr. Rooker said he understands the lake is not needed for stormwater management. Basically, it is
a visual amenity and the residents want it to remain because it is an amenity. Mr. Foley said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd said there is some mixed thinking on that question. He has met with the residents. He
said he needed a clarification of the stated maintenance costs. He asked if the cost given is for
maintenance of the road, or using $2,000 to maintain the dam. Mr. Foley said that amount is just for
maintenance of the dam. The residents have already said they intend to continue maintaining the road.
Ms. Thomas asked the value of the dam to the residents who are not affected by the possible
break in the road to their house. She understands that all of the houses that look at the lake are not
affected by the lake. If the Board were to divide up the $350,000 cost, it would be affecting people who
might say “breach the dam.” There are people who live around the lake and she wonders if there is some
way to bring those people into this cost-sharing situation.
Mr. Foley said the engineers looked at the cost of this not being a dam and returning it to a stream.
The cost of that was about $50,000 less.
Mr. Wyant said that structurally the conduit under the roadway must be fixed.
Mr. Boyd said he is interested in what the County Attorney will say since there are not even
collective contributions paid at this time to maintain the road. All of the people who live on the road do not
contribute to maintaining it. He has met with the people who own the property in the pond and they have no
interest in participating financially with maintaining the road. He does not think the County has any
mechanism to force this on anybody.
Mr. Bowerman asks if there are people whose property fronts the lake who are not part of a
maintenance agreement.
Mr. Boyd said most of the people whose property fronts the lake are not part of it.
Mr. Davis said a voluntary association was formed in the 1980s to pay for the road maintenance.
Most of the property owners, but not all, who live on the part of the road which is beyond the dam are
members. It is a voluntary association and they executed an agreement with the developer saying they
would maintain the road. The County is not a party to that agreement and could not enforce that
agreement if it was breached for whatever reason. The County has no ability to mandate that anyone
contribute to this project, with one exception. The County does have the authority to form a service district
for transportation improvements and for the dam improvements. The County has the ability to draw that
line in any reasonable way to provide enhanced services at the dam for the residents who benefit from that
dam. The drawback to that strategy is that the only taxing ability the County has for that service district is a
property tax assessment. In order to collect enough money to fund a $350,000 capital project, the rate
would be fairly significant based on the limited amount of assessed value that would be within that district.
The County could collect the money over a period of time. It is possible for the County to front that money
and have that service district pay back a portion of the cost over a number of years.
Mr. Rooker asked if a service district could be charged with the maintenance costs for both the dam
and the road. Mr. Davis said “yes.” However, staff has viewed the road as being a separate issue.
Mr. Rooker said the classic problem of “free riders” is involved here. The County is talking about
repairing the dam itself, but there is the road across the top of the dam, so there is a connection between
the two. At its recent retreat the Board talked about stormwater funding. It talked about the level of
stormwater projects it wants to have in the County and it looked at funding mechanisms to achieve those
projects. He asked if this project could be included in an overall stormwater district for the County. This
would then be just another stormwater project rather than it being solely for one neighborhood. If the Board
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
is talking about creating a countywide service district for the purpose of funding stormwater and
groundwater projects, why not include this project?
Mr. Foley said he thinks staff would probably suggest that funds from the existing Stormwater Fund
be used. In the future, revenue for that fund might be generated in a different way. If another project like
this came along, would the Board want the cost to come out of that fund if it were unique or should there be
some type of cost-sharing? If the Board decides it wants to classify this one like any other stormwater
project, usually there is no cost-share on those projects.
Mr. Rooker said he understands that. However, if the County set up a service district, that area
would be cost-sharing in this project, and all other projects.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that is what the Board should do in the long-term, but it will take some time
to set up that structure and decide on funding, etc. He asked if 51 percent of the people in a service district
have to agree to its formation. Mr. Davis said “no.”
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board could just arbitrarily include in that service district the people who live
around the pond, and the people who live on that road. Mr. Davis said the Board could reasonably define
the service area.
Mr. Boyd said he met with the residents there and he thinks it is an unfortunate situation that no one
wanted to happen. He was interested that staff compared this situation to that in Hollymead. There, he
guesses VDOT will maintain the road across the dam. In that case, it was done to accommodate the traffic
flow, there was no health reason or safety reason. In the case of Key West a precedent will be set in
assuming the costs and the responsibility of that repair. He is fiscally conservative when it comes to
spending County money, but he thinks this is a case where the County needs to do this for the people in
that subdivision. He said there are 19 people involved in the road association and they are willing to
continue to maintain the road. He does not see any practical way to do a cost-sharing. He liked Mr.
Rooker’s thought for the long-term, but would like for the County to pay for fixing the health and safety issue
that exists there. Trees on the dam are falling down frequently. He does not want there to be a school bus
on that dam should it collapse, or children using the road to get to the pool. On the downside of the lake is
the road that feeds into the swim and racquet club.
Ms. Thomas asks what his recommendation will do for the ongoing costs of maintaining the dam.
That is a separate issue.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think it will be that expensive, and maybe it can be put under the same
stormwater management. Mr. Tucker said the cost would come out of the Stormwater Fund anyway.
Mr. Boyd said once the dam is repaired and properly constructed, it is hard for him to imagine what
will be necessary to maintain the dam.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the underground culvert will be replaced. Mr. Foley said that will be part of the
CIP project. Properly maintained, it is not expected that it would require maintenance for a long time. He
has suggested that if the property owners take on maintenance, it be done through the County so the
County can assure that it is done right.
Mr. Boyd said no matter how this came about, the Board is dealing with a health and safety issue
should that dam break. He said the Board had originally discussed draining the lake, but he found that
there are numerous ecological problems involved with that solution.
Mr. Dorrier asked the cost of this repair.
Mr. Foley said it is estimated at $350,000.
Mr. Boyd said that number is based on a 20-percent contingency. Mr. Foley said that figure was
developed by the engineers who looked at the dam.
Mr. Davis said that also assumes the additional portions of the dam outside of the 50-foot right-of-
way will be dedicated to the County.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a mechanism in place now to assure that the road is maintained. Mr.
Tucker said “no.”
Mr. Boyd said there is a road association which has 19 of the 23 property owners participating.
They do have requirements that anybody who buys a house will be forced to join the association and pay
their dues. Mr. Davis said it is based on an agreement between that association of 19 property owners and
the original developer. If they fail to maintain the road, the County has no way to go in and require them to
do it.
Mr. Rooker asked if as a part of this the County can be given a right to enforce the road
maintenance agreement. If the County is going to spend the money he would like to be sure there is a
mechanism for making certain the road remains in good repair. The reason for spending this money is
primarily for the safety of the road. That was the pitch made; that is the health, safety and welfare concern
raised. He said that Mr. Boyd has indicated that ultimately he will support a countywide service district. To
his mind this kind of thing should be taken care of in a countywide service district for stormwater. However,
there is no such service district in place at this time and maybe this is an acute problem that needs to be
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
solved now.
Mr. Bowerman said this is a private road.
Mr. Rooker said that is right and he would like to do this contingent upon there being something put
into place of a legal nature that assures the County the right to enforce the maintenance obligation to the
road.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks the dam is more important than the road. If the dam had been
maintained, it wouldn’t be an issue.
Mr. Rooker said the County is assuming the obligation to maintain the dam, but he would also like
to make sure that the road (which is the whole reason why the Board is spending the $350,000) is
adequately maintained.
Mr. Davis said if they agree to it, the County could enter into an agreement with them that they
would have an obligation to maintain the road. That would require those property owners who individually
signed that original maintenance agreement with the developer to enter into a new agreement with the
County. The other side of that argument is that the County has no obligation to maintain that road. The
only people who would be at a disadvantage if they do not maintain the road, are those people.
Mr. Rooker said one of the big arguments had to do with the people who use the road across the
dam to go to the club, and the school buses which use that road. The club has no money to contribute to
anything according to their presentation. He would like to make certain the County has a mechanism in
place to enforce road maintenance. He assumes that if the Board makes this contingent upon that, there
would be a great incentive by the 19 people to enter into a more formal agreement that assures road
maintenance.
Mr. Tucker said the safety issue is with the dam. There is not necessarily a safety issue in the road.
The County will be maintaining the dam to assure that people can still get across the dam to get to a
recreation area. For the people who use the road, if they do not maintain the road they are hurting
themselves.
Mr. Boyd said the club is a participant in the road association; they do pay to maintain the road.
Mr. Tucker said if no one participates (as Mr. Davis just said), just like any other homeowners
agreement the association would have to take those people to court.
Mr. Rooker said he thought Mr. Davis said the only potential enforcer is the developer who is not
even there any more. Mr. Davis said that is correct, and the people within their own association. They have
their own obligation to each other, and their obligation to the developer.
Mr. Rooker asked if any party to the agreement can enforce it. Mr. Davis said they can enforce it
themselves.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Boyd to approve Option 3, as recommended by staff, to improve
the Key West Dam, but not to upgrade the Key West Drive for VDOT acceptance, level control structure
with riser and trash rack ($347,000), as a County project with ongoing maintenance to be County
responsibility as well, at no cost to the residents. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Davis said he wants to bring the Board’s attention to an issue that is referenced in the memo.
Based on the information staff has at this time the entire width of the dam is not within the 50-foot right-of-
way to which the County has rights. The County may have to acquire an additional easement or right-of-
way for the full extent of the dam in order to do the repairs necessary.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to make this contingent on the homeowners donating to the County
the right-of-way necessary to do the work and provide future maintenance. Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Rooker said he does not want the County to have to buy property.
Mr. Boyd said that is not one of the options stated in the executive summary, so he wants to be sure
his motion is done right. He restated his motion to approve Option 3, as recommended by staff, to
improve the Key West Dam, but not to upgrade the Key West Drive for VDOT acceptance, level control
structure with riser and trash rack ($347,000), as a County project with ongoing maintenance. This should
be contingent on the homeowners donating to the County the right-of-way necessary to do the work and
provide future maintenance. Mr. Rooker agreed.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
(Note: At 11:00 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:11 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Appeal: ARB-2004-057. Kia Signs, Tax Map 78, Parcel 9.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Ms. Margaret Maliszweski, Planner, said this item is part of a larger proposal to install new signs at
the Kia automobile dealership on the Route 250 East entrance corridor. The part being appealed relates to
the monument style sign consisting of an illuminated cabinet on a base. The ARB Guidelines, both the
recently adopted guidelines and the previous set of guidelines, address the issue of material selection for
the base of monument signs. In this case, the ARB determined that brick was the appropriate material for
the base of the sign. Brick is found in the building on the site; it is found in other buildings in the immediate
area on the entrance corridor. As illustrated in Attachment B to the executive summary, there are
numerous monument signs in the area that have brick bases that support cabinet signs. The ARB also
indicated that the base of the sign should be proportional to the cabinet. The ARB did not specify the shape
or the style the base should reflect. She said the conditions related to the material and proportion of the
base are in line with the ARB’s Sign Guidelines and the recommendations for affirmation of the ARB’s
decision including all of its original conditions of approval.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Jerry Halfant was present to represent Price Kia. He said Mr. Ben Foster, President of
HighTech Signs, is also present. He said that in June, 2004, they opened Price Kia on Pantops having
moved from the City. They have invested approximately $3.0 million getting that old Chinese restaurant
and eyesore converted into a modern new car dealership. They have created 20 new and full-time jobs for
the citizens of Albemarle County. As an officer of Price Kia’s parent company, Price Chevrolet, located on
Route 29 North, they are aware of the many zoning requirements. For 36 years they have tried to be good
corporate citizens. They agree with the importance of presenting an architecturally pleasing frontage. He
said they accepted all of the ARB’s and staff’s recommendations except for the issue of the freestanding
Kia sign. He said he has an untrained eye and does not think that trying to link a modern oval corporate
logo provided by Kia with a grid face matching the building achieves the best appearance for the entrance
corridor. He asked Mr. Ben Foster to come forward and talk about sign alternatives.
Mr. Foster said he would like to talk about aesthetics. He agrees with the intent of the ARB to this
particular guideline. He said than whenever possible, they try to make a sign that has certain elements of
the building reflected in the sign so there is a harmonious appearance. Sometimes that is not possible. In
this case, it is a franchise operation and the franchise determines how their sign should look. He said they
have to work with what they have got and not what they would like to have. He said this is a mid-twentieth
century building which has been restored. He then showed to the Board pictures of a sign (which is oval
with chrome and aluminum and which has a base of the same type of materials). He also showed other
representations of the sign with the base made entirely of brick, and partially of brick. He said this would
create a monstrosity that would not coordinate with itself, let along with the building. He thinks the sign
needs to be coordinated within its own right, and not mix materials. He said the appearance of the sign will
be much better if the sign is coordinated and not discordant. He said there are precedents for signs in front
of brick buildings which are not brick. He thinks in this case the main consideration should not be based on
a precedent, but what the sign looks like.
Mr. Rooker asked if the pictures of the sign presented today were seen by the ARB. Mr. Foster said
the ARB saw the sign he recommended.
Mr. Rooker said the ARB then did not see the comparison between the signs. Mr. Foster said that
is correct.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board is only dealing with the representation of the first sign which shows a
metal base. Mr. Foster said that is correct. The choice is between the sign on the first page (metal base)
and the second page (all brick base).
Mr. Rooker asked about the sign on the third page which shows a partial brick base. Mr. Foster
said he thinks that one is also a bit of a monstrosity. He is open to suggestions. He would like the sign to
look as good as possible.
Mr. Rooker said the goal of the entrance corridor guidelines is to try and create some consistency.
Mr. Foster said one of the other problems is the shape of the sign. The third representation
overcomes the problem with the shape. The other problem is the texture of the material; a course brick
material and a very sleek sign on top of that. The two things do not go together well.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Foster had said they are limited by what the franchiser will allow. He asked if the
third sign would be approved by that franchiser. Mr. Foster said he believes it would.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the guideline objected to is that the sign is not in conformance with the building.
Mr. Foster said the guideline says it is a guideline. It does not say the sign shall be a certain thing.
Mr. Wyant said he was looking at the landscaping that will be put into place on that site. He asked
if that will not screen the bottom of this sign. Ms. Maliszewski said it may screen the very lowest portion of
the sign.
Mr. Rooker referred to Attachment D of the executive summary (a set of pictures for other signs on
Route 250 East) and said that all of the bases of those signs can be seen. Personally, he thinks the third
option presented today looks fine.
Mr. Foster said if the third option is used, he would like to recommend that instead of making the
base brick it be made of concrete. There is plenty of concrete in the building itself, and he thinks it would
look better. He has an objection to brick, chrome and aluminum all going together. He said number three
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
with a concrete base would probably look okay. He could shape it to make it look better. There is no way
to shape a base made of brick.
Ms. Thomas said she is thinking of the corridor as a whole, and the frequent use of brick in places
where the company logo is on top of it. She is also looking at the building itself which is a combination of
the white, and the silvery and the brick. That building, more than other buildings has a combination of
materials, and she thinks this would be appropriate.
Mr. Foster asked how the Board would feel about using white concrete brick to match the building.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board has the ability to pick representation 2 or 3. Mr. Davis said the
ordinance allows the Board to affirm, reverse, or modify the recommendation of the ARB. The Board would
just be stepping into the shoes of the ARB.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there are not bricks which are rounded that could be used for Number 3.
Mr. Foster said he would be willing to try that. He said there is a problem in this county with getting a brick
mason to build any sort of a brick base. They want to build shopping centers, not work on small projects
such as this. Sometimes, he has a practical objection to brick. Assuming that he can get a brick mason,
they can try to make a brick base. It is easier to make a concrete base and shape it as desired.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think that would achieve what the ARB is trying to achieve in terms of a
consistent look. Virtually all the car dealer properties on Pantops have a brick base associated with their
sign. He thinks the ARB is trying to achieve consistency of look up and down the corridor. He thinks the
third option is a nice-looking sign with a low profile brick base. He thinks there might be rounded bricks
placed on the corners and with the plantings on the property the base will not be highly visible.
Mr. Foster said he can go along with that suggestion.
Mr. Rooker said he will propose modifying the ARB’s conditions to require Number 6 but specifically
require something that is consistent with the third option presented by Mr. Foster. If he wants to shape the
brick, that will be okay.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is not exactly what it says in Recommendation No. 6. It just says to remove
the chrome base and put in a brick one.
Mr. Rooker said he seems to be amenable to building this option.
Mr. Boyd asked if the motion deleted No. 6.
Mr. Rooker said he did not say to delete No. 6, but to add to it that the sign will be built in
conformance with the third option presented by Mr. Foster today. Mr. Davis suggested labeling that drawing
as “A”. Mr. Rooker said to say it will be consistent with drawing “A” and that the bricks may be rounded on
the corners.
Mr. Boyd gave second to the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Board affirmed the decision of the ARB by a vote of 6:0 including all of its conditions of
approval, with a modification to condition #6. All conditions are set out in full below.)
1. Revise the Price cabinet sign to individual channel letters mounted to the wall.
2. Revise the designs of the cabinet signs for the Kia wall sign, the Parts and Service wall sign,
and the freestanding sign, to indicate opaque backgrounds and non-illuminated rings.
3. Revise the Price sign location to be centered over the door, with a maximum letter height of
eighteen (18) inches.
4. Revise the Parts & Service wall sign location to be centered over the door.
5. Revise the sketch plan to show a freestanding sign size that is coordinated with the sign size
shown on the design drawings. Show that the sign will fit between the five (5) foot setback and
the edge of the landscape bed. Show the five (5) foot setback measured from the property
line.
6. Regarding the freestanding sign, remove the ten (10) foot base. Provide a brick base that
matches the brick of the building and that is proportional to the cabinet, that fits within the
setback, and that is in conformance with Drawing A presented at the meeting of the Board of
Supervisors on November 3, 2004. Brick used in the base may be rounded at the corners.
7. The Kia wall sign approval is based on the drawing with the dimensions, not the photo display.
8. The box sign for the Kia wall sign is acceptable if there is three (3) inches of clear space above
and below it.
_______________
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Agenda Item No. 12. Virginia Department of Forestry, Presentation by Nelson J. Shaw, Area
Forester. (Note: This item was moved to the Board’s agenda for December 1, 2004.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. TJPDC Draft Legislative Program.
Mr. David Blount, Legislative Liaison, was present. He said that when he was present in September
he said the program would need a little tweaking. He has attempted to do that with the other localities. He
said a few of the action items in the program have been substantially revised. The issue of transportation
funding has been moved up in priority. The changes made to the car tax reimbursement program which
have an impact on localities have been addressed.
Mr. Blount said the first item he will mention related to funding for Standards of Quality. It
recognizes the action taken this past year by the General Assembly to take a greater responsibility for
funding prevailing practices but includes a new statement asking that the state avoid any additional
maintenance of effort requirements. There was discussion in other parts of the state and some
disagreement by some legislators as to how the localities used the additional education money
appropriated this past spring.
Mr. Blount said the second area is transportation. It asks that transportation be a funding priority.
Also, the question of a transportation district is addressed. It simply asks the state to recognize that any
such district created serve as a supplement and not a replacement for state transportation dollars.
Mr. Blount said the position on CSA is similar to that taken in the past. The state is being asked to
realistically fund CSA and asks that capital and local expenditures be in place for high cost placements.
Mr. Blount said as to tax structure and reform, it is urged that any additional changes to the tax code
not reduce local government revenues or taxing authority. It also supports revenue neutrality. There is the
ongoing discussion about telecommunications tax reform. There is also a statement embedded within
about the car tax reimbursement program. It urges the State to fix the mess that was created this past
spring. It has been recommended by another locality that that position be pulled out and made its own
position and moved to the top of the priority “heap.” What the Board has before it now is an expansion on
the brief paragraph that was listed under “tax reform.”
Mr. Boyd said he has been reading about this in the newspaper and is struggling with the statement
that this is just a tax flow problem for the localities to deal with. He asked if the General Assembly
members have any idea what a serious cash flow problem this has created.
Mr. Tucker said staff does not believe they understand the problem created. He said the Board has
adopted a resolution, and will also be discussing the problem with area legislators in December. The issue
really gets down to what the auditors will accept. It is not standard practices to do what some legislators are
saying the localities can do.
Mr. Boyd said cash flow and accruals are not the same thing. They do not know what they are
talking about.
Mr. Davis said it may be more than that depending on how the General Assembly funds it. There is
some disagreement as to whether the locality will get the money, even late, for the first half of the Calendar
Year 2006. As VACo and VML have read the Act, the localities will not get that money.
Mr. Rooker said it has been his concern that there is not just a timing problem, but an actual six-
month hold.
Mr. Boyd said the State would never catch up on their payments. He said to him this is a serious
problem and he can’t understand how the Legislature can say for the locality to just adjust its books.
Mr. Blount said the information from the state is coming in a memo from the Chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee saying that because localities in Virginia use an accrual system of accounting
they can book the revenue in FY ’06 even after it is received, hopefully within the first 45 days of FY ’07.
Mr. Boyd said that does not help cash flow.
Mr. Blount said if there is a finite pot of $950.0 million, there will always be a shortage of funds
because they will not have addressed the issue at the end of FY ’06.
Mr. Boyd said he has never been to a VACo Conference. He wonders if there will be time to
address this issue.
Ms. Thomas said she is a member of the Finance Steering Committee that will be addressing this
issue. She was not able to attend an earlier meeting of the committee so Mr. Melvin Breeden represented
the County. That was useful because they had someone present who had been working with finances for a
number of years. She said they are convinced it is just an accounting problem.
Mr. Tucker said the difficulty the County may be having with this is that there are only 40+ localities
in the same position as Albemarle. That does not help in trying to get the attention of the Legislature.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Blount said only those localities which have split billing for taxes are affected. Localities which
bill taxes only in the fall are not affected. The paragraph now includes elements of VACo’s position in terms
of asking for the money; should that not occur, it asks for the authority back. He said VML’s position was
approved the first of October and it does not ask for the authority back should the money not be
appropriated. It asks for the money to be appropriated in FY ’06 and that timely reimbursements be made,
and also makes the statement that borrowing to cover “the hole” is not an option.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is anything in the legislative program requesting an adequate public
facilities act. Mr. Blount said that is listed under “Land Use and Growth Management.” It reads: “We
support enabling legislation that would provide local governments with various additional tools, such as
impact fees, flexibility for proffers, adequate public facilities ordinances, and transfer and purchase of
development rights, to manage growth.”
Mr. Blount said there are a couple of other changes he would like to mention. First, under
“Standards of Quality Funding” the City has requested adding a statement stating: “The state should
consider including a poverty factor such as free and reduced-price lunch when apportioning education
funding.” He said this is unique to the City right now. The formula that drives the composite index now
includes population, enrollment, property values, taxable sales and income. The City feels that because
the cost-of-living in Charlottesville is higher, there are probably more people in poverty than there would be
in other localities. The Board can accept this statement or not.
Mr. Rooker asked if this would just be included as one of the factors. Mr. Blount said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has thought for a long time that there are a number of things in the
formula which should be changed. One is the revenue sharing funds that Albemarle County pays to the
City. Another is the property that Albemarle County has in land use taxation which according to the state is
being counted as full subdivision value, and in fact, it is not.
Mr. Blount asked if it would be appropriate to expand that list.
Ms. Thomas said if the recommendation is to change that formula, these two items should also be
included. She thinks the people in Richmond do not want to change the formula even if it is flawed.
Mr. Boyd asked if Albemarle is unique in the case of revenue sharing.
Mr. Blount said he defers to this Board as to whether to include an expanded list or no statement at
all.
Mr. Rooker said if it is to be included this Board would like to include the other two items. The
Board is fine with leaving it as it is, or including an expanded list that includes all three.
Mr. Blount said the only other change is to insert another bullet under “Environmental Quality.”
Louisa County has requested a statement reading: “The state should provide funds from DEQ to promote
regional solutions to improving water supply.”
Mr. Tucker said today staff is requesting approval of the draft legislative program with the
amendments Mr. Blount just presented. Staff also asks that the Board identify two or three requests from
the list to be emphasized with the area’s legislators. Instead of just giving them a list of 25 requests, staff
feels it is better to focus on just two or three.
Ms. Thomas said she would move that the Board’s priorities be the requests for car tax
reimbursement and transportation funding, plus approval of the TJ Planning District Commission’s draft
legislative program with the changes just discussed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Blount said he still has to present this draft program to other localities. He will send the Board a
copy of the final 2005 TJPDC Legislative Program, with the changes suggested by this Board reflected in
that final version. He also noted that on November 22, which is the Monday before Thanksgiving, there will
be a luncheon at the TJPDC’s office at 12:15 p.m. with the legislators. Invitations have been mailed.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has a meeting scheduled with area legislators on December 7 at 3:00
p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Tax Relief for Elderly and Disabled Program, Discussion of.
Mr. Richard Wiggins, Director of Finance, said during the Board’s work sessions on the FY ’05
budget, it approved an increase in both the income and asset limits for the Tax Relief for the Elderly and
Disabled Program. Additional FY ’05 funding was approved by the Board in the amount of $125,494, to
allow the limits to be raised to $30,000 in allowable income and $90,000 in allowable assets. The current
ordinance provides that income cannot exceed $25,000 and net financial worth cannot exceed $80,000. He
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
said that in December staff will ask for the Board’s formal approval of those limits, however, today staff
would like to discuss a couple of alternatives as to how those limits could be administered.
He said the Board has at least two options:
?
It can revise the current sliding scale. Income and net worth limits can be increased to $30,000 and
$90,000, respectively, and a corresponding adjustment can be made to the scale currently being
used to establish the amount of exemption based solely on the applicant’s income (see Attachment
A to the executive summary). The advantage of this system is that it is easy to administer and
explain to taxpayers. The disadvantage is that it does not take varying levels of net worth into
consideration when calculating relief percentages.
?
Adopt income and net worth matrix. Income and net worth limits can be increased to $30,000 and
$90,000, respectively, and a matrix can be developed taking into consideration both income and
net worth limits to determine the amount of exemption (see Attachment B to the executive
summary). Several jurisdictions in the state, including the City of Charlottesville, use this type of
matrix. The advantage of this system is that varying levels of net worth are considered to determine
the relief percentage. This will become more critical if limits are increased in the future. The
disadvantage is that it is slightly more complicated to administer and explain.
Mr. Wiggins said staff recommends that the Board use the income and net worth matrix
(Attachment B) to determine the relief percentages for the new limits that were approved last April. With
Board’s approval, the matrix will be incorporated into the ordinance that will be advertised for the Board’s
approval in December. The ordinance would take effect with the January, 2005 tax year.
Mr. Rooker asked if any localities using the method on Attachment B have had complaints about
the complex nature of determining the amount of tax relief. Mr. Wiggins said he does not know the answer
to that question. This method would be slightly more complicated for staff to administer and slightly more
difficult to explain, but not unreasonably so.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is a difference in cost to the County between the two methods. Mr. Wiggins
said the $125,494 budgeted for this ordinance was based on the first method. He said if the second
method is used, the actual impact on the County would be slightly less.
Mr. Rooker said if the other localities using the matrix are not having any trouble with people
understanding when they qualify for this tax relief, then he has no problem with the ordinance.
Mr. Boyd said it is stated in the executive summary that this is a fairer application of the program.
Mr. Wiggins said that comment is based on the fact that people at lower net worth levels will be receiving a
higher percentage.
Mr. Rooker said that is not in actual dollars. On the existing table a person who has less than
$90,000 in net worth qualifies and then it is just a matter of looking down the income table to determine the
percentage of relief. On the matrix, a person with $90,000 in net worth will not get as much tax relief as they
would have using the old table.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks people with incomes at the bottom of each of the brackets will feel the
effects of the change more.
Mr. Robert Walters said the average person who comes in to check on this ordinance does not
have any concept of what the different percentages are. They just come in to apply for tax relief.
Mr. Rooker asked if they have to fill out a financial statement. Mr. Walters said County staff helps
them put together the necessary financial information.
Ms. Thomas asked if a lot of work is involved in determining whether someone had a net worth of
$90,000 or a net worth of $80,000. She asked if staff feels there are enough people involved to start
making that distinction. Mr. Walters said it does not create a problem for staff. Part of the intent in using a
matrix is in consideration of the future. Staff feels the Board will have continuing pressures to increase the
amount of net worth and income. There are some state limitations on what those limits may be, but the
County can still increase those figures further.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks it would be easier to work off of the old charts. Mr. Walters said staff can
refine the matrix to make it easier to read. Actually, staff just “plugs” figures into the computer to make the
determination.
Mr. Boyd said he did not think the matrix is more difficult for someone to use than the current chart.
If it were published in the paper, it might be difficult for someone to determine if they qualified for the tax
relief.
Ms. Thomas said that today someone with $90,000 in net worth and income of no more than
$21,000 would get 100 percent relief, but using the new matrix they would only get 60 percent relief.
Mr. Rooker said that actually today the figures are $80,000 and $16,000. The Board would actually
be increasing the number of people who qualify.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Dorrier asked for a motion to approve Attachment B.
Mr. Boyd moved to accept Attachment B as the methodology for tax relief. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. FY 2005 First Quarter Financial Report.
Mr. Richard Wiggins gave a PowerPointe presentation of the report. He said staff is estimating
revenues of $163.003 million for FY ’05. Expenditure appropriations for the fiscal year stand at $162.767
million. This means that staff is anticipating a better than budget performance in the current fiscal year of
approximately $236,000. He said that at this time there is only four months worth of data for this fiscal year,
so a lot of the revenue numbers are conservative based on just parcel information. On the expenditure
side, only appropriations are considered. Staff has not been asked to estimate what their year-end
expenses will be. That information will be provided to the Board next spring.
Mr. Wiggins said he would like to mention some revenues which are performing better than
budgeted. For real estate, the January 1 assessment will increase about 17.5 percent. The budget was
built on a 15 percent increase.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff believes the increase might top more than 17 percent. Mr. Wiggins
said staff is still finalizing assessment figures. Based on some antidotal information he has heard from the
County’s real estate department, it might be higher than that.
Mr. Wiggins said sales taxes, business licenses, meals taxes and utility taxes are all expected to be
higher than estimated. However, there are some revenues which are coming in under budget. The
principal one is in personal property taxes where the value of personal property is less than expected. Most
of this came from the NADA values given for used cars. That is affecting other local taxes such as the
PPTR reimbursement from the state. He said that as of July 1, 2005, the preliminary fund balance is
estimated to be $3.755 million (see details on Attachment C to the executive summary). This is above and
beyond the $13.0 million the County holds for reserve. Add to that figure the $236,000 mentioned before,
and an end-of-year FY 2004-05 Fund Balance of just under $4.0 million is projected.
Mr. Wiggins said staff is recommending that the Board continue to hold these funds. He said the
$236,000 figure is historically small versus what has been seen at other times in the first quarter financial
report. Last year, at the end of three months into the fiscal year, staff projected a better than budget
performance of over $3.0 million. Also, as discussed last month, the uncertainty of the PPTR
reimbursement results in the recommendation that these funds be held.
Mr. Boyd drew the Board’s attention to the figure for transfers to the Capital Fund (Attachment A).
He said it is increasing each year by about $2.0 million. He wants to ask the Technical Committee about
the priority for spending those funds. There are some bonds which are dropping off, but there are other
bonds scheduled.
Ms. Thomas said it has been the Board’s discipline to transfer those funds into capital funds; that is
how the County got its Triple A bond rating.
Mr. Boyd said he knows about the formula the Board worked on with Davenport. He still wants to
look at the priorities for spending. He thinks the Technical Committee needs some directions from the
Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. FY 2004-05 Revised and FY 2005-06 Estimated General Fund Revenues
and Preliminary Budget Guidance.
Mr. Wiggans said he will begin by addressing revenue projections for the FY 2005-06 Budget. He
made a PowerPointe presentation, copy of which is attached to the executive summary. He said an
increase in General Fund revenues is shown from the current FY ’05 budget to the staff’s preliminary
estimate for FY ’06 of almost $13.7 million. Most of that is in the property tax category. That is projected to
increase by almost $10.0 million or a 9.6 percent increase. He said all of these figures are detailed in the
bulk of the report. He then showed a series of bar charts giving information about how County revenues
have grown over the last six or so years.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said she would explain staff’s recommendation as
to how the money should be spent. The preliminary estimate of the FY ’06 local tax revenue increase is
$12,531,944 over the FY ‘05 appropriated budget amount. Subtracting a payment of $1,760,737 for the
City-County Revenue Sharing Agreement leaves net projected local tax revenue of $10,781,207.
Ms. White said there is a formula developed by Davenport & Company for committed expenditures.
That is how revenues are dedicated, to wit, debt service and CIP expenditures @ 7.1% of revenue growth or
$1,171,778; Capital Reserve funds at one-cent of tax rate or $133,029; and one-half percent point of net
new revenue growth to the CIP or -$28,344 (reduction based on fact that last year this was an eight percent
figure, but this year this starts at 7.1 percent). Initially, $300,000 was allocated to the Board’s Reserve Fund
with $147,455 being allocated for the Tax Relief for the Elderly & Handicapped program so subtracting the
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
total non-departmental committed expenditures of $1,619,555, leaves a balance of total available FY ’06
net new tax revenues of $9,161,663.
Mr. Boyd asked the balance in the Capital Reserve Fund now. Ms. White said it is a small balance;
she does not know the exact figure. She said that reserve fund has not been refurbished this year because
no end-of-the-year revenues have been put into that fund yet.
Mr. Rooker noted the allocation of $1.276 million to Capital Outlay and Debt Service. He said the
Board just spent one-third of that amount today. Also, decisions made this past year have hit the CIP for an
amount close to that in total.
Ms. White said that is not part of the reserve, but is used for the increase in debt service and also
the pay-as-you-go expenditures. A big part of the County receiving the Triple A bond rating is that it has
about 34 percent of the CIP funded out of current revenues. That is very high compared to a lot of other
places around the state and nationally. To keep that up requires that the County have a good ongoing
source of revenues.
Mr. Boyd said he knows the Capital Reserve Fund was set up after receipt of the Davenport report.
He asked if that is truly an emergency fund, or is it used regularly. Ms. White said it is used regularly. She
said there are a couple of functions to that fund. One is that end-of-year revenues are put into the fund,
and it is used for increased costs that come about because of escalation in prices after the budget is
finalized.
Ms. White continued with her presentation. She said the last part has to do with the allocation of
net new local tax revenue available for operating programs, 60 percent ($5,496,998) is allocated to School
Division operations and 40 percent ($3,664,665) is allocated to General Government operations for FY
2006. She said that last year the School Division received $6.7 million, and General Government received
an additional $4.5 million.
Mr. Boyd asked if the number given for last year included the extra money that came in late. Ms.
White said it did not, these figures are for just the initial allocation.
Ms. White said there has been discussion about dedicating one-cent off of the top of the tax rate.
She showed a chart (on file in the Clerk’s Office) to show how that would affect the figures just discussed.
She said that instead of the Schools getting $5,496,998 they would get $4,812,993. Instead of General
Government getting $3,664,665 they would get $3,208,662.
Ms. Thomas said some citizens have proposed doing away with the Land Use Program. That is
about a $9.0 million assessment. She asked if the rollback tax had been separated out. Mr. Walters said
the County gets between $175,000 and $200,000 each year from rollback taxes. Ms. White said it is not a
large number and has been included in the information before the Board today.
Mr. Rooker said the County pays the City based on the full assessment. Ms. White said that is true.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Rooker was saying that revenue sharing is not based on actual test
questions, but is based on assessed value. He did not know that.
Ms. Thomas said it is supposed to be comparative in the sense that it would be possible for the City
to pay the County revenue sharing. She wonders if the figure being projected for the payment to the City
takes into account the fact that their assessments have gone up about 30 percent.
Ms. White suggested that Mr. Melvin Breeden explain what is happening this year.
Mr. Bowerman said it is the lesser of the two, and ten cents on the tax rate is less than it would be
by the other formula the County has to use. It is a maximum of ten cents on the tax rate.
Mr. Breeden said there is about a two-year delay in the data that goes into the formula, so the
increase this year is really the result of the 2003 reassessment. When the chart he was showing was
produced, the number was based on taking the tax base for 2003 and using ten cents of that tax base which
came out to $9.765 million. Since then, staff did a calculation based on all of the data being available, and
next year for only the second time in 20+ years, the actual number will be $50,000 less than the $9.765
million. The result of that comes somewhat from the City’s sales/ratio study which was down a little from
what it had been in the past, and they have also reduced their tax rate by two cents. The local tax effort
comes into play in the revenue sharing formula and the City’s effort went down a little, so they get less
money.
Ms. White said it is a little unusual, since it is only the second time that has happened. Mr. Breeden
said if the question was whether the County would ever get any money from the City, the answer is “no.”
Mr. Rooker said one penny on the tax rate is supposed to represent $1.140 million, but this says
that ten cents on the tax rate is $9.765 million. He asked if the explanation for that is that it was computed
on a lag. Mr. Breeden said the ten cents is calculated on the total tax base. The $1.140 million is from
other tax calculations for the actual amount of tax collected based on collection rates, and percentage
collections. The County does not collect one hundred percent of taxes billed.
Ms. White said when looking at revenues, sometimes it looks like a substantial increase but there is
8.7 percent growth, and staff has to consider some known costs in the future. When it comes down to net
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
available revenues, it is a different picture. She said if departments were given a base-line increase of three
percent and agency increases of three percent were given, it would bring down that final figure to $592,864.
She said staff knows there will be increased operational costs from the 800 MHz radio system. There is
nothing included in these figures for affordable housing, and nothing is included for landfill commitments.
She said staff recommends that the Board approve the preliminary FY ‘06 allocation of local revenues to
the Capital Improvement Program in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the financial
advisors and to the School Division and General Government funds for operating costs.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the preliminary FY ‘06 allocation of local revenues to
the Capital Improvement Program in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the financial
advisors and to the School Division and General Government for operating costs.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Northern Fire Rescue Services, Update.
Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire and Rescue, said he and Mr. Fred Huckstep, volunteer chief of
Earlysville Fire Department, are present to give an update on several items related to fire/rescue. One has
to do with the new northern fire station and another has to do with daytime career staffing at the Earlysville
department. He said when they started this project they wanted to provide a high level of service into the
Hollymead planned development area by using a combination of volunteer and career personnel. He said
it is a growing area and at this time response times are longer than desired. Another benefit would be
reduced ISO ratings for residential and commercial buildings in the area. This would also provide the
secondary fire response to the lower portion of Route 29 when the City/County contract ends in 2010. Also,
the vision of this project is to develop an organizational physical structure that supports a combination
system. He said staff has a different approach to some of the construction in order to take advantage of the
University community.
Mr. Eggleston said as to staffing, some goals were established in the initial part of the project, they
were to insure 24-hour, seven day-a-week coverage at the new northern station as well as the current
Earlysville station. He said it takes the response of multiple stations to address a house fire or a major
incident. Staffing recommended would supply enough for fire engine and ambulance personnel, and they
would also provide ALS services for that area. He said they are working with Earlysville to recruit 35
additional volunteer members for the northern station. So far 12 people have been recruited, so they are
optimistic at this time. The number of volunteers recruited will have an impact on the number of career
personnel needed. He said Earlysville is expecting a 25 percent increase in calls over the number received
last year. They are expecting about 2500 calls per year when the new station opens.
Mr. Rooker asked for a breakdown between fire and rescue calls. Mr. Eggleston said EMS calls
are normally about 80 percent of the total calls. He said the aging population continues to increase the
number of EMS calls.
Mr. Eggleston said staff performed a critical task analysis to determine what it would take to
extinguish a fire in a 2200 square foot house in the Hollymead or Earlysville area. They determined it would
take 15 total people. This supports staff’s recommendation in the executive summary of keeping the
daytime career staff in Earlysville because they would be an integral part of any incidence response in the
Earlysville and surrounding area.
Mr. Wyant asked if that is the minimum requirement or the optimal. Mr. Eggleston said it is the
minimum. Under new OSHA requirements, there must be someone on the outside of the structure so that
if trouble is experienced inside, backup personnel is available. He said this is an urban type call. If it were
in a rural area and it was necessary to set up a water shuttle with a drop tank, then the numbers increase.
Mr. Rooker asked how many fires of this type are experienced each year. Mr. Eggleston said he did
not have that figure, but in the last month there have been three countywide.
Mr. Wyant said in such a situation, personnel and equipment are called in from other stations. Mr.
Eggleston said that is true. Now, they are seeing stations traveling a long distance, and that is an issue
since time is of the essence. It is a matter of getting people there and getting backup personnel in order to
make the interior attack; that has proven to be the most efficient way to save lives and extinguish fires.
Mr. Wyant said he has talked with Mr. Eggleston about response times which are affected by the
driving time. Mr. Eggleston said in studying response times, staff is trying to pick an achievable benchmark
to get the most people on site.
Mr. Bowerman said initially it was thought the paid people at Earlysville could be moved to the new
northern station. What has been demonstrated is that there is enough call volume to run both stations. Mr.
Eggleston said that even though Earlysville is considered a rural area, there is a substantial amount of
residential housing plus some industrial sites there, and calls have increased by about 50 percent over the
last few years. Staff’s conclusion is that in order to achieve the 15, the daytime people should be kept in
Earlysville.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Rooker asked if this recommendation is adopted, will it become effective when the new station
is opened. Mr. Tucker said “yes.”
Mr. Rooker asked how this impacts budgeting for fire and rescue. He said this year the budget for
fire and rescue has been amended by adding people. He would like to know how far the budget is over the
adopted budget. Mr. Tucker said some of what was approved last month will reduce what will be requested
for next year’s budget. Staff has not worked out all of the needs for the next budget year.
Mr. Rooker said he is concerned because the Board has been looking at these requests
piecemeal. Based on what he has seen so far, it appears to be a good idea, but will the Board get a
different plan for another section of the County next month. When the Board starts working on the budget,
he thinks it needs an understanding of the acuteness of the needs throughout the County with a mind
toward the total amount it is willing to allocate.
Mr. Bowerman said staff has a plan for the entire County.
Mr. Rooker said that is right, and the Board funded the budget last year based on that plan for the
County. What the Board is seeing is that the plan keeps changing.
Mr. Boyd said that is why the Board needs a forecasting model.
Mr. Tucker said the Board controls the standard, and that is what the staff has brought to it today.
Mr. Dorrier said there is also an advisory committee of chiefs. They are supposed to look at the big
picture and give the Board advice and a list of priorities. He asked if that process is working.
Mr. Eggleston said they went through that process for next year’s budget. During this budget
period, Mr. Foley will report on whether the station construction proposals have an impact on service in the
development areas, and the operational impact.
Mr. Wyant asked when the northern station will come on line. Mr. Eggleston said if the project
stays on schedule, it could potentially be in the year 2006.
Mr. Huckstep said that is two years away. The immediacy is that it would have an impact on
planning in terms of the volunteer side.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this has not been carefully crafted over the last three or four years to
maintain the volunteer system with putting in paid personnel in a way that works. That was not an easy
task.
Ms. Thomas asked a question about the breakdown between firemen and EMS personnel. Mr.
Eggleston said volunteers can choose whether they want to do fire, EMS or both. They did not want to
burden volunteers with the cross training, but when career personnel are hired, they will be cross trained.
Mr. Huckstep said the Earlysville Station actually proposed this concept to County staff back in
1997. They have been working with the fire/rescue office for over 18 months trying to make this concept
work. He said Earlysville has had career staff since 1998 and it has been successful. All of the area the
new northern station would serve is currently served by the Earlysville station. They are hoping to get 35
additional volunteers so they have been working with County staff to develop a recruitment plan. Even
though that effort has not yet begun, they have had 12 people volunteer in the last couple of months. A
number of those people already have EMT certification. He said they are restructuring their duty crews in
order to be more efficient with night and weekend coverage. When the new station opens, that same
model can be carried over. He said they are increasing training programs so they are easier for people to
access. Because of the call volume, Earlysville has outgrown its facility. They are planning a building
expansion for the current facility that will not involve any tax funds.
Mr. Dorrier asked what action is needed today.
Mr. Tucker said staff is recommending that the Board adopt the 12 hour per day, five days per
week standard.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has already done that Mr. Tucker said the reason staff brought
de facto.
this back is because the Board did not actually take that action. There was a clarification made for
Earlysville, and although that was the intent, no action was taken for policy purposes.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the standard proposed. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Closed Session.
At 1:10 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board adjourn into closed session pursuant
to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
committees and commissions; under subsection (5) to discuss a prospective business locating in the
County; under subsection (7) to discuss with legal counsel and staff specific legal issues regarding an inter-
jurisdictional agreement; and, under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding
pending litigation.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Closed Session. At 2:21 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the
best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20 and Agenda Item No. 21 will be heard later in the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing: SP-2003-084, Dennis Enterprises - Rio Rd (Sign # 55).
Request to allow car dealership in accord w/Secs 22.2.2.8 & 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning Ord. TM 45, Ps 100,
101 & 101B, contains 2.54 acs. Znd C-1 & EC. Loc on Rt 631 (W Rio Rd) approx 250 ft E of intersec of Rio
Rd & Berkmar Dr on N side of the street. Rio Dist. (This public hearing was deferred from September 8,
2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that on April 14, 2004, the Board conducted a public hearing on this request for
a new car dealership on Rio Road. The Planning Commission had recommended approval with conditions.
There were two basic issues with the request: 1) its appearance from the entrance corridor (the ARB
recommended that the project not be approved based on concerns about design as related to Rio Road),
and 2) the question of whether this use was appropriate in this location. Staff said it did not feel it to be a
compatible use in this area due to nearby residential and commercial properties. The Board deferred this
request in order to allow the applicant time to address those issues. (Note: Ms. Thomas returned at 2:24
p.m.). The applicant has gone to the ARB and presented a new plan and rendering of the buildings they
plan to construct.
Mr. Cilimberg drew the Board’s attention to a copy of the rendering which was posted on the wall
along with a copy of the most current plan which is referenced in the conditions staff recommended for
approval if the Board decides to approve this special use permit. He said the plan no longer shows storage
on the very rear of the property adjacent to the mobile home park. Basically, the petition is back before the
Board, and the ARB has now indicated that it is an acceptable use in terms of the design. They provided
conditions, which have been included in the conditions staff provided.
Mr. Cilimberg said the issue of whether this is a compatible use has not been addressed further.
That is an extremely difficult question to address since the use is what it is, an automobile dealership.
However, from an ARB design standpoint, it now has the ARB’s endorsement as a use which is acceptable
in that entrance corridor.
Mr. Rooker asked if there are any proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said this is a special permit request, so
everything is covered in the conditions recommended. Staff has recommended 10 conditions should the
Board decide to approve this request; those conditions incorporate the things recommended by the ARB, as
well as the carry-over conditions from the Board’s last consideration of this request.
Mr. Rooker said there was a proposal by the applicant that the site would not be served by tractor
trailers, etc. He asked if staff had thought about that offer. Mr. Cilimberg said that was not incorporated
into the recommended conditions.
Mr. Rooker said one of his primary objections to using Rio Road for an intensive use is the kind of
vehicles that would be serving the site. A number of vehicles currently take a shortcut from Georgetown
Road to Hydraulic Road. The County’s biggest school complex is located in the area, as well as very
intense residential development. He said the applicant mentioned in his letter that they would be willing to
offer not to have tractor trailers servicing the site. He asked if it is feasible to request that the applicant also
instruct all vendors to service the site from Route 29 as a condition. His biggest concern is the additional
heavy truck traffic servicing the site. He asked staff for some guidance on that question. He said the
applicant has indicated that the type of use he intends to have would not require the site to be serviced by
tractor trailers. Assuming he is willing to do what he proposed in his letter, that should be combined with a
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
condition that the applicant require vendors servicing the site and trucks generally to come off of Route 29.
Mr. Bowerman said that would be a hard condition to enforce.
Mr. Rooker said since they do not need tractor trailers, the applicant may be willing to accept a
condition that the site not be served by tractor trailers and 18-wheelers.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not think it is that big of an issue.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks it would be impossible to deliver by tractor-trailers to this site because
there is not the turning radius needed to turn around internally, so they would have to park on Rio Road.
Mr. Rooker said he just wanted to flush that out before the Board voted.
Mr. Cilimberg said it might be worth clarifying with the applicant that if such a condition were
imposed, parking on Rio Road could not be utilized for unloading vehicles. That has become an issue on
Route 250 East at those auto dealerships.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this is a public hearing.
Mr. Davis said this was advertised as a public hearing, so the Board should open the floor for a
public hearing.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Kelly Strickland said he is with Rivanna Engineering and is present to represent the applicant.
He listed the criteria set out in the Zoning Ordinance for review of a special use permit. He said there have
been four hearings before this Board and the Planning Commission concerning this request. They have
also appeared before the ARB twice. He said the staff’s comments in the original staff report are still the
same today. Their recommendations for denial were based on: 1) there was a unanimous
recommendation by the ARB for denial; 2) in regard to the Neighborhood Model, the site development plan
did not show enough relegated parking; 3) an adjacent property to the north was a residential use; 4) the
area in the Comprehensive Plan is characterized as a transitional area; 5) the use proposed is high
intensity; and, 6) in approving this request it would create a precedent to creep high intensity uses into the
Berkmar neighborhood.
Mr. Strickland said they have addressed each of these reasons. They revised their site plan and
put 20 feet of landscaping across the front of the site; they reduced one row of display parking, so now have
one row of display and one row of customer parking; they have created a different buildingscape and
adjusted the site plan trying to make it look more in harmony with adjacent properties. The ARB liked the
site plan, but would like to have the site plan come back to them for review of the architecture. They
unanimously recommended approval of the special permit. The ARB discussed the question of whether
the use is appropriate in the entrance corridor at its meeting on September 7. Several members felt it is
appropriate in this particular entrance corridor.
Mr. Strickland said relegated parking was addressed by moving one row of display to the back.
Also there are many problems with the site. One is that it only has 150 feet of frontage. It is a narrow
amount of frontage with an access that needs to be shared with the next door user. The site has a 10
percent slope making it difficult to access the front of the site, develop something and have a use below.
This actually accommodates that by having a separate use at the back on the lower level as a service area
while creating a showroom and display on the front of the lot. It is a large site which is oddly shaped. It has
a creek running through it. There are many problems to developing the site.
Mr. Strickland said as to adjacent residential uses, on Parcel 173 there is a trailer park. It is also
adjacent to Colonial Auto Center. There is an auto rental dealer adjacent. There is an area on the site
which the applicant proposes to leave densely wooded. Where the neighboring highway commercial uses
have no buffer at all, they are proposing a minimum of 50 feet down to the creek so as not to disturb the
trailer park. In addition, this is the fourth hearing with the Commission and the Board. He is not aware of
any adjacent property owners coming forward with any comments or problems with this proposed special
use permit.
Mr. Strickland said the area is shown as transitional in the Comprehensive Plan. He said it is clear
in the Neighborhood One section of the Comprehensive Plan that Berkmar Drive is the line, and the
transitional area is on the other side of Berkmar Drive to Woodburn Drive. This particular site lies directly in
the center of the largest Regional Service area in Albemarle County. Under regional service, auto
dealerships are listed as an intended use. This use is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
recommendations. He thinks the special use permit is intended to mitigate circumstances of adjacent
businesses and uses.
Mr. Strickland said as to this being a high intensity use, they feel the use is less intensive than many
uses allowed by right. Referring to Mr. Rooker’s earlier comments, he said that condition is still one of their
conditions. Any condition they have submitted so far would still apply to the site. They are happy with all of
the conditions in the ARB letter, and the Planning Commission. Being a high-end automobile dealership,
they would not anticipate having at a maximum, three cars at a time coming into the site. There would be
no need for a tractor trailer to deliver into this site. As to the intensity on the site, this is a small-scale, high-
end use auto dealership. It is not intended to be high intensity.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Strickland said there are some uses nearby and across the road which have been in the area
for a very long time. He does not think approval of this request would allow high intensity uses to creep into
the Berkmar neighborhood, and it would not create a precedent. There are many uses in the Berkmar
Crossing development which are more intense than what they propose, particularly with all the conditions
and limitations which have been added to this special use application.
At this time Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said he was probably the person who spoke out the strongest against this request.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it was equal opposition expressed.
Mr. Rooker said he wonders whether this use combined with all the conditions and a requirement
that the site not be serviced by tractor trailers, and that no tractor trailers can be parked in front of the site,
would result in a more appropriate use for this site than things that are allowed as a matter of right under C-
1 zoning.
Mr. Bowerman said it is still an automobile dealership and that is his primary concern on an
entrance corridor. He said all of the other entrance corridors (Route 250 East and Route 29 North) have
dealerships for both new and used cars, and there is one on Avon Street and one on Route 250 West, but
there are none located off of either Route 29 or Route 250. He has a strong desire not to see that happen.
It is a policy question for him about the use, regardless of how it is mitigated. He thinks the ARB conditions
have gone a long way toward mitigating the use. His is a policy question, and he can’t get away from that.
He will continue not to support the request, and the applicant is aware of his opposition.
Ms. Thomas said the applicant is indicating that the real limit to high intensity development is
Berkmar Drive. They are picturing that the high intensity is actually one block deep off of Route 29 instead
of being right on Route 29. She asked if that changes Mr. Bowerman’s thinking.
Mr. Bowerman said “no.” He said that even on the east side of Rio Road, there is the possibility of
having a use like this and it would not even be in the entrance corridor. He said the County has tried to
keep anything other than commercial or residential off of Rio Road. This goes all the way back to when he
was a member of the Planning Commission. They were very concerned about the transitional use, and no
matter what is done to this request, it is still an automobile dealership. He does not think it is appropriate in
that area on either side of Rio Road off of Route 29. Even though the entrance corridor is all along Route
29, his point is that they are all located on primary highways. He respects the decision of the other Board
members in terms of their thinking about this use.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a U-Haul operation on Rio Road on the other side of Route 29. He thinks
this would be less obtrusive than that operation. The façade presented shows it will not be a large car lot.
He thinks the number of cars on this road will be relatively small compared to the number of cars on the
property right behind it. This use will be less intense than what is already on Route 29. He thinks the
applicant has done everything he can to make the building conform to the area.
Mr. Wyant said they are calling for stripped parking places on the site, so that will make the parking
spaces look different. Normally, they put cars on the site, bumper-to-bumper and door-to-door, so it is a
stacked look. This one will be required to park the cars in actual parking spaces.
Mr. Rooker asked if there are any statistics on the number of cars coming to a dealership of this
nature versus the number of cars coming to a restaurant, hardware store, or some of the other uses
allowed by right.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it would probably be a lot less.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Mr. Bowerman about minimizing the intensity of uses, and that is
part of the special use permit process. He is concerned that the Board might “shoot itself in the foot” by not
approving this request and end up with a by-right use where conditions cannot be imposed and have
something that has a heavier footprint traffic-wise and is less attractive. He is afraid the Board might end up
standing on a principle which he agreed with at the last meeting, but does not want to stand on principle and
end up with something that violates that principle. The principle is to try to create something that has a
reasonably low impact on the land and the traffic conditions. If this was a rezoning, he does not think he
would support the request. But, it is zoned C-1, and he is concerned that there could be a use by-right on
that site that has a bigger impact on the site than this request does with all the conditions imposed.
Mr. Bowerman said he respects Mr. Rooker’s point, but with him it is just an issue of an automobile
dealership off of Route 29 or Route 250. He thinks the ARB and the applicant have successfully mitigated
the use in terms of its visual impact. Also, the conditions limit some of the intensity that may be there. He
has a difficult time doing that off of Route 29 on Rio Road which has the transitional use. He is obviously
not going to prevail.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to share with the Board members something he picked up from the
master planning which is taking place on Pantops. Citizens asked why Albemarle is creating the “motor
mile” on Route 250. All along there are car dealerships and they do not feel that is good mixed use. They
do not think the Pantops area is a good place to encourage more traffic.
Mr. Rooker referred to the Colonial Auto Center site and the stacking of cars and the number of
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
vehicles there. He thinks this request is kind of a model for what a dealership should look like. It looks like
an office building fitting into a nice area of the community, instead of something that is overwhelming. The
great value of the special use permit process is to end up with something that looks like that as opposed to
what most dealerships look like. If, with a condition that there be no 18-wheelers to the site and no 18-
wheelers parked on the roads around the site, he thinks he would support the permit request.
Mr. Dorrier said it has 25 parking spaces and a proposed 6000 square-foot display/storage area
and it will not be an intrusive, visual blight on the area. He thinks this makes the best of a situation which
could be bad.
Mr. Wyant noted a statement on the plan which says: “Display and storage areas to serve as
loading spaces.” He asked the intent of that note saying he did not think it is needed. Ms. Elaine Echols,
Planner, said staff did not look at loading aspects. There are still some issues that have to be finalized.
Ms. Thomas asked if the note should be removed. Mr. Davis said it depends on whether the Board
wants to prohibit any delivery of cars being driven on site or whether you just want to prohibit tractor trailers.
If there is going to be any delivery, even one or two cars, they need a space where they can be unloaded.
Mr. Boyd said there might be delivery of things other than cars.
Ms. Thomas said the note does not say “display and storage areas to serve for deliveries”, it says
“to serve as loading spaces.”
Mr. Wyant said normal plans call for a designated loading space. In this case, he thinks they are
talking about the automobiles that will be brought on site.
Mr. Davis said there may be other things brought onto the site where there would need to be a
place for unloading in the parking lot. Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner, said staff did not look at that particular
loading aspect. She was told by Current Development that there are still issues related to loading that need
to be worked out at the site plan stage. If the Board wants to say something about tractor trailers it would
probably be best to be deliberate in that statement and not make anything out of the notes on the plan at
this time.
Mr. Rooker said he suggests a condition saying: “There will be no tractor trailers coming or going
to the site, there will be no tractor trailers servicing the site parked on adjacent streets, and that vehicles
coming and going to the site will not be on a truck.” The intention is that vehicles coming and going to the
site be driven to the site. However, as it is described there will no delivery vehicles bringing cars to that site.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that is a good thing to include. She is trying to picture this site five
years from now when someone else owns and manages it and there are not high-end automobiles
involved. All the conditions needed for a less high-end operation must be included now.
Mr. Rooker suggested saying: “There will be no 18-wheelers or tractor trailers coming and going to
the site, or being parked on the adjacent streets to service the site. Vehicles shall not be brought to the site
on truck.” He asked if anyone has thought of anything else to be added to that condition.
Mr. Strickland said this is a used auto dealership. There will be some disabled vehicles that will
need to come in on a rollback. It will be difficult for him to have an auto dealership and not allow any
vehicles to come in on a rollback.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought the idea was that the Board did not want a lot of roll-offs.
Mr. Wyant said he likes the way the applicant has done the landscaping, he just does not want to
take away from that by having big tractor trailers parked on the road. If the County can handle the tractor
trailers, he would be pleased with this plan.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Davis for suggested wording. Mr. Davis said he would suggest adding
Condition No. 11 reading: “Tractor trailers shall not be permitted to make deliveries to the site. No tractor
trailers related to this use shall be parked on-site or on any adjacent right-of-way.”
Mr. Dorrier asked if a tractor trailer is different from the roll off. Mr. Davis said the tractor trailer is a
truck that would have a separate cab, and typically 18 wheels.
Mr. Wyant asked if this eliminates a car from being brought on site by a wrecker or a rollback truck.
Mr. Rooker said he will make a distinction that for service, cars might be brought by a tow truck,
basically.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a motion.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2003-084 subject to the 11 conditions, those
being the 10 recommended by staff plus the eleventh condition read by Mr. Davis. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Boyd.
Ms. Thomas said she will not vote to approve this permit. She thinks it is still “a camel’s head under
the tent.” She said it is a very attractive camel, but it is still a camel. She appreciates the point that the
Board might be taking an action that it would regret because something worse could go on this site. That is
always the gamble.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan entitled, Application Plan
for Dennis Enterprises – Rio Road, dated 7/24/04 and the elevation and section dated 7/24/04;
2. Vehicles parked or displayed outdoors shall not be elevated anywhere on site (through the use
of racks or other lift devices);
3. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas as per the elevation and section dated 7/24/04;
4. Between the building and Rio Road West, there shall not be more than two rows of vehicles.
One (1) row shall be used for display vehicles; the other row shall be used for customer
parking. The intermittent, incidental parking of customer vehicles in the display vehicle row
shall not be a violation of this condition;
5. All building and sight lighting shall be full cutoff, regardless of lumens. Light levels shall not
exceed 30.0 foot-candles anywhere on site. All site lighting shall be turned off no later than
9:00 p.m., with the exception of the security lighting;
6. The site shall be landscaped to limit the visibility of vehicles, to the satisfaction of the
Architectural Review Board;
7. If the existing large shade trees identified on the plans entitled, Application Plan for Dennis
Enterprises – Rio Road, dated 7/24/04, are removed, alternative landscaping shall be provided,
to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board;
8. Display vehicles shall not display signage, flags, balloons or other similar items;
9. Spaces for display vehicles shall measure nine (9) foot by eighteen (18) foot and shall be
striped. Display vehicles shall be parked in striped display spaces only; and
10. Tractor trailers shall not be permitted to make deliveries to the site. No tractor trailer related to
this use shall be parked on site or on any adjacent right-of-way.
_______________
(Note: The following two items will be heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 23. Public Hearing: SP-2004-0016, Forest Lakes North Swim and Tennis Club
(Signs #23 & 94). Request to allow all Forest Lakes Associates developments w/in Forest Lakes North &
Forest Lakes South neighborhoods to use swim & tennis club amenities of either neighborhood in accord
w/Sec 15.2.2.4 & 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ord which allow for swim, golf, tennis & similar facilities. TM 46B3, P
B contains 8.559 acs. Znd R-4 Residential). Loc on Rt 1721 (1824 Timberwood Blvd) in Forest Lakes
North development. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 18 and October 25, 2004.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 24. Public Hearing: SP-2004-0017, Forest Lakes South Swim and Tennis Club
(Sign #18). Request to allow all Forest Lakes Associates developments w/in Forest Lakes North & Forest
Lakes South neighborhoods to use swim & tennis club amenities of either neighborhood in accord w/Secs
20.4.2.1, 22.2.2.6, 18.2.2.4 & 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ord which allow for swim, golf, tennis & similar facilities.
TM 46B5, P 1B contains 6.552 acs. Znd PUD. Loc on Rt 1670 (1650 Ashwood Blvd) in Forest Lakes South
development. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on October
18 and October 25, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request by Forest Lakes Associates to allow the residents in the Forest
Lakes development (both Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South) to be able to use the two existing
clubs. The Zoning Administrator determined that a special use permit was necessary to accommodate the
various members either club would serve. There are two primary issues related to each club. First, the
issue has to do with the number of additional members and the second has to do with the area that would
be served by that additional membership. The idea is to establish that number so there would not be undue
impact on adjacent areas from operation of either club over the long term.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is actually representing Forest Lakes Associates. Ultimately, the
clubs will become part of the Community Association, and be operated by them. Staff has been trying to
draft a condition that would meet the needs of not only the current operator, but the subsequent operator.
There was a condition recommended to the Planning Commission referring to the number 125 and a
number of different sections of Forest Lakes that could be served. The Commission recommended
approval with the understanding that the condition would be modified as necessary before it came to the
Board. There has been further consideration of the condition by the applicant and by the Forest Lakes
Community Association. Because the Association needs to also be comfortable with the condition, the
applicant is asking that this Board delay action on this request for one month. He said the Board can go
ahead and hold the public hearing today, and allow that condition to be reworked.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Lori Meistrell said she represents Forest Lakes Association. They are in agreement with staff.
She is prepared to answer questions.
Mr. Boyd said he wants to be sure that what will be brought back next month will not change the
context of what is said today.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Ms. Meistrell said it deals with the last two sentences in the recommended condition. There is no
disagreement with the number. They have both agreed to the number, 125. It has to do with the wording
“... if authorized by the owner of the facilities.” They would like to change that wording to say “... contiguous
developments that are added to the Forest Lakes Community Association.” The facilities were built to serve
the residents of Forest Lakes and members of the Community Association, specifically, so they want to
protect that other developments could come in and have use of these facilities.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing.
Ms. Barbara Phasey said she is president of the Forest Lakes Community Association. Due to the
fact that this wording was not presented to them until a late hour last night, they are asking for the deferral
to the December meeting so they have time to consult with their legal counsel on the changes in the
wording. They have no opposition to the 125 units as was discussed when this was presented to the
Planning Commission.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Boyd to defer both SP-2004-0016 and SP-2004-0017 until
December 1, 2004, to allow the Forest Lakes Community Association time to review the wording of the
proposed condition.
Mr. Davis asked if the motion is made on the assumption that there are no other issues for staff to
resolve. That was the consensus.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Public Hearing: SP-2004-0046, Lighthouse Worship Center Inc. (Sign #82).
Public hearing on a request to allow church expansion in accord w/Sec 13.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ord which
allows for churches in R-1 dist. TM 32, P 36E, contains 2.217 acs. 20Znd R-1. Loc at 3349 Worth
Crossing. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on October 18
and October 25, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg this is a request for a special use permit to expand the church facility by constructing
a one-story, detached 50-foot by 100-foot steel building. He said staff has noted in the Executive Summary
that the proposed building makes more efficient use of the church property; there is adequate parking
available on site to address this use; the church will continue to provide a neighborhood service to
surrounding residential areas; and, no unfavorable factors were identified. Staff and the Planning
Commission have recommended approval subject to conditions.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak. There was no one present to
represent the applicant.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one present rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Boyd to approve SP-2004-0046 subject to the three
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in
general accord with the concept plan dated November 4, 2003;
2. The size of the proposed building will be no larger than fifty (50) feet by one hundred (100)
feet; and
3. There shall be no daycare center or private school on site without approval of a separate
special use permit.
_______________
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
(Note: The following two items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 26. Public Hearing: Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District. Periodic review of the
Keswick Agricultural & Forestal District & to consider amending section 3-219, Keswick Agricultural &
Forestal District, of Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3,
Agricultural & Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed ordinance would remove
TMP 63-24, TMP 63-43 & TMP 79-46A from the district, & any other parcels for which a request for
withdrawal is received before the Board acts on the proposed ordinance, would identify TMP 80-169C,
169C1 & 176A as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in the district) &
would continue the district & set the next district review date deadline of November 3, 2014. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on October 18 and October 25, 2004.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 27. Public Hearing: Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District. Periodic review of the
Kinloch Agricultural & Forestal District & to consider amending section 3-220, Kinloch Agricultural &
Forestal District, of Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3,
Agricultural & Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed ordinance would remove
TMP 65-93 & TMP 66-3A from the district, & any other parcels for which a request for withdrawal is received
before the Board acts on the proposed ordinance, would add TMP 66-10G1 to the district, & would continue
the district & set the next district review date deadline of November 3, 2014. (Notice of this public hearing
was advertised in the Daily Progress on October 18 and October 25, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg said when the Keswick A/F District was created in 1986 it originally contained
5223.11 acres. Now it has 6,584 acres. In this renewal process, property owners have indicated that they
would like to redraw their properties from the district. That would bring the total acreage down to 6,391
acres.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Kinloch District contained 1,586.60 acres when it was created in 1986. Now
it has 2,085.97 acres. There are two requests to withdraw land from the district and one request to add
land which will bring the total acreage to 2,096 acres.
Mr. Cilimberg said that both the Planning Commission and the Ag/Forestal District Committee have
recommended that both districts be renewed.
Mr. Boyd asked the impact when people ask to have their land withdrawn from the district. Mr.
Davis said the property still qualifies for land use taxation if it otherwise meets requirements of the Land Use
Tax Ordinance.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearings. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearings were closed, and the matters placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis said the Board received a single ordinance that will extend the life of both of those
districts. A motion to adopt that ordinance is sufficient action on this matter.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt Ordinance No. 04-3(3), An Ordinance to Amend and
Reordain Chapter 3, Agricultural And Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts Of Statewide Significance,
Division 2, Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Section 3-219, Keswick
Agricultural and Forestal District, and Section 3-220, Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 04-3(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2,
DISTRICTS, 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 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2, Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Section 3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District
Section 3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District
CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Sec. 3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 63, parcels 39, 39A, 39B, 40, 42A; tax map 64, parcels 5,
7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9, 10 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 11 12, 13, 13A, 14; tax map 65, parcel 13; tax map 79,
parcel 46; tax map 80, parcels 1, 2, 2A, 3A, 3A1, 3G, 3H, 3I, 4, 61D, 88, 114A, 115, 164, 169,
169A, 169C, 169C1, 174, 176, 176A, 182, 182A, 183, 183A, 190, 192, 194; tax map 81, parcels 1,
8A, 15A6, 15B, 63. This district, created on September 3, 1986, for not more than ten years and
last reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall next be reviewed prior to November 3, 2014.
(10-12-94; 4-12-95; 8-13-97; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(e); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-3-04)
Sec. 3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 65, parcels 7, 7A, 8, 84A, 86, 89, 90, 91, 91A, 92, 93A,
93A1, 94, 94A, 95, 95A, 100, 121; tax map 66, parcels 2, 3C, 10G1, 32, 32D, 32E, 34 (Albemarle
part only), 34B. This district, created on September 3, 1986, for not more than 10 years and last
reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall next be reviewed prior to November 3, 2014.
(11-17-93; 10-12- 94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(f); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 04-
3(3), 11-3-04)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 28. Crozet Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-2003-007) Work
Session, (deferred from August 11, 2004).
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the executive summary which follows:
“On August 11, 2004, the Board held a public hearing on the amendment of 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 and strategies for future
development within the Crozet development area based on the Crozet Master Plan. The Board took public
comment and deferred action to allow staff to address Board comments.
“Specifically, the Board concurred with staff’s recommendation for the CPA to incorporate the
critical elements of the Crozet Master Plan with the exception of the Implementation section. The
Implementation section was not recommended for inclusion because the proposed timing, funding
strategies and policy issues proposed in this section of the Master Plan are currently under review by the
Urbanization Committee established through the strategic planning process. In addition, it was felt that the
items in the Implementation section would need to be considered in the CIP review process this fall. The
Board directed staff to bring back amendment language which reflected this recommendation.
“After the Board’s public hearing in August, staff further considered how to approach this
Comprehensive Plan amendment in a way that reflected the Board’s direction and, at the same time, would
not result in a fragmented Master Plan document that might send a confusing signal as to the relevance of
the information found in the Implementation section of the Crozet Master Plan. To address this, the
proposed amendment to the profile contains language that emphasizes that while funding and timing
recommendations are made in the Master Plan, it is the County’s CIP process which determines just how
much will be committed to capital projects as well as exactly when and how they will be funded. The intent
of this amendment is to establish how the Crozet Master Plan will be used, interpreted and applied with
regard to the Implementation section of the Master Plan. Specifically, text within the proposed Crozet
Profile states the following in the Crozet Master Plan section:
‘As with all elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the Crozet Master Plan is advisory in nature and
sets forth the County’s long-range recommendations for the development of land within Crozet.
Development guidelines contained in the maps, charts and other supplementary materials in the
Master Plan are intended as targets rather than specific requirements, consistent with the advisory
nature of the document. The County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP), based on a two-year
financial cycle, is the final authority for funding policy, including funding level, timing and sources
associated with specific improvements. Although the CIP reflects funding commitments to capital
improvements, the implementation measures outlined in the Crozet Master Plan establish the
fundamental context of need and the desired relationship between population, timeframe and
infrastructure development. Most specifically, the “Costs and Strategies for Funding
Improvements” contained in Section II. “Strategies for Development” of the Master Plan reflect
timing for the provision of public facilities and infrastructure “triggered” by projected population
growth in Crozet. It reflects an attempt to program facilities concurrent with Crozet’s growth, an
important goal voiced by the community in the planning process. The actual programming of
projects in the CIP will be based on the real timing of population growth, actual development activity
that occurs and availability of funding from the sources anticipated in the Master Plan section of
“Costs and Strategies for Funding Improvements”.’
“While staff believes the above language will clarify the implementation information included in the
Master Plan, there is still some concern that including specific dates and amounts in the Comprehensive
Plan will create a public expectation that the County is making a commitment to meeting these dates
without having first gone through the CIP review process. In addition, the dollar amounts shown in the plan
have not received careful review and could vary considerably from what is included. Finally, the Board may
want to consider whether or not this level of specificity is desirable in the Comprehensive Plan. Given these
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
concerns, staff sees two alternatives for consideration:
1. Adopt CPA 2003-07 Crozet Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment which replaces the
existing Land Use Plan Profile for the Crozet Community with the new Crozet Profile
(Attachment A) incorporating the Crozet Master Plan.
- While not removing the fiscal years and amounts included in the Crozet Master Plan,
the changes included in the attachment do clarify that the specific dollar amounts and
fiscal years identified on pages 15-18 of “Section II. Strategies for Development” of the
Master Plan (Attachment B) are dependent on the CIP process and may change at
any time based on that process; or
2. Adopt CPA 2003-07 Crozet Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment which replaces the
existing Land Use Plan Profile for the Crozet Community with the new Crozet Profile
(Attachment A) incorporating the Crozet Master Plan, with removal of the specific dollar
amounts and fiscal years identified on pages 15-18 of “Section II. Strategies for
Development” of the Master Plan (Attachment B).
- In addition to the changes included in the attachment, approval of the above (in bold)
will serve to avoid potential misperceptions regarding the timing and dollar amounts in
the Crozet Master Plan which will actually be determined through the CIP process.
However, all other language in the Plan that identifies the specific projects identified
for implementation of the Master Plan will remain as originally proposed.”
Mr. Dorrier asked if Board members had any questions.
Ms. Thomas said she thought approach number two is what triggered the concern expressed this
morning by more than half of the Crozet Community Association members; they think this would be an
unfunded plan, a plan with no infrastructure increases.
Mr. Cilimberg said he did not hear what was said earlier today. There has been a concern that if
those references are removed from the master plan there would be nothing to even show intent to try and
accomplish infrastructure as growth occurs in Crozet. The reality is that the County’s CIP is what will allow
that to happen in whatever timing is possible.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Association was unhappy with the number one version, or were they most
unhappy with the number two version.
Mr. Wyant said they were unhappy with both. He and Ms. Susan Thomas met with the Association
but there were not many people present at that meeting. They did not feel funding would be coming with
the plan. There was a lot of discussion about both approaches, and they understand each approach. He
said it is the same thing that is being seen nationwide. Infrastructure is always lagging behind.
Ms. Thomas said at least the number one approach recognizes that there is timing that should be
associated with the different projects. She thinks it gives a more realistic picture to remind the Board that
you do not adopt a master plan without recognizing that there will be infrastructure needs. Even if the
people speaking up at that meeting were not totally reassured, it seems to her that is the more responsible
approach.
Mr. Wyant said he has been asking what should actually be in the Comprehensive Plan. There is a
strategic plan and a comprehensive plan, and then there are detailed plans which are referred to. He said
the CIP deals with infrastructure and the dollars needed. He sees no need to “bog down” all of these
reports with details that are just repeated in different forms. Where is the County headed with these master
plans?
Mr. Cilimberg said during consideration of the plan, one issue mentioned were the “triggers.”
Based on when that growth might occur those triggers were put into dollar amounts. He said for the
Community Association that meant a commitment and for the County it meant something entirely different.
The reality is that this document cannot govern the CIP, but it instructs the CIP. The more relevant point is
that it provides a trigger.
Mr. Rooker said the triggers are not tied to growth but to dates. Mr. Cilimberg said they are tied to
both. There is an estimated population shown, and then there are dates which show when certain things
are expected.
Mr. Wyant said the priority chart in the master plan shows the priorities. He said that was not
included in this Crozet Master Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said it just reflects the things which were to be changed.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks the Board needs to think a little more about this before getting into the
next master plan. What will the Board do when the reports on the master plan for the northern part of the
County are received? What will the Board put into the Comprehensive Plan? He would rather take a more
detailed look at this rather than just looking at the plan for Crozet.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the Board can wait. Crozet was the first master plan, and the
Board is just trying to complete it. He thinks it is important to have target dates based upon population
growth when planning for capital improvements. He said it needs to be made clear that these are general
guidelines because in reality there are infrastructure needs throughout the County in areas which have
substantially more population than Crozet is even expected to grow to in the next 20 years. The Jack Jouett
District does not have a library and it already has intense development and population. There are lots of
projects needed throughout the County, and he believes the Board wants to make sure all areas get their
fair share of funds.
Mr. Wyant asked if projects should be shown in the plan by population rather than by years.
Mr. Bowerman said if the Board wants to encourage the population to live in the growth areas, there
has to be a commitment to fund infrastructure. The question is how to go about doing that.
Mr. Rooker said he is in favor of finding some way to move forward with transportation needs. The
stormwater plan will be coming back for some kind of approval. He thinks the targets should be based on
population, not on years.
Ms. Thomas said there is a line item in the CIP for a new southern elementary school, but if the
school population does not grow in that area, then the project would be moved to another year. She thinks
having a particular year is good for the County’s planning purposes and also recognizes there will be
infrastructure needs. She favors the No. 1 approach. She is sorry that some members of the community
do not want any master planning if it can’t be more precise. The Board cannot be more precise in the
amount of money it can come up with, and she does not think the way to react is to get less precise.
Mr. Boyd said he looked at the things in the recommendation that referred to a guideline and to a
plan. He asked if this is a land use policy. Is that the general category that this Comprehensive Plan falls
in? To him it looks like a business plan. If it says a library will be built on Crozet Avenue next to
Mountainside, and a main street will be constructed on the first segment of Crozet Avenue, and other very
specific things, it is not a land use policy, but is a development plan, and he has a problem with that
concept. He thought everyone agreed that this needed some flexibility and it is not a guideline to use, but
then there is very specific language to be used even in Attachment A and without showing specific dollars.
He does not see this as being a flexible plan.
Mr. Wyant said that somewhere in the language it says this is an advisory plan.
Mr. Boyd said that is stated in the beginning, but then it turns around and lists very specific locations
and places and things.
Ms. Thomas said when you get a group of citizens together to plan an area and say do not be too
specific, it cuts down on the type of creativity and community building that actually went on during creation
of this plan, so if it erred on the side of being more specific than Mr. Boyd might have wanted, that is
something that comes out of a planning process such as they went through. She hates to take anything
away from the months of work the citizens went through.
Mr. Boyd said he did not want to do that either and he is willing to go along with what the people in
Crozet and the representative for Crozet want to do. If the intent of this is to turn around and say to take this
whole philosophy of how to build a master plan and supplant that on Route 29 and Pantops, he will have
real trouble with that.
Mr. Rooker said that could occur, but it might be different in that in Crozet there is a recognized
small downtown area.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the money that is outlined in the report is a target or a mandate. Mr. Cilimberg
said it has not been foreign to the Comprehensive Plan over the years to refer to infrastructure facilities in
specific locations. It has not been to the detail that the master plan in Crozet does, but there has been in
the Plan from the earliest days the land use colors and indication of facility needs and improvements.
There were references in the Profiles to those things which need to be done. He said what is essentially
Eastern Avenue has been shown in the Land Use Plan from its earliest days. The thing to remember is that
land use, infrastructure, and transportation facilities are all part of a whole. Land use is not just about what
colors are put on a map but about how to accomplish that land use pattern with facilities. That becomes
the Comprehensive Plan. It is not stepping into new territory but just stepping into a lot more detail. He said
each of the master plans will take on a character of their own. He said Crozet will not be replicated in the
Pantops or Northern Development areas. There will be different issues and different considerations for
each plan.
Mr. Wyant asked if when the next master plan is ready there will be infrastructure projects shown
with estimated funding and approximate timetables. Mr. Cilimberg said that is possible. That will be a
decision of the Board. He said one reason planning is beginning for the Pantops area is that the
Commission is concerned about development activity in that area without benefit of looking at a new
transportation system.
Mr. Boyd said the Crozet Plan shows a very specific place for a library and a very specific use for
the old Crozet Elementary school. If somebody comes along and wants to put a gas station there, what
happens because it is shown for a library or a road. Mr. Tucker said if the property is zoned for another
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
use, and the County does not own the land, then the County cannot stop another use from being located on
that property.
Mr. Rooker said if someone came in and applied for a rezoning, the Board could make a decision
in favor of that person, but it would at least have a reference in the Comprehensive Plan to a library use.
He thinks the degree of specificity in this plan, except for the dates and dollar amounts, is very good. His
only concern is that the dollar amounts might not be good estimates. He thinks it might be helpful to add
something to those strategies at the beginning of the plan saying “This plan may change based on funding
opportunities, population growth, the location of population, and under items which may change the
underlying bases for the assumptions” just to make it clear that these are targets, and they are not intended
to be hard dates and dollar amounts.
Mr. Tucker said that is what staff was trying to avoid since it knows how fluid these things can be.
Funding might not be available when shown, or priorities could change based on safety reasons, etc. Staff
was concerned that members of the community might come to the Board saying the Plan showed that
something would happen in a particular year.
Mr. Dorrier suggested including a disclaimer that “funding assumptions are subject to change.” Mr.
Tucker said that could be done.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on page 16 there is a table reference.
Mr. Boyd asked if the tables should be included. Mr. Cilimberg said they are part of the master
plan document which is a document in and of itself that is referenced by the Community Profile which is in
the Comprehensive Plan. This will go in by reference. He said the Mountain Protection Plan, the Historic
Resources Plan, the Open Space Plan, and the various Area “B” studies have all been adopted as
elements of the Comprehensive Plan. This is building an addendum of plans that are referenced but are
not in the Plan itself; they are actually becoming bigger than the Comprehensive Plan. Those plans will be
in a separate document.
Mr. Boyd said his problem is that the timelines in the charts are already outdated. He asked if this
is creating a situation where staff will have to update the numbers and adjust them, and then bring them
back to this Board for approval. Mr. Cilimberg said they exist as a planned document which was finished by
the community at some point in time. It does not necessitate the Board reviewing and changing them on an
ongoing basis. They give staff the knowledge that it needs to consider those projects as part of the capital
improvements program.
Mr. Wyant said the CIP will actually drive this; not the numbers in this plan. This is just an estimate
of when these things will start and what they will cost. He said the CIP Technical Committee is working
now, and it is projecting projects out for ten years. The only thing that is actually known is the next two
years.
Mr. Boyd asked if all the projects shown are actually in the CIP now. Mr. Cilimberg said some are,
and some have been in the CIP for quite a while.
Mr. Rooker said Attachment B has a breakdown of “strategies for development”. He suggested
that language be added saying “The information in these tables is intended to provide guidelines for
development and public investment based upon such factors as availability of funds, actual population
growth, and population distribution.”
Mr. Dorrier asked if there should also be something explaining how the numbers were derived; are
they just a wild guess?
Mr. Wyant said these numbers came from the consultants. Mr. Cilimberg said the numbers are a
couple of years old at this time.
Mr. Rooker suggested saying “The dollar estimates on projects were made as part of the master
planning process in 2003 by the consultants. They are not intended to be representative of actual costs.”
Mr. Tucker suggested adding “but, to be used as a basis to develop a capital improvements program.”
Mr. Boyd said if the Board is dedicating several million dollars over the next ten years for
infrastructure improvements in Crozet, can other parts of the community expect that same commitment.
Mr. Rooker said he expects as the Board goes through master planning for other areas, there will
be similar lists of public improvements with similar target dates.
Mr. Boyd said he would much rather have some type of formula to target how this is done based on
population, traffic counts, etc., so there would be some way of getting out of the politics of it.
Ms. Thomas said alternative ways of funding will be fostered by having these figures. There are
grants, but there is also an increasing interest in public/private partnerships. The faster this is solidified, the
faster some of that can move forward. Also, the County cannot require developers to put in some of the
roads needed unless there is a plan.
Mr. Wyant said he has some wording that he wants to discuss with staff. He suggested that this
matter come back to the Board, maybe on the consent agenda. He said the road improvement to Jarmans
Gap Road which does not go all the way to Half-Mile Branch is a change. He thinks that critical parking
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
downtown should be emphasized. He suggested that the staff bring this back and underline the things he
sees differently than what is shown in the paperwork today. He said he is presently working on a
public/private partnership with a group that has an interest in Crozet.
Mr. Cilimberg said what he understands is that some language would be added at the front end of
Section 2, Strategies for Development Costs and Strategies for Funding Improvements, to reflect what Mr.
Rooker said about what the dollar figures really mean and where they came from. Then, Mr. Wyant has
some suggestions in the profile section he wants to talk to staff about. He said staff will make those change
and put this on the Board’s consent agenda for the December 1 meeting. He asked if it is the Board’s intent
that the tables which follow Section “A” stay as they are in the community master plan with the references
before them about how the information is to be used. That was the consensus.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 29. Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-2003-006), Work
Session.
Mr. Cilimberg said Ms. Lee Catlin will act as facilitator for this item. There are some very important
items to the discussed today. To begin, the discussion will focus on density. Between information
previously provided to the Board, and what the Board discussed at its retreat last week, the Board has a
clear idea of the trends in development in the rural areas. The Board has expressed concern about those
trends and what it might lead to. He said the Planning Commission did not reach consensus on this issue
but it directed staff to add language to allow consideration for "changing the formula for calculating the
number and size of lots within Rural Preservation Developments." In other words, rather than calculating
the number of lots based on conventional subdivision methods (development-right lots and minimum 21-
acre remainder parcels), the formula would be based on the total of development-right lots and remainder
lots of some yet-undetermined larger size. In a sense it puts off until the future the question of what those
rights and lot sizes would be. The question now is how the Board wishes to respond to the whole density
issue.
Ms. Catlin said these topics are all interrelated so it is hard to talk about one without intruding on
another. Basically, the first issue is that of density as outlined by Mr. Cilimberg. She asked that the Board
reaffirm that it is not the intent to do anything that will actually impact density.
Mr. Dorrier asks if this envisions the clustering of units. Mr. Cilimberg said clustering would be an
approach based on what the Board wants to do with development rights and the 21-acre lots.
Ms. Thomas said she has been bombarded by nervous people who presently live in the rural area
and are seeing what is happening in the Samuel Miller District. She thinks it has spread over most of the
County, but just since August there have been a number of subdivision requests and a number of farms
that are suddenly becoming subdivisions. She asked if the Commission ever discussed having as a goal
the reduction of development potential in the rural areas. Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. David Benish can speak
about the overall philosophy. The timing of development was a response to how much was happening and
how quickly.
Ms. Thomas asked how the Commission saw the question of density. Did they have any
suggestions as to a way to reduce the 60,000+ existing lots? Mr. Benish said they started by agreeing that
the development right lots component of the current policy would not change. Assuming that would not
chance, the Commission’s emphasis was on finding a way to address the large lots (21 acres or larger).
Their approach to addressing the density issue was to nip at the overall gross density through increasing the
large lot development that is permitted now. There is the question of whether those lots really achieve what
they were intended to achieve. They sympathize with the amount of development that takes place in the
rural area, and one of the reasons they began to question the specific request in terms of whether to go with
a 50-acre lot over a 21-acre lot was the concern that density should be addressed through a broader brush.
Their discussion did not focus on changing the small lots.
Ms. Thomas said they did not reach an agreement on what to do with the large lots either. Mr.
Benish said that is correct. He said that stemmed from the parameters set for this rural area review.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board could agree that it wants to reduce the potential for development in
the rural area, but doesn’t know how to go about it, that could be a goal or a “sieve” to put all of the other
proposals through. She is comfortable with using it as a sieve. She said the ACE Program reduces
development potential in the rural areas. There are a lot of different ways to reduce that development
potential. Keeping Land Use Taxation so people are not in a hurry to sell off their subdivision rights does
not give a permanent fix, but it gives as good a fix as phasing. She thinks the rest of the conversation would
be easier if the Board had an agreement that the residential development potential in the rural area was
created because the rural area was greatly over-zoned. If there is build-out, it will be a rural area in name
only. She asked for Board member reactions to her thoughts.
Mr. Dorrier said if the Board developed some incentives so people would voluntarily put their land
into conservation easements that would be a move in the right direction. He said Loudoun County
mandated large lots at one time, and then they were hit with a bunch of lawsuits. Their whole board of
supervisors lost their office at the next election, and the new board is backtracking on what was done
before.
Mr. Davis said that was a bigger issue than just large lots. It was a whole development strategy that
was trying to change how development was occurring in Loudoun. A large part of it was trying to preserve
some rural parts of Loudoun, but it was more complicated than just large lots.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Rooker said in the paperwork before the Board today, on Page 19 under Voluntary Land
Conservation Programs, the first sentence says “With the prospect of over 50,000 more dwelling units being
added to the Rural Areas, it becomes clear that the County must take advantage of every opportunity to
reduce the number of available development rights.” After that, there are a series of objectives and 20
strategies recommended for trying to accomplish that. He said that some of those strategies are mentioned
in other places in this document. He wonders how quickly the Board can go through and agree on what is
in this document and then start to implement some of the strategies. He said the Comprehensive Plan is to
be a general guideline, but there are some fairly specific strategies in this rural areas plan. He asked if the
Board members disagree with what has been recommended, or does it have things to be added. He said
this discussion is beginning as if the Board is reinventing the wheel rather than looking at a proposed
document that has been through a lot of work, effort and time so far.
Ms. Thomas said as the Board has this discussion it needs to keep in mind the goal.
Mr. Rooker said he wonders if the Board should focus on the document and use that as a guideline
for raising these issues, as opposed to having issues and acting like the document is not here.
Mr. Catlin said the document reference in the second paragraph is the point that is important. What
she heard Ms. Thomas say is that she wants to be sure the fundamental philosophy of the group is that it is
looking to reduce the potential for residential development in the rural areas. What she heard Mr. Rooker
say is that it is already referenced in the document. She asked Ms. Thomas if she wanted the other Board
members to say that is where everybody is or should it be assumed that is the case so the Board can move
right to discussing the document.
Mr. Boyd said the overlying question is whether the Board is going to continue to use the word
“voluntary” (Voluntary Land Conservation Program) or whether this group is interested in legislating it by
increasing the size of development rights in the rural areas.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that will become a part of the discussion. There is not just one answer
to that. Every time the Board makes a zoning decision, it is doing something that is not entirely voluntary.
Mr. Boyd said when talking about lot sizes in the rural areas, that is a wholesale zoning issue,
downzoning, and that is a lot broader than giving someone a special zoning permit.
Ms. Thomas said she would love to suggest that something be done with the 21 acres, but the
Commission never came to a consensus about other ways to divide up the land without people losing their
development rights. She is not certain that this document reflects the feeling that residential development
in the rural areas is inappropriate and ought to be discouraged with what tools there are at hand, and what
the Board is politically willing to undertake. She said there was agreement at the meeting with the
Commission two years ago that it would not tackle the five, two-acre lots which she finds to be totally
inappropriate in an agricultural area. Nobody can do agriculture on two acres, and yet when that was
adopted there was the higher goal of making sure that every landowner had some extra value in his land.
Being able to clip off a few lots whenever he (the landowner) needed to overruled the otherwise agricultural
pursuit of the rural area. She is willing to accept that, that is what was said at the time, and the Commission
moved on from there. Having given up that idea, what other ideas does the Board have? Whether one’s
concern is biodiversity, being able to farm, sustainable forestry or timbering, having residential development
in your midst is going to ruin all those things which are listed as goals for the rural area.
Mr. Cilimberg said if Ms. Thomas is looking for a lead statement or a reflection of the Board’s
philosophy, he suggested looking at the bottom of page 28, reading: “To be consistent with the Guiding
Principles, the County’s land development policies must be changed to stop the ongoing trend toward
fragmentation and loss of rural character. New policies should focus on protecting existing large parcels
from fragmentation and preserving a general pattern characterized by farms, forest, and habitat corridors.
Implementation of these policies to address residential density and pattern of development should be the
County’s highest priority. The County should aggressively pursue implementation mechanisms that include
phasing of development, changing the formula for calculating the number and size of lots within Rural
Preservation Developments, decreasing the size of residential lots, increasing the size of the preservation
parcels in RPDs, and, with few exceptions, requiring that RPDs be the standard for residential subdivisions.”
If that does not say enough about the overriding consideration for the rural areas, that is where something
could be added.
Mr. Rooker said that is a strong general statement of policy. He questions whether at the
Comprehensive Plan level there should be specific approaches set out for these general principles. If that
is done, he thinks the conversation will be very long because every one of those little topics that might be
encompassed in a zoning ordinance will take a lot of debate and discussion. He said that in 1980 the entire
County was downzoned. In 1980 if you had 100 acres, you could have 50 lots. Today, if you have 100
acres, you are entitled to nine lots counting the 21-acre remnants. The Board at that time took a substantial
action, and was sued by several developers. The County successfully defended those suits.
Mr. Bowerman said that was a compromise.
Mr. Rooker said in Nelson County you can still have 50 lots on 100 acres. Apparently they recently
put that on the table for discussion and did not get any where with making a change. He said this County
has taken action to protect the rural area, and he thinks it should continue to do so.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Rooker was saying the County is not protecting the rural area well enough
now, and needs to take a drastic step to preserve it more.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Rooker said he is saying that as a document he agrees with most of what is in this
Comprehensive Plan proposal. Assuming the Board adopts it or something like it, there will be specific
strategies returned for the Board to consider. He does not think the Board will get very far today with
specifics before adopting general language.
Ms. Catlin said she is hearing affirmation that the Board will not consider a reduction in
development rights, will pursue alternatives to reduce development potential, and the language the
Commission has put before the Board on the 21-acre thing is about changing the formula for calculating
the number and size of lots within rural preservation district developments.
Mr. Rooker asked where that language shows in this proposal. Ms. Catlin said it is in the second
paragraph of the summary the Board received. It is on Page 29 at the top of the page in the book. Does
the Board want to be more specific in its directions to staff in dealing with the 21-acre lot? It sounds as if Mr.
Rooker is saying he does not want to get to a number today.
Mr. Rooker said he is comfortable with the language as presented for a comprehensive plan. If the
Board adopts the Comprehensive Plan amendment, he wants to look at implementing a number of the
recommended strategies. He thinks rural preservation developments, which are shown on the list, could be
made mandatory. Some large chunks of the County could be preserved by making certain that all
development in the County be done in the form of rural preservation developments. That is recommended
as a strategy, but that is not the decision before the Board today.
Ms. Thomas said in the Executive Summary for today’s meeting, Under item No. 1, the final
sentence reads: “... however, staff recommends that the final version also include a strategy that would
provide clear direction as to the expected outcome of this effort.” She wants to be sure guidance to staff is
that an expected outcome of these efforts is that the Commission go back and discuss ways to reduce
inappropriate residential development in the rural area.
Mr. Rooker said the question is whether to add something to the language at the top of page 29
(set out above).
Ms. Thomas said there are a lot of words in this amendment. By adopting it the Board may or may
not give staff enough guidance, but if everyone agrees with what is said on pages 28 and 29, then the Board
has given staff some guidance.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with what is written on pages 28 and 29. He is willing to entertain
suggestions for changes.
Ms. Catlin asked if the other Board members wanted to comment.
Mr. Boyd said he is not sure where the Board stands as a group. Mr. Rooker has said there is
language which says the County is dedicated to preserving the rural character and the Board will take steps
to see that it happens. Would the Board be saying to the Commission to start looking at increasing lot sizes
in the rural area or clustering? He thinks the Board could come up with many things which would fit the
language here as methodology to reduce development. More single-family neighborhoods in the
designated growth could be opened up to help with that. That is a proven fact. Forest Lakes is building out
and while that was occurring is the only time there has been a reduction in development in the rural area.
Ms. Thomas said that is why the Board appointed the DISC Committee, to find a way to reduce
development in the rural area. But, to do that there had to be somewhere that development could take
place. That is why the County has been slow in updating the rural area portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
It was decided to do the urban area first.
Mr. Boyd asked what the Board is supposed to do today. Is it to add some more specifics to this
language, or come up with a list of suggestions the Commission can develop?
Ms. Thomas said if everyone agrees with those words the main thing is that the Board has to
address residential development to avoid the fragmentation and loss of rural character that is ongoing. She
will be happy if the Board can proceed through the rest of the meeting as staff has asked it to do.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought the Board was going to zero in on density.
Mr. Rooker said there are strategies recommended throughout this document for dealing with
density and other things. In his mind, the question is whether there is some specific different strategy that
the Board thinks should be included that is not included.
Mr. Davis said when this document was drafted everything was on the table but increasing lot sizes
generally. Staff believed that as a result of the joint meeting with the Commission in 2003, the one thing not
on the table for discussion was increasing lot sizes generally. Mr. Tucker said it was development rights as
currently set out for the RA District. Mr. Davis said that is a direct consequence of lot size.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Rooker said he does not agree with that and gave a couple of examples. Mr. Davis said that
typically if the division right lot size is raised, or the development right lot size is raised, that will reduce
density, or it could be done by a whole number. He said those strategies were not further pursued by the
Planning staff.
Mr. Dorrier asked if financial incentives were discussed. Mr. Davis said all those other things are on
the table to look at. Mr. Dorrier said that financial incentives tied to the number of lots could be a way to
approach it.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks there are a number of ways to reduce the development going on in the
rural area that do not end up taking away so-called “development rights.” There are voluntary programs
and density in the urban area could be increased. There are lots of things to reduce the suburbanization of
the rural area as long as it is recognized that that is the goal. That is what is said on pages 28 and 29.
Ms. Catlin asked Mr. Benish to clarify what staff needs to hear from the Board today. It has been a
good discussion, but in terms of document-related language, clarification is needed.
Mr. Benish said the language is open-ended so when the implementation phase comes along,
there will need to be some adjustment to gross density but still respect the small development right lots that
are currently permitted by the ordinance. He said that is where this discussion started in 2003. The
Commission also discussed other ways to deal with the gross number of lots that could be created. The
way this is worded does not preclude the County from doing that. At a minimum, staff wants to know if the
way it is worded is within the parameters to consider along with all the voluntary measures. In terms of
density, staff wanted to be sure the Board understood and agreed with the way it is worded.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Benish is talking about clustering. Mr. Benish said clustering is one way to
massage the rights. Drawings in the report show examples of that. Where this began a couple of years
ago is that the small lots shown would not be changed, but overall within each lot there is development
potential that could be subtracted by looking at lot sizes. He then referred to different charts which had
been posted on the wall. The Board then discussed the different scenarios laid out on these charts.
Mr. Benish said the Board needs to keep in mind that one of the recommendations in the plan is to
minimize the amount of land used for residential lots in the rural area. That would allow for the residue
areas to be larger and address the fragmentation issue, and other resource protection.
Ms. Catlin said these charts show examples of what might be before the Board, but the question is:
Is the Board comfortable and cognizant of the fact that leaving the language the way it is would leave the
door open for strategies that could impact gross density?
Mr. Rooker said that eventually all of these things would have to be codified, and there would have
to be specific proposals to accomplish what had been laid out. He thinks the door is open for this Board to
do whatever it has the will to do, either by making specific proposals and adopting them, or by entertaining
proposals from the public.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board is not comfortable with what is being recommended, staff would not
want to go further through this process with that language. Maybe the Board cannot answer that question
at this time.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has before it a 47-page document. He asked if the Board is only going
to talk generally about things and never go through the document section by section. The Board is talking
about adopting a specific document and he is troubled by the Board just having general conversations.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff proposed that today the Board focus on what staff feels are “hot buttons”;
things the Board wants to pay attention to. The Commission did the page-by-page work. What staff
identified and listed by page numbers in the Executive Summary are the things it felt the Board would want
to focus on. Then, staff would ask if the Board had other things it wished to discuss before moving this
document to a public hearing. Staff was trying to be expeditious as possible and focus on the things it felt
were most meaningful to the Board, and to be sure staff was reflecting those feelings properly. Staff did not
intend to hold a page-by-page review, but if there are other topics the Board thinks should be reviewed, the
staff needs to know that now. He said answering some of the big questions will allow staff to be sure the
details are set out properly.
Mr. Rooker said for the details to be as the Board wants them, he thinks the Board must go through
the document and comment on each section.
Ms. Catlin said that can be done. Staff had intended to do that at the end of these discussions.
Staff felt it was important to tackle some of the big issues and get them resolved and be sure they were
consistent with the document. Then, if there were something that needed to be discussed at a micro level,
the Board could do that.
Mr. Rooker said density is only an issue as it is covered in the document. The question is, does the
Board want to change something that is in the document, or not.
Mr. Davis said if it is the Board’s intent to initiate a downzoning of the rural area, then staff would
recommend that be specifically said in the Comprehensive Plan. That would be the blueprint for that later
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
zoning action. This document hits on lots of strategies for reducing density, but does not specifically
recommend a downzoning by regulation.
Mr. Rooker said in his mind that is a specific recommendation that would need to come out after
the Board passed the plan. The plan is broad enough to encompass that idea. To him, if the Board is
talking about downzoning and making specific recommendations about it, there should be a public hearing
on just that issue. He said that in this plan there is a general recommendation on central septic/water
systems. There are numerous specifics that go with that recommendation if the Board considers adopting
it. Rural preservation developments are recommended in the plan; how specific should the
recommendation be?
Mr. Davis said he does not think there needs to be anything more specific than what is in the
proposed plan now. That is a strategy that is articulated fairly specifically. The devil is always in the details
of the ordinance.
Ms. Catlin asked how the Board wanted to go about accomplishing what is needed this afternoon.
The approach as was presented to the Board was to have a discussion of critical issues and the Executive
Summary refers to specific pages in the document. Staff wanted to know if Board members had specific
comments on the recommendations from the Planning Commission on these issues. Then, there would be
a more general document review. If the Board does not feel that will work, there should be some
discussion about that.
Mr. Dorrier suggested having a general discussion of density, and let ideas float freely across the
table, with no lock on commitment, just a healthy discussion of the issue. The Board could discuss the
issue in general terms and try to set out something on which it can agree without getting caught in a battle
on how to reduce lot sizes. He thinks people are afraid of taking a stand for fear of what the perception
may be, and he does not think that is healthy. The Board needs a free-flowing discussion. Density is the
most important issue the Board has to discuss.
Mr. Wyant said in the last ten years over 2500 subdivision lots have been approved. Build-out is
supposed to be 52,000 more lots. If you divide that by 250 it will take 210 years and he does not think that
is what he wants for the County. He said the Board is trying to protect the rural look of the County. He said
there are gobs of numbers in this report; it is a way to just overwhelm people. The Board is about saving
the rural look and the historic areas, and little communities which people cherish. How does the Board go
about doing that? How does the County retain that rural look? What does the County do not to have
houses all over the hillsides? Finally, how does the County keep farmers from being pressured to the point
where they have to sell their land? He wants to save that rural area and allow the people to have the kind
of industry that people love to go and see.
Ms. Catlin said there was some of that discussion with the Commission at the beginning of this
effort. That led to the direction that is reflected in the proposed plan before the Board today. It may be time
to revisit that. The Board directed the Commission to not consider a reduction in development rights but to
pursue other alternatives, to explore incentives that would result in a reduction of land use for residential
acreage, and a couple of other things. That question is on Page 27, in the Land Use Patterns, Density and
Residential Development section. The chapter ends with strategies. The Board can go through this
chapter and see if it gets at what it directed staff to bring before it and what the Commission has vetted to
this extent.
Ms. Thomas said she would prefer to take up the topic of density last. She started out today by
saying she agrees with statements on pages 28 and 29 that fragmentation and inappropriate residential
development in the rural area should be avoided. One way to do that is to have a downzoning. She thinks
all the Board members are hesitant to say that. She does not want to do a downzoning if there is some
other way to accomplish what is wanted. If there are other topics listed for this discussion today, she looks
through her sieve of whether they are reducing or increasing the amount of development that can take
place in the rural area. If at the end of all the things proposed, it has reduced the amount of residential
development likely to take place in the rural area, then she would not suggest that any downzoning be
considered.
Mr. Dorrier said that clustering, central water and density are all interrelated. You can’t talk about
one without talking about the other. It is hard to separate them into neat categories. Central wells bring
about clustering; they bring about reduced use of large areas of land. He thinks they are interrelated and
need to be talked about in the context of the whole thing the Board is trying to achieve which is fewer
houses and more open land. That is the goal; there are just different ways to get to it.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is moving toward adoption of a Groundwater Ordinance on water
conservation and water protection measures. There is the ability to cause the layout and design of rural
area subdivisions to take into consideration forested areas, recharge areas, etc. If that is combined with
rural preservation development approaches, it would save large tracts of land in the rural area.
Ms. Catlin referred the Board to page 32 where Rural Preservation Developments are listed. She
asked if the Board sees anything in that section that needs to be discussed further.
Mr. Rooker said there was a mention earlier in the document of requiring the rural preservation
tract to be eighty percent of the development. He said when this idea comes back, the Board would need
to decide how small something has to be in order to require a rural preservation development. He would
like to see a recommended minimum percentage for the rural preservation tract.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Dorrier asked if this would be a mandatory requirement. What is the incentive to get people to
do a rural preservation development?
Ms. Thomas said it is a cheaper way to develop because there are fewer feet of road to construct
and there is less disturbance of the land. It has been pushed as being an attractive, less expensive way of
developing in the rural area. It has not been used a lot because of the requirement to get a special use
permit.
Mr. Dorrier said it is not working because people are not using it.
Mr. Rooker said that is because it has a special use permit requirement.
Mr. Benish said it no longer has that requirement.
Mr. Cilimberg said that only 20 units can be built.
Mr. Rooker said he is in favor of mandatory rural preservation developments in the rural area.
There are some advantages and disadvantages; however, people are now buying 70 acres of land, looking
for the easiest way to develop that land under current rules, dividing the land according to what is permitted
by the parcels they own and it may make no sense at all in terms of land preservation, open space, etc.
They put in a couple of cul-de-sacs and that is the development. If density if not going to be reduced, a
rural preservation development would allow them to have the same number of lots but would require that
eighty percent of the property not be developed. Having the development take place on twenty percent of
the property would mean having fewer roads and it would be less expensive for them to develop. At some
point in the future, Albemarle County will be developed out, and the question at that time is what it will look
like.
Ms. Catlin suggested the Board look at the strategies on page 37. Strategy No. 1 states: “Require
Rural Preservation Development (clustering) for all Rural Areas subdivisions, with the exceptions made only
if the preservation parcel would be too small to make a significant difference for effective conservation.”
She asked if that language is suitable. She said Mr. Rooker had said he would want to quantify the size.
Mr. Rooker said he would add “with a target rural preservation tract of eighty percent of the parcel.”
Mr. Cilimberg said that would be covered in Strategy No. 2 (Maximize to the extent possible the
rural preservation parcel in RPDs, in terms of size and benefit to the natural environment, scenic resources,
historic resources, agricultural and forestal soils and uses by requiring that the preservation parcel be
contiguous and with a minimum percentage of the total acres of the RPD.). Maybe the discussion should
focus on the strategies themselves. The list of strategies on pages 37, 38 and 39 are exactly what are
being talked about. The idea of maximizing the rural preservation parcel is what No. 2 is about. If the
Board feels the idea of a target of eighty percent of the land area in that tract is what is wanted, that is
where language would be added.
Mr. Wyant asked the minimum size parcel where this would be required. Mr. Cilimberg said that
gets back to specifics. He said in the strategy area, first the Board must establish based on what No. 1
would say. Also, there could be a size that is so small it would not be affected.
Mr. Wyant said that is what he was getting at in No. 1. The eighty percent would go in No. 2.
However, if he had only twenty acres, that would be too small, so there is some number that has to be
determined.
Ms. Thomas said her concern with the RPD is that it will in fact encourage rather than discourage
development in the rural area. She believes the goal is to think of things that will discourage development.
She thinks it will look prettier in 200 years if everybody has had to cluster, but there will be no farming
because there will be so many people living in the rural area that they will never put up with a farm. They
will never want tractors on their roads. The most recent RPD in the County has already put a covenant
together so there can be no tractors on their subdivision roads. That RPD has over one hundred acres in a
parcel that was assumed to be an agricultural parcel. Instead it is parkland for the houses that are there. If
the goal is to have it look pretty, then the Board should go along with the RPD. If the goal is to encourage
activities in the rural area that are real pursuits, such as farming and forestry and conservation, then the
Board will have done the opposite by encouraging more development in the rural area. If the Board puts
the RPD together with phasing and without central water and sewer, then she thinks the attractiveness of
developing in the rural area will have been reduced. She is sympathetic with staff that wants the Board to
come to some conclusions. However, she thinks that No. 1 and No. 2 do the opposite of what the Board
wants done.
Mr. Rooker said he would support the phasing requirement suggested by Ms. Thomas. It has not
been discussed yet, but is an important part of the implementation. One reason he disagrees with the
starting premise is that right now there is a huge movement toward development in the rural area. He does
not see anything stopping that. He does not think RPDs will speed it up, but he thinks they will assure that it
will give development a different look. Combining that with phasing, development in the rural area will have
been slowed down. This would not create a situation where large companies could come in and buy up
large tracts and create large neighborhoods in the rural area.
Ms. Catlin said she has heard support from two people for RPDs tied in with phasing which is
Strategy 12 in that group (Adopt a phasing [time-release] program that would permit a limited number of
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
lots[s] to be created in a fixed period of time.). She asked if the other Board members had comments about
those two items.
Mr. Bowerman said if full build-out does not come for 250 years, phasing does not accomplish
anything. If it accomplishes slowing down the pace of development and lot creation, then other things will
change as the County goes through the decades. In forty years there might be no more development in the
rural area so by not having it initially upfront, the County ends up with less development as things change in
society. It is like having an archeological site and not doing all the work on it until there is better technology
available.
Mr. Rooker said one other thing about phasing is that it does not make it feasible for a large
company to buy 1000 acres with eighty development rights and put in a traditional neighborhood in the rural
area. He has the same concern that Ms. Thomas has about rural preservation developments if they are
applied to large tracts without phasing. That would allow the creation of suburban, close-built
neighborhoods in the rural areas. He thinks everybody wants to avoid that.
Ms. Thomas said she asked a realtor who has worked in Madison County how their phasing plan is
working. He was in the middle of a project to have a transfer of a large ownership of a farm to a developer
when they changed their phasing. It had been four units every four years, and now it is four units every ten
years. He said it stopped all developers from outside of the county from buying land in Madison County.
She said it encouraged her to think phasing could allow what the Board has always said is the only reason
to have residential in the rural areas. That is to allow the landowner to have some extra value from his land
even though that is inappropriate to agriculture. Phasing would allow that, but it would not encourage
developers from outside of the County to come in and “cut and run.”
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 3 on the bottom of page 37 and the top of page 38 has to do with
maximum residential lot size (Reduce the impact of the development parcels by minimizing to the greatest
amount feasible the acreage used for residential parcels with a Rural Preservation Development by
establishing a maximum residential lot size. Notwithstanding the strategy about central systems in #7
below, consider using community open space and preservation of lots to accommodate reserve drainfields
and backup water supply uses in order to reduce lot sizes. Such uses should be appropriately designed
based on the suitability of soils for drainfields and likely water supply availability, and should not conflict with
the conservation and/or natural resources protection purposes of the open space or preservation lot.).
Ms. Catlin said if there is anything the Board is not willing to consider as a strategy it needs to be
“taken off the table” now. She said these strategies are central to the question of density and the other
issues.
Ms. Thomas said when the Board was having discussions with people in the farming community
they said they needed to be buffered from suburban type of development. It seems that people who move
out to live in the County want a quiet lot, and they do not like farming activities. These farmers did not want
that buffer to come off of their property; they did not think they should give up acreage to buffer themselves
from a subdivision. When she looked at this, she said she did not want to reduce the size of the two-acre
lot because that gives some buffering from the agricultural pursuits going on “in the back 40.”
Mr. Rooker said this does not talk about reducing the minimum. It talks about placing a maximum.
Right now that is between two and 21.
Ms. Catlin asked if the Board needed further explanation of that strategy.
Mr. Rooker said he is comfortable with what is set out. The Board is not putting a number on it.
Ms. Thomas said what she is talking about is minimizing the acreage used for residential parcels.
She asked if Mr. Rooker is talking about the eighty percent requirement.
Mr. Cilimberg said the combination is to minimize the area being subdivided into lots and maximize
the area going into the preservation tract.
Mr. Wyant asked if that can be accomplished with the eighty percent.
Mr. Cilimberg said it accomplishes the preservation tract, minimum size. That leaves twenty percent
to develop. The question is, is that twenty percent area enough or would the Board want to make sure lots
were not larger than a certain size? It is possible that on a very large parcel, the preservation tract might be
larger than eighty percent?
Mr. Rooker said this might be more applicable where the development is too small to fall into a real
preservation tract. When staff brings back strategies, they may say that anything less than 50 acres does
not make sense. There would be parcels which are smaller than that. The question would be, do you want
subdivisions on those size areas where basically they just divide the land into five quadrants of five- or ten-
acre lots, or does the Board want to set a maximum?
Mr. Benish said No. 3 focuses on rural preservation development, but No. 11 speaks to individual
lots (Set a maximum acreage for development right lots in subdivisions that will effect a significant reduction
in land consumption through development compared to the current 31-acre total for five development
rights, while ensuring reasonable flexibility to make wells and septic fields possible in difficult terrain.). He
said the goal is to find some reasonable maximum for lot usage without pinning down specifics. He said
there is always a practical minimum building site requirement. There is not a lot of “fluff” in the 30,000
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
square feet needed for a building site. Depending on the type of utilities provided, an even larger area is
needed. The issue of buffering must be factored in. All of those things will go in to figuring out what that
magic percentage will be.
Ms. Davis said under conventional zoning, the five development lots together cannot exceed 31
acres. That is already a limitation on the maximum size of those lots to some extent, but it does not apply in
the RPD development, which is what this strategy focuses on. Right now an RPD could have five lots
together that could theoretically exceed 31 acres. There is no maximum lot size.
Mr. Rooker said he supports a strategy that would include this. He does not think the Board needs
to decide today what that size is.
Ms. Catlin asked if the Board is willing to see a maximum lot size. The next strategy is about the
clustering; the location of the lots on the parcel. She asked if there is any issue with this one.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks that ties in with central water and sewer systems. If there is one central
water site for four or five houses, it makes more sense than having five separate wells.
Mr. Rooker said it ties in with RPDs. If there is going to be a RPD, hopefully the houses would be
clustered in one area and the preservation tract be in another area.
Ms. Thomas said her district includes Route 29 South, and that area has not been developed
because water is “iffy.” It is not because there has been any governmental action, only that one cannot be
sure of finding water in that area, so nobody subdivides their land fast. If the Board said that someone only
need find one or two good wells and he can pipe the water to the cluster of houses, it is going to open up
areas today that are not being developed. She said this does not make its way through her sieve. If the
Board opens up the possibility of central wells and sewer systems (there are also places in the area that do
not perk), it would open up a lot of lands which are being appropriately used for agricultural pursuits, to
residential development. The second issue has to do with what the Board would be getting itself into and
the reason that central wells and sewer systems have always been discouraged. She said there are many
such systems in the County. If she read off the list the Board would know why they are not encouraged.
There is Peacock Hill, Glenaire, Earlysville Forest, a total of 17 and they have all had problems. One
reason they have problems is something that technology will never take care of, but it is daily maintenance
and care. Sewer systems have even more problems. She said that recently the Board got a memo that
talked about Stone Robinson School and the fact that the janitor spends about one day a week making
sure the sewer system works. If the Board goes into this in any but the rarest situation, she thinks it would
open up areas which are inappropriate and unsustainable for development and the Board would be
opening itself up to a lot of problems. She said when one house has a water or sewer problem, they do not
turn to the County for help; but, when 10 or more houses have a water or sewer problem, they turn to the
County. They assume that when the County lets it happen, it somehow has an obligation to provide them
with water. That was the first move that Peacock Hill residents took.
Mr. Rooker said he views that differently from the clustering viewpoint. He agrees with Ms. Thomas
one hundred percent on central water and sewer systems. He does not think the Board should adopt that
as a strategy. He thinks that No. 4 about clustering can stand on its own (Require that residential lots
should be clustered together, to the extent possible, in order to reduce the impacts of fragmentation and to
avoid conflicts with agricultural and/or forestal uses.). Mr. Tucker said there is no need to have central
wells for clustering.
Mr. Rooker said that is correct. He does not see these two things as fitting together. He thinks
clustering is a wise strategy.
Ms. Thomas said she was talking about No. 7 (Consider allowing central water and sewer systems.
It is not the intention for central water and sewer systems to accommodate development that could not
otherwise be feasible through conventional subdivision standards. Therefore, the viability of individual
systems on a development site should be verified before central systems are considered. Central systems
should only be considered if design, management, and maintenance are undertaken by a responsible
entity.).
Mr. Rooker said he thinks they can be tied together, but he wants to separate them out so the
Board does not say it does not like clustering because it necessarily means centralized systems. He thinks
clustering will be required in rural preservation developments. He agrees with Ms. Thomas’s point on
centralized systems.
Ms. Catlin said clustering stands on its own, but if the Board wants to move down to Strategy No. 7
(set out above), that is the language before the Board regarding central systems.
Mr. Boyd suggested taking that one out. It says “consider” allowing.
Ms. Catlin said it uses the word “consider”, but if the Board is not going to consider it, the language
should not be included.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think that is a good strategy.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Tucker said history has proven what Ms. Thomas said; it has been a problem and will continue
to be a problem in this County.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission saw central water and sewer systems as a way to maximize the
opportunity to cluster lots in the smallest area. That is why they included this language. Removing it does
not change the opportunity to do Strategy No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4, but it will potentially affect how
small a lot can be. The area in a cluster would probably be larger than what it could theoretically have
been with central water and sewer, but it does not preclude those other strategies from being pursued.
Mr. Benish said there are all sorts of central systems. If there is a septic system with three users on
it, it is a central system. The concept of using four central septic systems strategically located for 12 lots in
a cluster development as opposed to 12 individual systems has a resource and efficiency aspect. With the
amount of development taking place in the rural area, the number and location of private systems depends
on the random location of lots. A more strategic approach to central systems might be to use the best lot
locations. There may be value in strategically locating a series of central wells as opposed to 20 or 30
wells if there is enough by-right development in one location. There are a number of lots in the rural area
that can be developed by-right using a number of individual systems. From the larger picture, staff felt it
was worthwhile to consider how central systems might help use groundwater better and help with the
filtering of the septic system.
Ms. Thomas said that is a more efficient way to develop if development is desired, but she did not
think the goal was to encourage development in the rural area.
Mr. Benish said from staff’s standpoint, in the rural area a person must first verify that they have the
right to development. The intent was not to allow one or two wells to be drilled in order to allow 14 lots on a
central system. This was not to allow more development on fewer resources; it was to better locate those
resources. The intent, as language on page 45 indicates, was not to allow any development to occur that
could not stand on its own with private systems. Strategy No. 3 is: “Consider the use of central water and
septic systems and other alternative systems. In particular, rural preservation development should utilize
central systems where the site’s groundwater suggests that employing a central system would be the most
sustainable approach. However, it is not the intention for central water and sewer systems to
accommodate development that could not otherwise be feasible through conventional subdivision
standards, using individual private well and septic systems. Therefore, prior to consideration of a central
water and/or sewer system, verification that the uses could be supported by individual private water and
sewer systems would be possible on the property should be required prior to the approval of a central
system.”
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that is the effect of the language. In reality, if an area is approved with a
central well and a central sewer system, no one would ever know if those individual lots would have
produced a well. If the Board adopts the proposed Groundwater Ordinance, a well will have to be drilled
before a building permit can be issued. There is land that might not be developable except on a central
system. The same thing applies with a central sewer for lots that might not perk. But, if they are in a
neighborhood with a central sewer system, that land is suddenly developable. He agrees with Ms. Thomas
about that. The County’s record has been atrocious in terms of approving these systems and finding out
later that they do not sustain themselves. It is like the problem with the dam the Board had on the agenda
earlier today; all of a sudden it is a health, safety and welfare problem for the County to solve.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees it is a strategy that should not be used.
Mr. Boyd said he sees another side to this problem. When mentioning Peacock Hill, there are
many homes there. He does not think the County has people coming to this Board for help when there are
only two or three homes sharing a system.
Mr. Bowerman said clustering allows more homes.
Ms. Thomas said in Ivy there are two houses which share one well and one of the owners is having
a hard time convincing anyone their house has any value because it is sharing a well. There are problems
with having several people share one well.
Ms. Catlin said she hears strong agreement. There is a sentence in No. 3 which reads:
“Therefore, prior to consideration of a central water and/or sewer system, verification that the uses could be
supported by individual private water and sewer systems would be possible on the property should be
required prior to the approval of a central system.” She is hearing the Board members say that is not good
enough.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think you can tell everyone in a 15-lot subdivision in the rural area that
they have to be on a central system, but they must first drill a well to prove they have one; and a septic field
is the same.
Mr. Boyd asked if some limitation could be placed on this.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is making homes more expensive.
Mr. Boyd said there is also the question of affordable housing involved here.
Ms. Thomas said it is not the goal to provide affordable housing in the rural area.
Ms. Catlin said in terms of the majority of the Board, where are we?
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Rooker said that personally he would like for it to be removed.
Ms. Catlin said she has heard from Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. It sounds as if
Mr. Boyd is wavering. She asked how Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Wyant feel.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with it staying in.
Mr. Wyant asked if the Board would be saying this could never occur.
Ms. Catlin said it would come out as a strategy.
Mr. Cilimberg said it would be a proactive strategy.
Mr. Wyant said there are some conditions where he could see having a central well.
Mr. Bowerman said failure will always end up in the Board’s lap.
Mr. Rooker said taking this out as a strategy does not mean someone could not bring a proposal
before the Board. It only means the Board will not actively pursue it.
Mr. Wyant said that is fine since the developer would have to go to the Health Department anyway.
Mr. Davis said there is a process now where someone can come before the Board and ask for a
central system. It is an existing law.
Mr. Catlin suggested going back to Strategy No. 5 on page 38 (Require that the primary
consideration for the location of residential lots and the preservation tract in RPDs must be the preservation
and conservation of rural open space and/or natural, historic, or scenic resources, as well as the
conservation and protection of critical slopes, stream valleys, flood plains, perennial streams, prime,
important or unique agricultural or forestal, non-tidal wetlands, water supply watersheds, and mountain
protection areas, as described in Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan.). She asked if there are any
issues with that strategy.
Ms. Thomas said to correct “non title wetlands” to read “non tidal wetlands”.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 6 is: “Adopt standards and restrictions for subdivision that are
consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and of the Rural Areas Guiding Principles.” There
were no suggestions for changes.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 7 has been eliminated. Strategy No. 8 is: “Restrict access for all
development lots in RPDs to an internal street in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle.”
There were no suggestions for changes.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 9 is: “Restricts the number of RPD lots to no more than the number
that could be achieved with a conventional subdivision.”
Mr. Boyd said No. 8 is just a strategy and it does not mean that could not be done where
necessitated. There is a particular situation just like that in the Pantops area right now.
Ms. Thomas said she does not understand No. 8. She asked for an explanation.
Mr. Wyant said it is where everything comes out to one street and there is only one access to a
state road.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is what the current RPD provisions call for. There would be no change.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 10 reads: “Encourage the connectivity of conservation land wherever
feasible by locating the RPD conservation easement adjacent to other conservation easement properties.”
Ms. Thomas said Strategy No. 9 limits the number of lots to 20. If it were to say that 80 percent
was required in the conservation area, then the RPD ordinance would have to be completely rewritten.
However, the RPD has to be by-right and the numbers cannot be limited. She asked if that is correct.
Mr. Davis said state law has changed. It says a special use permit can no longer be required for
clustering. They have to be approved administratively, they are not subject to review by the Planning
Commission and are not subject to the review by this Board. Today there is a process where up to 20 lots
can be approved in an RPD by the Commission. That is a non-conforming statute which was
grandfathered when that legislation was adopted. If changes are made to the RPD ordinance, they will
have to comply with state law. That will cut the Commission out of the process. It will require that all the
standards that will apply to a RPD have to be put into both the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning
Ordinance. It will become a ministerial process not subject to any appeal by or review by the Commission
or the Board.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Rooker said that was the whole idea behind making these things mandatory. You can’t also
require that they go to the Commission.
Mr. Davis said you could previously, but under state law now, you can’t. It would have to be a very
carefully crafted ordinance to address all the issues that are now addressed by a more discretionary review.
Ms. Thomas said she is pleased that today the Board has ended with a maximum of 20. It has
been the feeling of the Board that if there were more than 20 houses in a cluster, it would so change the
character of the rural area, that there would no longer be a rural area, just a subdivision even if clustered.
The last developer who tried that was a thing called Apple Cove in Covesville. This occurred before she
was a Board member, but the argument was that it would so change the area that it would no longer be a
rural area, it would be a Covesville suburb without having any central city around it. She has always thought
it was relevant that when there were more than 20 units, the impact was too large. She said No. 9 says the
RPD is restricted to the number that could be achieved in a conventional subdivision and that will be a really
large number sometimes.
Mr. Cilimberg said in combination with the other strategies which require mandatory clustering, it is
already established that there could be a cluster of any size.
Mr. Rooker said in some ways the bigger the tract the more sense it makes to require it to go into a
preservation development.
Mr. Benish said that is the art and importance of the guidelines. Clusters may be desired in certain
pods. The design standards for an RPD can be discussed later. They will be difficult to do in order to
balance the fact that these will be ministerial approvals. If the idea of the net density created through these
things is a problem, staff can try to address that when the standards are created. If this is to be the
standard of development, to set aside less fragmented land, it is preferable to take the mandatory approach
for all subdivisions.
Mr. Wyant asked if there was only one road coming onto property and it branched to the left and to
the right and 20 units were put on each side if that would be acceptable as this is written now.
Mr. Rooker said the eighty percent would have to be left somewhere on the tract. There are some
standards in the document. Strategy No. 5 requires that the primary consideration for location of residential
lots and the preservation tract must be for protection, etc. There are a lot of criteria which must be met.
One good thing about this is that it requires a plausible approach to the location of the preservation tract
and what is being preserved. He would like to add “protection of groundwater recharge areas” to No. 5.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is anything in this proposal about having an area next to another area
be the set aside. He said if there is a development which is adjacent to one where there is already the
eighty percent, making those areas contiguous with one another might be one of the criteria. In other
words, it would create a larger preservation tract.
Mr. Cilimberg said Strategy No. 10 would be along those lines.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks one of the things the Board wants to achieve is large contiguous areas of
open space.
Ms. Catlin asked if the Board feels that No. 9 and No. 10 are okay as they are worded,
understanding there will need to be some definitions created before moving forward.
Mr. Davis said if two different developers put 20 lots next to each other and all of a sudden it looks
like 40 lots, it is a challenge for staff to determine how the Board wants it to look.
Ms. Catlin suggested the Board discuss Strategy No. 11: “Set a maximum acreage for
development right lots in subdivisions that will effect a significant reduction in land consumption through
development compared to the current 31-acre total for five development rights, while ensuring reasonable
flexibility to make wells and septic fields possible in difficult terrain.”
Mr. Rooker asked if Strategy No. 11 is different from Strategy No. 3.
Mr. Benish said the language in Strategy No. 3 was oriented to an RPD; Strategy No. 11 covers all
subdivisions.
Mr. Rooker asked what happens if there are 60 acres with six development rights and the
maximum of five acres is imposed. What happens to the rest of them?
Mr. Benish said there will always be mathematical points to be dealt with in the ordinance. That
occurs now with RPDs with the forty-acre lot sizes. There is a certain acreage that it cannot apply to. That
will need to be worked through in the ordinance.
Mr. Davis said that now if someone has 60 acres and wants to do the five development rights, they
cannot exceed a total of 31 acres, so that might leave them where they can only have one additional lot and
it would be 29 acres. It seems to have worked, but it creates odd circumstances.
Mr. Rooker said that example is a good example of something that would violate this proposal.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Davis said this one talks about regular subdivisions.
Mr. Cilimberg said this would be in a case where it was decided that clustering is not practical, so it
applies to all the other subdivisions that might occur.
Mr. Wyant asked if it is appropriate for it to be in this document.
Mr. Cilimberg said this is the total set of objectives and strategies for this section which includes
RPDs as one item.
Ms. Catlin said the Board has already said they support Strategy No. 12: “Adopt a phasing (time-
release) program that would permit a limited number of lots(s) to be created in a fixed period of time.” She
asked if anything else needs to be done to that strategy.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is okay.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 13 is: “Consider establishing overlay districts (for example, a
combined stream buffer and habitat corridor district) and building site definitions that better protect
important resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Resources Inventory from the
impacts of residential development.” There were no suggestions for changes.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 14 is: “Address the impacts of residential development on biodiversity
by altering zoning and subdivision regulations to include design criteria that direct residential development
away from large areas of forest, wildlife corridors, and highly valued habitats, and by implementing the
recommendations of the Biodiversity Committee.” There were no suggestions for changes.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 15 is: “Consider adopting programs and regulations to implement the
mountain protection goals identified in the Natural Resources and Cultural assets section of the
Comprehensive Plan in accord with new information on debris flow hazard areas and with the future input
of the Critical Resources Inventory.” She said this strategy would be implementing mountain protection
goals. There were no suggestions for changes.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 16 is: “Consider setting standards that limit the slopes and curvature of
driveways in the Rural Areas to prevent erosion and provide safe access.” There were no suggestions for
changes.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 17 is: “Consider limiting or preventing residential development in
debris flow hazard areas as needed to protect public safety.” There were no suggestions for changes.
Mr. Rooker asked if the word “consider” could be removed from all of these strategies.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 18 is: “Consider requiring use of lighting that conforms to the design
specifications found in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Plan in all residential
development approvals.” There were no suggestions for changes.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 19 is: “Consider revising time requirements for family ownership both
before and after a family division.” There were no suggestions for changes.
Mr. Bowerman asked if state law affects that one.
Mr. Davis said because Albemarle is considered a fast-growing County, it is not subject to the
restrictions that are applied to other localities for family subdivisions. Albemarle probably has the ability to
design those regulations however the Board wants to do it. There are some issues as to restricting the
alienability of the title that the County must be careful about. However, there is certainly more flexibility to
be more restrictive than what it is now.
Ms. Catlin said Strategy No. 20 is: “Actively support enabling legislation for Transfer of
Development Rights. When TDR programs are enabled, the County should adopt measures for
implementation.” There were no suggestions for changes.
Ms. Catlin said that takes the Board through the strategies related to land use patterns, density and
residential development. She appreciates the Board reorienting the discussion toward the document.
Actually everything staff wanted to talk about today in the density area was discussed. That brings the
Board to a break point; the impact of roads and transportation. Does the Board want to move ahead or
leave it for the next work session?
Mr. Rooker said he would prefer to just go ahead. He does not think the topics left will take that
long.
Ms. Thomas said she wants to talk about roads and transportation because she is aware that rural
roads are where fatal accidents are most likely to happen. She pointed to some maps which had been
posted on the Board Room wall showing locations of accidents in the County. Since the Board is thinking of
policies that could increase the number of people living in the rural area, she wanted the Board to realize
that it would be putting more people into harm’s way. She said two children in one family were killed on
Garth Road several years apart. Rural roads are very dangerous. This is a plea from her to realize there
will never be enough money to redesign and reconfigure rural roads. There is barely enough money to
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
take care of urban and primary roads. To her, this cements the seriousness with which the Board should
realize that the number of residential developments in the rural area should be reduced instead of doing
anything to increases that number.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with what Ms. Thomas is saying, but when development happens in the
rural area, the Board can’t ignore that the road needs to be made safe.
Ms. Thomas said there will never be enough money to make all of those roads safer. The study
done a couple of years ago called “The Eastern Planning Initiative” pointed out that a scattered form of
development would cost twice as much in terms of the amount of asphalt that would have to be laid and the
amount of money that would have to be put into the road system. The more the Board can go with the
DISC plan, the safer and less expensive it will be.
Ms. Catlin referred the Board members to page 41 in the book where the subject of Transportation
begins and then on to page 43 where the strategies are laid out.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that when the Commission was discussing Transportation they felt they
could design themselves out of a problem. She disagrees with that thought. She does not think there will
ever be enough money. The technology may be available, but the Board cannot think it can design itself
out of there being fatal accidents on rural roads.
Ms. Catlin asked for a recommendation for wording for this section.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is any disagreement with using the Rural Rustic Roads Program as a way
to deal with this situation.
Mr. Rooker said all of these design standards appear to make sense.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board would be fooling itself to think it would be able to design
safer rural roads at the same time as it is putting more people into the rural area.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees.
Ms. Thomas said she would prefer to not have this section because she thinks it is misleading to
suggest that the County can design itself into a safer situation in the rural areas.
Mr. Boyd asked if Ms. Thomas was suggesting that the Board ignore transportation issues in the
rural areas; make no mention of transportation in the rural plan.
Mr. Bowerman said the better the roads, the faster one drives, and the more who die.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is what Mr. Bowerman wants this section to say.
Mr. Bowerman said “no.”
Mr. Boyd said he did not understand what Ms. Thomas wants it to say. Should transportation and
roads be eliminated from the Rural Areas Plan?
Mr. Rooker suggested the Board members look at the General Design Standards for Rural Roads
recommended in this section, namely No. 1 reads: “Rural roads should be designed to retain their rural
character and not be designed to the characteristics of suburban subdivision street standards.” He asked if
anyone disagrees with that statement. There was no response.
Mr. Rooker said the standard No. 2 reads: “Rural roads should consist of minimum travelway
widths that are necessary for safety.”
Ms. Thomas said she would prefer that the Plan not talk about design standards for rural roads
because she thinks it would be fooling everybody into thinking the roads can be made safe.
Mr. Benish said the Commission put this in to assure that when there are road improvements the
County and staff working with an applicant can encourage a character that best meets that development.
Unless the potential for development is eliminated, development will occur, and the density will affect the
roads. Staff has found that the capacity of roads is generally okay, but the character of the roads may need
to be upgraded. The idea was to make sure that when upgrades take place, they are sensitive to the rural
environment, and have radiuses and curvatures that fit the area. The benefit the Commission saw was
addressing expectations when improvements are inevitable.
Mr. Wyant said he knows the Board wants development in the Development Areas rather than in
the Rural Areas, but that has not been worked on yet.
Ms. Catlin mentioned the Objective for this section on Page 43: “Provide a balance between the
safety of rural roads and maintaining the rural character. Evaluate the need to establish rural road design
standards to help articulate expectations for road design that meet this balance.” She asked if there were
any Strategies on Page 43 which the Board wanted to reexamine.
Ms. Thomas mentioned No. 5: “Limit construction of new roads in the Rural Areas, especially
where road building would impact or fragment natural habitats.” She said the Board members had received
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
a letter from someone who is trying to put in a new road for agricultural purposes and feels he is being kept
from doing so. She would hate to say “limit construction” if it limits any agricultural pursuit.
Mr. Cilimberg said he is not aware of how the County could stop someone from putting in a farm
road.
Mr. Davis said this is at Mount Fair. It also involves a water protection permit issue.
Mr. Wyant said it is also in a flood area.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Strategy No. 5 speaks to the allocation of resources; the County is not
trying to prevent someone from building a farm road. In terms of how resources are allocated, this is just a
true statement.
Ms. Thomas said she would add: “... except for agricultural and forestal uses.”
Mr. Benish said there are some road improvements which serve orchards, etc. that have an
agricultural benefit, and which the County would support. Staff will make sure that has not been precluded
by this section.
Ms. Catlin said the last Strategy is No. 7: “Identify roads that would provide for
connections/destination routes to serve the rural population and to provide farm-to-market routes. It should
be clearly noted that these secondary roads should not be designated or designed to become the impetus
for growth corridors.” There were no suggestions for changes.
Ms. Catlin asked if there are other transportation issues the Board would like to discuss.
Ms. Thomas said JAUNT has pointed out that if sprawl is too close to the City the next census will
change the boundaries JAUNT can serve. Every time the census expands an area and calls it urban,
Federal money is lost in support of JAUNT. She did some research to determine the effect of greater
development in the rural area, and that was one result.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not include the Water and Sewage Disposal section (page 43) on the
agenda today. By virtue of what the Board said earlier about central well and septic systems, staff will have
to make changes in that section.
Ms. Catlin asked the Board members to look at Page 46 (Fiscal and Tax Tools) and discuss the
issue of land use taxation. She said the Board had not suggested that there be any changes in this section.
The Commission recommended that this section be examined for its effectiveness.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should consider eliminating land use for properties located in
the development areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said he went to Richmond to appear before the General Assembly on that issue
several years ago. The Farm Bureau protested the idea of trying to change legislation just in Albemarle
County that would allow the County to do that. It has been a “hot button issue” for people who follow land
use taxation. Essentially, they were told there is a mechanism in place so this can be done, and it would be
through dropping back and having only an open space land use taxation program. That would require that
all the land be placed in an agricultural/forestal district in order to get use value. That makes people
commit to the district idea, but when that was floated for consideration in Fauquier County, they had about
500 people appear in opposition to changing their use value program. He said staff has not yet identified a
way it feels it would be easily accomplished.
Mr. Rooker asked if the County does not have the authority to say that land in the development
area does not qualify for land use taxation. He said a strategy the committee might recommend is that
properties must be in agricultural/forestal districts to qualify.
Ms. Catlin asked if the language in Strategy No.1 reading: “Establish a committee to review the
County’s use-value taxation program and revise the program within the framework of state enabling
legislation. The Committee should ensure that this program supports rural area policy goals and does not
subsidize residential development or other activities that are counter to rural area goals” could encompass
that.
Mr. Rooker said that language is fine.
Ms. Thomas said many people have said “do not let the Wetsel property (on Rio Road) be
developed.” The property is in the urban area and some year it is going to develop. However, she believes
every man, woman and child would pay the 1.7 cents every year that it costs to not have that land develop.
Ms. Catlin mentioned the other strategies for this section.
Mr. Rooker said the County’s fiscal impact analysis model does not have a transportation
component (Strategy No. 4 reads: “Conduct an analysis of the fiscal impacts of rural residential
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
development, and revise policies and regulations to address those impacts.”). If this is to be done for rural
areas, the increased transportation costs in the rural areas must be addressed.
Ms. Catlin said those are the sections which staff wanted to discuss today. Before the meeting
ends, she would like to go back and go over the directions the Board has given on the various sections.
First was Ms. Thomas’s suggestion that the expected outcome of the strategies in the section on Land Use
Patterns, Density and Residential Development should be focused on reducing the potential for
inappropriate residential development in the rural area. To bolster that, in the paragraph at the top of page
29 include language about reducing fragmentation and loss of rural character. Then, on page 37 (Other
Rural Areas Issues), there was no disagreement with Strategy No. 1, but the size should be determined in
the implementation portion. In Strategy No. 2, the figure of 80 percent was mentioned as the size of the
rural preservation parcel. In Strategy No. 3 it was felt that the maximum size should be recommended
during the implementation stage. In Strategy No. 5, include groundwater recharge as one of the criteria
and fix the typo “non-title” to “non-tidal wetlands.” Strategy No. 7 was eliminated. In Strategy No. 13, the
word “consider” was eliminated. In Strategy No. 15, the word “consider” was eliminated. In Strategy No.
16, the word “consider” was eliminated. In Strategy No. 17, the word “consider” was eliminated. In Strategy
No. 18, the word “consider” was eliminated. In Strategy No. 19, the word “consider” was eliminated.
Ms. Catlin mentioned page 43, and said that in Strategy No. 5 an exception is to be included for
forestal and agricultural benefit. Then the Water and Sewage Disposal section will need to be edited along
the lines of the eliminated central water and sewer systems. For the land use taxation section, she did not
pick up on any changes for that section.
Mr. Cilimberg said the issue areas staff intended to cover with the Board have all been covered in
the various work sessions. Staff needs to know if there is anything else the Board wants to discuss in detail.
Otherwise, staff will reflect what has been offered during these work sessions, update the plan and bring it
back for a final sign off before advertising for a public hearing. Staff is working on an implementation plan
which will reflect that document.
Mr. Dorrier asked when the Board will receive that information. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is planning
on having it completed for the December 1 Board meeting.
Mr. Rooker said there is no site plan requirement for a rural preservation development at this time.
The Board is asking that a lot of things be taken into consideration in this new plan. He said there will have
to be an ordinance which is fairly specific. He asked if it is possible that at a certain size, site plan review
could be required.
Mr. Davis said that can be required, but it can be done by staff only.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that should be required; otherwise, he does not think there will be a
process in which some of the good ideas in the strategies will be implemented.
Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Rooker is asking that this be done before submission of the subdivision plat.
Mr. Rooker said it should be at some point before it is approved.
Mr. Davis said a pre-application conference to talk about locations, etc. can be required. Then
there can be intensive ministerial review. But, for clustering, the General Assembly eliminated any review
by the Commission.
Mr. Rooker said it is the same problem as that today where there is a development as a matter of
right in the rural areas. There is a subdivision plat requirement, but not a site plan review requirement.
Mr. Davis said subdivision plats can be called before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked if under this approach those subdivisions can still be called before the
Commission.
Mr. Tucker said “no.”
Mr. Davis said anything as a matter of right can be called up; the new rules only apply to clustering.
Mr. Rooker said he would like for the Board to make certain there is some process built in to assure
that all of the things the Board has asked to be considered, are actually considered.
Mr. Cilimberg said all of those things can be built into the subdivision provisions. They can be dealt
with as part of the preliminary plat. At this time, there is special language for subdivisions creating rural
preservation developments. It does not exist for any other types of subdivisions.
Mr. Benish said staff deals with that rigor right now. The staff looks at the sites to determine the
areas that are most valued for protection, and then they discuss that with the applicant. There has to be a
process by which the rights to development are verified. There is a fairly rigorous process through the
standards which are set up in the ordinance. The magnitude of this new plan will be a lot more rigorous
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
and, he hopes, there will be the ability to deny it if it does not meet the provisions. It will have to be set up in
a way that it is a ministerial act.
Mr. Dorrier asked that the Board conclude this discussion and move to the final agenda items.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing: FY ‘2005 Proposed Budget Amendment. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on October 24, 2004)
Mr. Tucker said the budget amendment totals $12,649,837.31 and it is outlined in the executive
summary. It is comprised of seven separate appropriations, one of which was approved by the Board on
October 13, 2004 (No. 2005-023), for the purchase of a replacement fire engine for the Crozet Volunteer
Fire Department in the amount of $366,000.00.
The six new appropriations are: No. 2005-024 in the amount of $20,000.00 to allocate funding to
various departments for the Total Rewards program; No. 2005-025 in the amount of $10,000.00 for
Juvenile Court Assessment rental space; No. 2005-026 in the amount of $63,984.00 for funding for rural
area fire staff; No. 2005-027 in the amount of $54,075.00 for various public safety grants; No. 2005-028 in
the amount of $12,924.88 for various school programs and donations; and, No. 2005-029 in the amount of
$12,122,853.43 for the re-appropriation of ECC capital projects. Staff recommends approval of the FY
2005 Budget amendment in the amount of $12,649,837.31 after the public hearing, and then approval of
Appropriations No. 2005-024, No. 20050-25, No. 2005-026, No. 2005-027, No. 2005-028, and No. 2005-
029 to provide funds for various General Government, School, and Capital programs.
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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve the FY 2005 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $12,649,837.31, and to adopt Resolutions of Appropriation No. 2005024, No.
2005025, No. 2005026, No. 2005027, No. 2005028, and No. 2005029 to provide funds for various General
Government, School, and Capital programs.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Resolutions of Appropriation are set out in full below.)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-024
DATE: 11/03/04
EXPLANATION: ALLOCATION OF TOTAL REWARDS FUNDING
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 11010 282040 Board of Supervisors J 1 75.00
1 1000 12010 282040 County Executive J 1 243.00
1 1000 12013 282040 Community Relations J 1 112.00
1 1000 12015 282040 Management & Budget J 1 149.00
1 1000 12031 282040 Organizational Development J 1 37.00
1 1000 12040 282040 County Attorney J 1 224.00
1 1000 12141 282040 Finance-Administration J 1 187.00
1 1000 12142 282040 Finance-Assessment & Collection J 1 709.00
1 1000 12143 282040 Finance-Accounting & Payroll J 1 373.00
1 1000 12144 282040 Finance-Real Estate J 1 523.00
1 1000 12145 282040 Finance-Purchasing J 1 112.00
1 1000 12200 282040 Information Technology J 1 784.00
1 1000 13020 282040 Registrar J 1 209.00
1 1000 21010 282040 Circuit Court J 1 37.00
1 1000 21060 282040 Clerk of the Circuit Court J 1 373.00
1 1000 21070 282040 Sheriff J 1 784.00
1 1000 22010 282040 Commonwealth's Attorney J 1 299.00
1 1000 31012 282040 Police-Community Services J 1 37.00
1 1000 31013 282040 Police-Patrol Services J 1 4,927.00
1 1000 31016 282040 Police-Animal Control J 1 112.00
1 1000 32011 282040 Fire/Rescue-Administration J 1 187.00
1 1000 32012 282040 Fire/Rescue-Training J 1 149.00
1 1000 32013 282040 Fire Prevention J 1 187.00
1 1000 32015 282040 Fire/Rescue-Operations J 1 821.00
1 1000 32016 282040 Fire/Rescue-Recruitment & Retention J 1 37.00
1 1000 32019 282040 Fire/Rescue-Monticello J 1 448.00
1 1000 34050 282040 Inspections & Building Code J 1 635.00
1 1000 43001 282040 General Services-Administration J 1 448.00
1 1000 43002 282040 General Services-Maintenance J 1 149.00
1 1000 43003 282040 General Services-Custodial J 1 327.00
1 1000 43004 282040 General Services-Copy Center J 1 112.00
1 1000 53011 282040 Social Services-Administration J 1 448.00
1 1000 53012 282040 Social Services-Benefit Programs J 1 746.00
1 1000 53013 282040 Social Services-Service Programs J 1 1,026.00
1 1000 53014 282040 Social Services-Employment Services J 1 261.00
1 1000 53015 282040 Social Services-UVA Medicaid J 1 317.00
1 1000 71011 282040 Parks-Administration J 1 112.00
1 1000 71012 282040 Parks-Maintenance J 1 299.00
1 1000 71014 282040 Parks-Summer Swim J 1 187.00
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
1 1000 71017 282040 Parks-Teen Programs J 1 37.00
1 1000 71018 282040 Parks-Greenway Program J 1 37.00
1 1000 81021 282040 Comm Development-Administration J 1 429.00
1 1000 81022 282040 Comm Development-Planning J 1 877.00
1 1000 81023 282040 Comm Development-E911/Planning J 1 149.00
1 1000 81024 282040 Comm Development-Zon & Curr Dvlp J 1 933.00
1 1000 81030 282040 Housing J 1 336.00
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance 20,000.00
9010 0501 Est Revenue 20,000.00
9010 0701 Appropriation 20,000.00
TOTAL 40,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION No. 2005-025
DATE: 11/03/04
EXPLANATION: JUVENILE COURT ASSESSMENT RENTAL SPACE
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 21050 540200 LEASE/RENT J 1 10,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 CIP F/B J 2 10,000.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 10,000.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 10,000.00
TOTAL 20,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2005-026
DATE: 11/03/04
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR RURAL AREA FIRE STAFFING
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 32105 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 38,500.00
1 1000 32015 120000 Overtime Wages J 1 4,000.00
1 1000 32015 120000 Education J 1 2,200.00
1 1000 32105 210000 FICA J 1 2,635.00
1 1000 32015 210000 Medicare J 1 616.00
1 1000 32015 221000 VRS J 1 4,675.00
1 1000 32015 231000 Health J 1 5,128.00
1 1000 32015 232000 Dental J 1 180.00
1 1000 32015 311000 Medical J 1 700.00
1 1000 32015 311000 Medical - ongoing J 1 250.00
1 1000 32015 550100 Education - ongoing J 1 1,000.00
1 1000 32015 601100 Turnout gear & uniforms J 1 3,600.00
1 1000 32015 601100 Turnout gear & uniforms J 1 500.00
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 63,984.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 63,984.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 63,984.00
TOTAL 127,968.00 63,984.00 63,984.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2005-027
DATE: 11/03/04
EXPLANATION: PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1520 29406 566120 Comm Crime Prev J 1 31,875.00
2 1520 24000 240440 Grant-State J 2 31,875.00
1520 0501 Est Revenue 31,875.00
1520 0701 Appropriation 31,875.00
1 1535 31013 120000 O/T Wages J 1 4,617.50
1 1535 31013 210000 FICA J 1 382.50
2 1535 33000 330011 Grant-Federal J 2 5,000.00
1535 0501 Est Revenue 5,000.00
1535 0701 Appropriation 5,000.00
1 1529 33310 800311 Radar Equip J 1 7,200.00
2 1529 33310 330309 Grant-Federal J 2 7,200.00
1529 0501 Est Revenue 7,200.00
1529 0701 Appropriation 7,200.00
1 1529 33310 800100 Mach & Equip J 1 4,000.00
2 1529 33310 330308 Grant-Federal J 2 4,000.00
1529 0501 Est Revenue 4,000.00
1529 0701 Appropriation 4,000.00
1 1529 33310 800700 ADP Equip J 1 6,000.00
2 1529 33310 330307 Grant-Federal J 2 6,000.00
1529 0501 Est Revenue 6,000.00
1529 0701 Appropriation 6,000.00
TOTAL 108,150.00 54,075.00 54,075.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2005-028
DATE: 11/03/04
EXPLANATION: SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND DONATIONS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 2212 61411 580500 Staff Development J 1 100.00
1 2304 61105 601300 Instructional Supplies J 1 2,000.00
1 2114 61101 602000 Textbooks J 1 3,299.88
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 2,100.00
2 2000 19000 190214 Recovered Cost-Books J 2 3,299.88
2000 0501 Est Revenue 5,399.88
2000 0701 Appropriation 5,399.88
1 9000 60216 800909 Murray Elem Track J 1 1,025.00
1 2215 61411 580000 Misc Expense J 1 500.00
1 2210 61101 601300 Instructional Supplies J 1 6,000.00
2 9000 18100 181126 Donation-Murray Track J 2 1,025.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 6,500.00
9000 0501 Est Revenue 1,025.00
9000 0701 Appropriation 1,025.00
2000 0501 Est Revenue 6,500.00
2000 0701 Appropriation 6,500.00
TOTAL 25,849.76 12,924.88 12,924.88
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2005-029
DATE: 11/03/04
EXPLANATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF ECC CAPITAL PROJECTS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4105 31061 800306 Computer Aided Dispatch J 1 166,251.81
1 4105 31061 950180 Special ECC Projects J 1 69,836.44
2 4105 16000 160502 City Of Charlottesville J 2 79,667.87
2 4105 16000 160503 County Of Albemarle J 2 71,970.41
2 4105 16000 160512 University Of Virginia J 2 14,613.53
2 4105 16000 160540 City-Spec ECC 31.25% J 2 21,823.89
2 4105 16000 160541 Cty-Spec ECC 50.71% J 2 35,414.06
2 4105 16000 160542 UVA-Spec ECC 15.03% J 2 10,496.42
2 4105 16000 160543 Airport-Spec ECC 3.01% J 2 2,102.07
4105 0501 Est Revenue 236,088.25
4105 0701 Appropriation 236,088.25
1 4110 31050 312700 800 MHz-Consultants J 1 10,835.77
1 4110 31060 312700 800 MHz-Consultants J 1 141,684.36
1 4110 31060 800300 800 MHz-Comm Equip J 1 148,565.00
1 4110 31060 800305 800 MHz-Radio System J 1 5,937,952.95
1 4110 31060 800308 800 MHz-Subscriber Units J 1 4,108,679.00
1 4110 31060 800625 800 MHz-Utilities J 1 26,000.00
1 4110 31060 800635 800 MHz-Tower Sites J 1 57,360.50
1 4110 31060 999999 800 MHz-Contingency Funds J 1 1,346,272.00
2 4110 16000 160502 City Of Charlottesville J 2 1,240,560.00
2 4110 16000 160503 County Of Albemarle J 2 2,106,445.00
2 4110 16000 160512 University Of Virginia J 2 625,399.00
2 4110 33000 330325 Interoperability Grant J 2 1,987,600.74
2 4110 51000 510100 Appropriation-Fund Bal J 2 5,817,344.84
4110 0501 Est Revenue 11,777,349.58
4110 0701 Appropriation 11,777,349.58
1 4115 31065 312700 Mobile Data-Consultants J 1 109,415.60
2 4115 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 109,415.60
4115 0501 Est Revenue 109,415.60
4115 0701 Appropriation 109,415.60
TOTAL 24,245,706.86
12,122,853.43
12,122,853.43
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to:
Reappoint Mr. Joseph T. Samuels, Jr. to the ACE Appraisal Review Committee with said term to
expire December 31, 2005.
Reappoint Mr. Kirk Train, Ms. Candace M. P. Smith and Ms. Kathryn Hobbs to the Architectural
Review Board with said terms to expire November 14, 2008.
Reappoint Mr. John Hood to the Board of Building Code Appeals and Fire Prevention Code of
Appeals Board with said term to expire November 21, 2009.
Reappoint the following to the Equalization Board for Calendar Year 2005: Mr. Alan Collier to
represent the Rivanna District, Mr. David Cooke, II to represent the Jack Jouett District, Mr. Dabney B.
Sandridge to represent the White Hall District, Mr. A. Scott Ward to represent the Scottsville District, Mr. C.
Marshall Thompson to represent the Rio District and Ms. Alice Nye Fitch to represent the Samuel Miller
District.
Reappoint Mr. Vernon W. Jones to represent the White Hall District on the Industrial Development
Authority with said term to expire January 19, 2009.
Reappoint Mr. Mark Reisler to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging with said term to expire October
20, 2006.
Reappoint Ms. Sherry Buttrick to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority with said term to expire
December 13, 2007.
November 3, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Reappoint Mr. Michael Gaffney as the joint appointee to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority with said terms to expire December 31, 2006.
Reappoint Mr. Kevin O’Connor to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee
with said term to expire December 31, 2006.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 30. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said there will be an Apple Harvest Festival at the Cove Garden Ruritan Club located
on Route 29 South, on Saturday, November 6, 2004, from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. She urged all Board
members to attend.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 31. Adjourn to November 10, 2004, 3:00 p.m.
At 6:00 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Boyd,
seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn this meeting until November 10, 2004, at 4:00 p.m.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 12/14/2005
Initials: DM