Loading...
1997-03-19000273 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 19, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Ms. Patricia Pullen, President of the Ivy Steering Committee, said she was present to speak concerning the Ivy Landfill. She mentioned one of the Committee's concerns relating to the placement of the mini-transfer station. It is her understanding the Gershman Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) report recommended that a mini-transfer station be centrally located in a nonresiden- tial area. She pointed out that Ivy is a residential area. Secondly, there are 23 haulers in Albemarle County, and three of them are going to be served by the Ivy transfer station. She wondered where this leaves the other 20 haulers, and she asked how the haulers in the Supervisors' individual dis- tricts feel about this matter. She also asked if this is a central location for the transfer station. She next mentioned a concern by the Ivy Steering Committee dealing with construction and demolition debris (CDD) . She recalled that the GBB report indicates a considerable increase in CDD in 1999, which is very troubling. She wondered where this extra tonnage will be coming from, and she asked if the Ivy Landfill will become a regional landfill for CDD. She also asked what is CDD. CDD is supposed to be inert materials such as stumps, trees and rocks, etc. She noted, however, that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has successfully reclassified part of the MSW stream this year to CDD, and that is why she is inquiring as to what is included in CDD. She said it is known CDD comes from construction demolition, and it can contain adhesives, paints and solvents, etc. She mentioned that a certain amount of wood materials which have been painted with lead base paints are sometimes mixed in with the other CDD materials. She reminded Board members that the environmental restrictions are not nearly so stringent for CDD, so this means there has to only be one lining. If MSW is mixed with CDD, there really should be a subtitle for a cell. She noted that CDD can be just as hazardous to a person's health and environment as MSW. She recalled that a Joyce Engineering representative tested a monitoring well in the CDD area in the Ivy Landfill in 1995 and found !that there is 3,870 times the allowable limit of a certain chemical for safe drinking water. She does~not want to brush her teeth in this type of water. She mentioned that well water is the area's only water supply, because there is no public water supply. She asked the Supervisors to consider the following three questions very carefully when they are making decisions about the Landfill. She inquired if it is economically feasible or fair to the majority of the haulers to place the mini-transfer station at the Ivy Landfill for three haulers. She then asked if there are plans to convert Ivy into a regional landfill which accepts CDD from outside the Albemarle area, and she wondered what exactly is CDD. She asked if the Supervisors are going to risk more contamination of the groundwater by not being really careful about what is meant by CDD and not making sure it will be monitored in the future. Mr. Michael Webber informed Board members that he was speaking about this issue tonight because his mother's farm is next to the Ivy Landfill, and he is now part owner of that property. He said he would address the specific issue of CDD raised by Ms. Pullen. He stated that he talked to Jack Marshall, March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 000274 and it was obvious that the plans by RSWA officials are to finance its operation by maximizing the amount of CDD coming into the Ivy Landfill. He stated that this is almost a direct quote. He then requested the Supervisors to try to keep this from happening. He said the way it will be maximized, as he understands it, is by trying to arrange a quid pro quo with BFI. He added that MSW will go to Fluvanna County, and the CDD going to Fluvanna could ultimately end up coming to Ivy. He said if this happens, there will be no way of controlling the volume or the quality of the material going to Ivy. He mentioned that material going to Fluvanna comes from as far away as Roanoke. He went on to say that it might be hypocritical to want to ship the MSW out of Ivy, yet there are objections to things being shipped into Ivy. He said the argument of the Ivy Steering Committee has been that this is an inappropriate location for any of this activity, and if it was a BMW factory, it would be opposed. He emphasized that this is a residential area, and there should not be industrial activities going on there. He suggested that the County officials are violating their own zoning requirements by doing any of these things. He said, though, if there is going to be such activity, the argument is extremely vigorous that it should be minimal. He explained that minimal means if there is any CDD, it should be locally generated, it should not include potentially hazardous material, and it should not be part of a quid pro quo. He asked the Supervisors to instruct their representatives to RSWA to inform whoever is going to negotiate the contract that the contract should be strictly one for burial of MSW via the Fluvanna station. He said the CDD needs to be dealt with as a separate issue which can be discussed by everyone in public forum with respect to the volume and safety of this material. Mr. Ed Strange said he is a resident of Ivy, and he also wanted to speak about the Ivy Landfill. He added that as the supervisors are consider- ing the different options regarding the Landfill, he would like to bring to their attention several matters which, he feels, are of mutual concern. He mentioned that there has been no response to the Task Force's consensus items presented to the supervisors last year, except for the one Art Petrini wrote to the Rivanna Board. He said he felt as though the items were ignored rather than this being a response, but he would leave a copy of the response so the supervisors can make up their own minds. He next referred to the GBB report presented at the Joint City/County meeting of March 10 where several options were outlined. He said of the seven options, two were clearly favored -- 6a and 7a. He added that he favored Option 6 without the continuation of CDD. He stated that he opposed 7a because in regard to the mini-transfer station it clearly favors a small number of County haulers -- three out of twenty-three. He said this is at public expense and will result in these three haulers continuing to have an advantage over their competitors due to the close proximity of the disposal facility. He indicated that once built, the mini- transfer station at Ivy will be well on its way to being the central transfer station outlined in Option Three of the GBB report, as other County haulers change their routes to take advantage of the cost savings realized by saving miles and time. He stated that this is not only unfair to the other haulers, but to the Ivy neighborhood, as well, which has borne the majority of waste disposal in one location or another since the early 1950s. He mentioned that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority staff takes no position on this matter, and it was not included in the original GBB report. He said, though, this position was apparently requested from someone outside of the Authority. He went on to say that this option makes no economic sense, and he and his neighbors strongly urge the supervisors to reject this outrageous proposal and for once give Ivy a break. In regard to changing Ivy to a CDD landfill in 1999, he said clearly the Ivy neighborhood which has endured this landfill for 29 years will see little change as only the landfill construction materials will be changed, and the neighborhood will remain undoubtedly unhappy. He asked the Board of Supervi- sors to not be fooled into thinking that this proposal will resolve the problems at Ivy. He said it will not, because trash by any name is still trash. He added, however, that there is a compromise. He stated that there are several years worth of CDD material needed to fill the inappropriate holes and moderate grades, so that not only will the RSWA be able to leave a useful site, but one which will not require unnecessary maintenance. He mentioned that Hurricane Fran did over $83,000 of damage to the side of the cells due to the three to one grades. He said the Authority has applied for assistance, but this help will not continue if the grades are not moderated. He stated that the Authority can generate the money needed by this plan for closure and remediation with the neighborhood's blessing, but continuing to build and 000275 He next added that Option Three outlines the advantages of a central transfer station, most of which are economic. He said the GBB report states ~Authority customers will experience collection costs savings." He mentioned, though, that there are other advantages which are not listed. He said the Authority by virtue of its close proximity to the waste source, can maintain some control over the waste stream. He stated that many County and City trucks will experience increased productivity resulting in further cost reduction. He added that such a facility would enable the Authority to meet the Task Force's goals of 50 to 70 percent reduction of landfill material by installing a material recovery facility as part of the central transfer station. He said some people are probably thinking they can see some merit in this option, but they are wondering how a central transfer facility can be located in or near the City where it can be cost effective. He stated that this may not be true once the public realizes that this facility is contained in an enclosed building and only requires four to six acres. He said if it is properly sited, it will be just another building in an industrial area, except this one processes trash and reclaims recyclables which the Authority has been paid to receive. He explained that a ton which has been recycled or composted is a ton on which the Authority gets to keep the tipping fee. He then asked the supervisors not to approve a mini-transfer station at Ivy and to work with the neighbors in phasing out the landfill completely. He stated that in this scenario, everybody wins, and not just a chosen few. Mr. Randy Layman, representing the Wastehaulers Association, indicated that he was one of the haulers who works in the western area of the County. He noted that this will drastically impact not only him with his business, but every citizen of Albemarle County. He said one thing the Association members would like to see is that the competitive bid process works well for everybody in the County. He stated that they do not want to see one company gain while a financial burden is being placed on all of the other companies. He com- mented that there is a need for a transfer station somewhere in the County, and a bid process is necessary so a multitude of companies will have an opportunity to bid. He pointed out that there would be the same problem if a transfer station is placed in the eastern part of the County, because then one would be needed in the western portion. He said there are some homeowners who still use their own pickup trucks for trash, and all of these people need to be considered. However, he stated that the free enterprise system needs to be protected, and a facility is needed somewhere in the County. He said he does not see how there can be a competitive bid situation, if there is not a facility to which people can bring their trash. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Regarding the traffic enforcement grants, Mrs. Humphris said the money can be used for selective enforcement. She recalled that City officials announce locations in which they do their selective enforcement work every week, and she thinks this has been very productive. It succeeds in slowing traffic down without someone actually having to be there. She hopes this is the type of thing the County will be doing. Mr. Tucker responded that this practice can be re-instituted in the County. He does not know the reason it stopped. The staff would look into the matter. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 5.1 through 5.10, and to accept items 5.11 through 5.15 on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. At, sent: Mr. Marshall Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: County-wide Traffic Enforcement Grant, $8,000 (Form ~96055) . The Executive Summary indicates that traffic activity is increasing in Albemarle County. Patrol Officers on regular assignment do not have the opportunity to do much traffic enforcement. The primary proposed solution is March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) enlarge the site will only add to the problems both environmental and politi- cal. 000276 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) {Page 4) to increase traffic enforcement through selective enforcement assignments employing officers working overtime. This is a companion grant to the Route 29 North traffic enforcement grant. The overtime work to be performed by the County Police Department will be funded by a $6,000 federal grant. There is a $2,000 local match. The local match will be funded out of the current Police Administrative Services Division budget. No additional funds are required. Staff recommends approval Appropriation 96055 in the amount of $8,000. The Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation by the above shown vote: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NIIMBER: 96055 FUND: GP~ANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DMV TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1153331145120000 OVERTIME WAGES $7,431.00 1153331145210000 FICA 569.00 TOTAL $8,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2153333000330011 FEDERAL DMV GRANT $6,000.00 2153333000330011 LOCAL GOV'T TRANSFER 2,000.00 TOTAL $8,000.00 Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Route 29 North Traffic Enforcement Grant, $1,470 (Form %96056) . The Executive Summary states that U.S. Route 29 North of Charlottesville is the busiest and most crash prone area in the County. Patrol officers on regular assignment do not have the opportunity to do much traffic enforcement. The primary proposed solution is to increase traffic enforcement through selective enforcement assignments employing one or two officers working overtime. The overtime work to be performed by the County of Albemarle Police Department will be funded by a $1,470 federal grant. There is no local match. Staff recommends approval Appropriation 96056 in the amount of $1,470. The Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation by the above shown vote: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NUMBER: 96056 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DMV MINI GRANT. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1153231145120000 OVERTIME WAGES $1.~366.00 1153231145210000 FICA 104.00 TOTAL $1,470.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2153233000330011 FEDER3~L DMV GRANT $1,470.00 TOTAL $1,470.00 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 5 ) 000277 Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Traffic Unit Expansion Grant, $10,536.30 (Form ~96057) . The Executive Summary states that the County has been experiencing rapid growth especially in the areas of retailing and residential development. This growth has placed increasing demands on the County Police Department. Major areas of demand are traffic related. In 1992, a Traffic Unit was established. A $16,839 DMV grant for the period October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995 was received to expand the Unit to a more functional level by funding overtime for traffic checkpoints, selective enforcement and education operations. The grant was renewed for $10,400 for the period October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996. This request asks that the remaining funds be reappropriated for the period July 1, 1996 through September 30, 1996. There is a local match of $4,493. The overtime work to be performed by the Police Department will be funded by the $6,042.81 balance of this Federal Grant. The local match consists of $4,493.49. The local match will be funded out of the current Police Administrative Services Division budget. No additional funds are required. Staff recommends approval Appropriation 96057 in the amount of $10,536.30. The Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation by the above shown vote: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NI3MBER: 96057 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR TRAFFIC UNIT EXPANSION GRANT. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1153031145120000 OVERTIME WAGES $6,661.56 1153031145210000 FICA 509.64 1153031145800100 MACH. & EQUIP. 3,365.10 TOTAL $10,536.30 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2153033000330306 DMV-TRAFFIC UNIT EXPANSION $6,042.81 2153051000512004 LOCAL GOV'T TRANSFER 4,493.49 TOTAL $10,536.30 Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant, $57,326 (Form #96058) . The Executive Summary states that the Department of Justice has approved a grant to increase community oriented policing through increased overtime and use of hand held notepad computers. The County proposes to purchase 15 notepad computers and pay for 1,000 hours of overtime under the COPS MORE Program to increase the presence of existing sworn officers in community policing activities. The COPS MORE grant will be funded by a $42,994 U. S. Department of Justice COPS grant and a $14,332 local match. The local match is funded by the Police Operating Budget. Additional funds are not required. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #95068 in the amount of $57,326. The Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation by the above shown vote: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NUMBER: 96058 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES. (COPS) 000 78 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 6) EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1152131010120000 OVERTIME WAGES $18,417.00 1152131010210000 FICA 1,409.00 1152131010800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 37,500.00 TOTAL $57,326.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2152133000330001 FEDERAL GRAi~T REVENUE $42,994.00 2152151000510110 LOCAL GOV'T TRANSFER 14,332.00 TOTAL $57,326.00 Item No. 5.5. Appropriation: Education Division-Donation from Luck Stone Foundation, Inc., $250 (Form #96059). The Executive Summary states that at its meeting on February 24, 1997, the School Board approved the appropriation of $250 from the Luck Stone Foundation, Inc. Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from the Luck Stone Foundation, Inc. This donation is to be used to purchase furniture for the new volunteer coordinator at Stone Robinson Elementary School. Staff recommends approval of the appropriation as detailed on the attached form #96059. The Board adopted the followin~ Resolution of Appropriation by the above shown vote: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NI/MBER: 96059 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF DONATION FROM LUCK STONE FOUNDATION, INC. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1221061101800200 FURNITURE/FIXTURES $250.00 TOTAL $250.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200018100181109 DONATIONS .$250.00 TOTAL $250.00 Item No. 5.6. Appropriation: Law Enforcement Block Grant, $22,545 (Form %96060) . The Executive Summary states that the purpose of the Grant Program is to reduce crimes and improve public safety. This grant will utilize one officer on a part-time basis in the Esmont and Scottsville areas to provide a part- time neighborhood police officer. The work to be performed by the Police Department will be funded by a $20,290 federal grant. There is a $2,255 local match which will be funded from current operations. No additional funds are required. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation 96060 in the amount of $22,545. The Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation by the above shown vote: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NUMBER: 96060 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRAiqT. 000279 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1153131010110000 SALARIES $20,943.00 1153131010210000 FICA 1,602.00 TOTAL $22,545.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2153133000330001 FEDERAL GRANT $20,290.00 2153151000510110 LOCAL GOV'T TRANSFER 2,255.00 TOTAL $22,545.00 Item No. 5.7. Appropriation: Church Arson Prevention Grant, $4,600 (Form #96061). The Executive Summary states that the Church Arson Prevention Grant Program was authorized under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. The purpose of the program is to prevent further attacks on houses of worship and end racial and religious intolerance in America. The proceeds of' the grant will be used to purchase hardware for distribution to churches within the County of Albemarle. The hardware purchases will be funded by a $4,600 federal grant. There is no local match. Staff recommends approval of appropriation 96061 in the amount of $4,600. The Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation by the above shown vote: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NUMBER: 96061 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CHURCH ARSON GRANT. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1153431010601000 POLICE SUPPLIES $4,600.00 TOTAL $4,600.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2153433000330001 FEDER3~L GRANT $4,600.00 TOTAL $4,600.00 Item No. 5.8. Appropriation: Federal and State Drug Seized Assets, $67,191.88 (Form #96062). The Executive Summary states that periodically, the County receives revenues for assets seized in federal and state drug enforcement actions. The proceeds are utilized for additional law enforcement activities. This appropriation requests approval of the receipts and expenditures for federal and state drug seized assets for the period July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997. This appropriation requests approval of the expenditure of the unre- stricted July 1, 1996 fund balance. Staff recommends approval of appropriation 96062 in the amount of $67,191.88. The Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation by the above shown vote: FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97 NUMBER: 96062 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EXPENDITURE OF DRUG SEIZED ASSETS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 1123539000580902 1123639000580905 FEDERAL DRUG SEIZED ASSETS STATE DRUG SEIZED ASSETS TOTAL O00Z$0 $64,242.06 2,949.82 $67,191.88 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2123515000150101 2123533000330205 2123551000510100 2123624000240403 2123651000510100 INTEREST FEDERAL REVENUES FUND BALANCE STATE REVENUES FI/ND BALANCE TOTAL $1,000.00 22,945.93 40,296.13 1,248.22 1,701.60 $67,191.88 Item No. 5.9. Proclamation proclaiming March 20, 197 through March 23, 1997 as the "Third Annual Virginia Festival of the Book", was approved as follows by the above recorded vote: VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK WHEREAS, our love of literature and writing has led our community to rank first in the nation in book reading households; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Festival of the Book has celebrated the extraordinary writers who grace Albemarle County, and the children and adults who read books; and WHEREAS, over one hundred and forty gifted writers will participate in more than two hundred programs; and WHEREAS, numerous local businesses and individuals, civic groups and cultural organizations, have contributed time and resources to make this event possible; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim T~URSDAY, MARC~ 20, ~997 T~ROUG~ SUNDAY, MARC~ 23, 1997 as the Third Annual VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide variety of available events and activities. Signed and sealed this 20th day of March, 1997. Item No. 5.10. Proclamation proclaiming March, 1997, as Mental Retarda- tion Awareness Month, was approved as follows by the above recorded vote: MENTAL RETARDATION AWARENESS MONTH WHEREAS, mental retardation is a condition affecting more than 198,000 children and adults in Virginia; and WHEREAS, 50 percent of mental retardation cases could be pre- vented if current knowledge were fully implemented; and WHEREAS, people with mental retardation have the capacity to learn, develop and grow like all other citizens of our community; and WHEREAS, Virginians with mental retardation are valuable mem- bers of our society and can gain greater independence and productivity through community support; and WHEREAS, families, friends, neighbors, congregations and local community groups provide significant, and often unher- March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) alded support to Virginians with mental retardation; and WHEREAS, over 300 citizens with mental retardation in the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson are without neces- sary services and supports; and WHEREAS, Mental Retardation Awareness Month provides the oppor- tunity for all Americans to recognize the tremendous value and potential of people with mental retardation and to recommit and dedicate ourselves to the empower- ment, integration, employment and inclusion of every one of our citizens with mental retardation; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize the month of MARCH, 1997 as MENTAL RETARDATION AWARENESS MONTH in the County of Albemarle and call this observance to the attention of all our citizens. Item No. 5.11. Emergency Communications Center Ground Lease Agreement. In a memorandum to the Board dated March 17, 1997, Mr. Tucker stated that the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and University of Virginia have been in contract negotiations regarding a Ground Lease Agreement for the new Emergency Communications Center building located on University property near the bypass and Route 250 West. The County Attorney's office has provided an overview of the agreement as it has been negotiated to-date for the Board's information and approval. The Board approved the lease agreement, by the above shown vote. copy of the agreement is on file in the Clerk's office.) (A Item No. 5.12. 1996 Annual Report of the Albemarle County Planning Commission was received for information. (The report states that the Commis- sion held 39 regular meetings in 1996 primarily to review development propos- als. A total of 136 items were reviewed.) Item No. 5.13. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 18, 1997 was received for information. Item No. 5.14. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meeting of January 9, 1997 was received for information. Item No. 5.15. 1997 Estimated Valuation of Railroad Roadway and Track as prePared by the Department of Taxation, was received for information.. Item No. 5.16. Copy of memorandum dated March 5, 1997, to Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, from David Benish, Chief of Community Development, re: 15.1-456 Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan--Installation of a Sanitary Sewer Collection Line to Serve Properties within the Development Area Located West of Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and North of Route 649 (Airport Road), was received for information. 00025 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Item No. 5.17. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) monthly bond and program report for the month of February, 1997, was received for information. Item No. 5.18. Copy of letter dated March 13, 1997, to Mr. John S. Salmon, Acting Register Program Manager, to Mr. Watha J. Eddins, Jr., re: Red Hills, Albemarle County, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article IX, Transient Occupancy Tax of the Code of Albemarle to increase the transient occupancy tax rate from two percent to five percent. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 24 and March 3, 1997.) Mr. Tucker said the 1996 General Assembly amended Va. Code 58.1-3819 to enable Albemarle County and five other counties to raise the transient occupancy tax rate cap from two percent to five percent. The amendment also specified that the "revenues collected from that portion of the tax over two percent shall be designated and spent for promoting tourism, travel or business that generates tourism or travel in the locality". The proposed ordinance would enable Albemarle County to set the transient tax rate at five percent effective on July 1, 1997. It is estimated that the three percent increase would generate an additional $585,600 that could be used for tourism and tourism related projects, and will be kept in a separate fund. Examples of tourism related projects would be the Visitors Bureau, tourism marketing, capital projects such as the Rivanna Greenway, and other increased local efforts to promote tourism. Mr. Tucker said this public hearing is to solicit public comment, and if adopted, the ordinance would become effective July 1, 1997. There were no questions or comments from Board members, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Ms. Jane Dittmar, a citizen of Albemarle County from the Samuel Miller District, was present to represent the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce. She said notice of this public hearing occurred after the Chamber's last Board meeting in February, and the hearing is being held before its March Board meeting, so she does not have a resolution for tonight's meeting. She said the Chamber's Executive Committee met on Tuesday morning to discuss this hearing, and she is comfortable making the following comments. She thanked the County officials for being a good partner with the Chamber, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia in supporting tourism in this area. The County has helped fund the Visitor Center for the last eight years, and this public/private partnership has resulted in over 150,000 people per year being served and has also helped create a more cohesive tourism system for the area. She noted that under the most recent contract, there is a strong tourism council populated by profes- 'sionals in the tourism industry and representatives from the University of Virginia, as well as people from Piedmont Virginia Community College. She said a substantial review of the strengths and weaknesses has been undertaken. It has been learned that not only is the tourism visitation flat, but it is losing ground. Despite a trend in the County's private sector to increase hotel capacity, there is disinvesting in the tourism economy. This is not happening in other areas of the State or other states in the nation. She went on to say that elected officials representing these economies know they benefit from tax revenue from these nonresidents, and they are further "priming their pumps" with sophisticated promotion and marketing efforts. Ms. Dittmar noted that this tourism is currently very small with almost all allocated dollars spent to handle visitors who have already decided to come here, and there is not enough momentum to maintain ground. She believes this is why Commonwealth officials have tightened the definition of how tax revenues over two percent can be spent and require now that additional revenues be used for promotional and marketing efforts for tourism. Specifi- cally, Virginia wishes to maintain its $10,000,000,000 economy in tourism. This local Chamber's representative can ask and hope tonight, after approxi- mately a years' worth of research and several formal Board reports, that if this Board decides to increase the Transient Tax, it will be used to invest in additional revenue to ~prime its pump" for the local trade area. She said the March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 000283 returns will be great, and the Commonwealth of Virginia has formal studies showing that for every one dollar in tax revenues spent by the Commonwealth, $12 of tax revenues are returned. She stated that, hopefully, the same can be done in the local trade area. Ms. Felicia Rogan, Chairman and President of the Oakencroft Vineyard and Winery Corporation; a member of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce; Chairman of the Tourism Committee; and Liaison between the Chamber and the Thomas Jefferson Regional Tourism Council, expressed the Chamber's support for increased funding for the direct marketing and promotion of local tourism. She said the mission of the Charlottesville Visitors Bureau is to promote the Charlottesville/Albemarle area as a desirable tourism destination, to provide information about the area to visitors who come to the Bureau, to provide tourism information to potential visitors, to assist group tour planners in arranging local itineraries and provide meeting planners with information on meetings and conference facilities and services within the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. She noted that currently the CVB is able to fulfill only part of this mission, and is primarily only able to respond to direct inquiries and greet visitors who come to the Bureau. She said unlike most other bureaus around the country, the CVB staff is unable to attend trade shows which attract meeting and convention planners as well as travel brokers, because there is not enough money in the budget to accommodate such efforts and keep the Visitors Center functioning. She pointed out that this area has the crown jewels of visitor attractions, and they are Monticello, Ash Lawn, Montpelier, the University of Virginia and eleven wineries within the area. Charlottesville is the wine capital of Virginia. Tourism is a clean industry. She said it does not pollute, strain local services, and it can bring liter- ally millions of dollars into this community. It also can provide jobs for the citizens. She then emphasized that according to a survey the Virginia Visitors Bureau conducted in 1995, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Visitors Bureau ranks far behind other communities of comparable size in its funding. She asked the Supervisors to consider the potential benefits to this area, which would result from increased visitor and convention visits, and appropri- ate a funding increase to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau. Mr. Jack Bickart, Vice-Chairman of the Charlottesville Regional Tourism Council, requested additional funding to provide the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau with a competitive tourism marketing program. He said among the regional tourism council members, there is no question about the need for more funding for the CACVB. He read a statement which provided the Supervisors information demonstrating the underspending to the competition by close to 60 percent. He mentioned comparisons to other localities, and indicated that a marketing budget with an increment of $300,000 was needed. (See Request to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for Additional Funding to Provide the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau with a Competitive Tourism Marketing Program received March 19, 1997 from Jack Bickart.) Mr. Forbes Reback spoke on behalf of increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax. He did not hear any of the statistics just recited, but it seems to him as a landowner in the County that transient occupants need to pay their fair share. He has stayed in tourist areas throughout the world and has paid up to 20 percent a night in taxes to local governments. He noticed this did not diminish the tourist trade at all in those places. He stated that ways need to be found to relieve the tax burden on real estate, and there are a number of suggestions available. If growth can be controlled in some normal way, either through the purchase of development rights or other creative zoning methods, and there is not a requirement to build new high schools every several years, he thinks the line can be held on real estate taxation. Mr. Wayne Elliott, a resident of Carrsbrook Drive, stated that he does not see how anyone could oppose this tax. It really is a dream tax, because someone else is going to pay it. Transients are not the Supervisors' constit- uents, they do not live in the County, and they probably do not even know this hearing is taking place. It is a great tax to pass, if one has to be passed. He would like for the Supervisors to ask themselves how they got to the point of having this tax. The supervisors are going to max out their authority under the State statute if they levy this tax tonight. It is his position that the County got itself in the position of having to raise the tax now because the rate of development in the past far out paced the revenues generated by this development. This is a concrete example today that develop- ment is never free, it is rarely cheap and it has to be paid for now. He then March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 000286 asked the Supervisors to make a public comment on whether this is a result of years of development proceeding faster than the County could absorb it. He said this is the past and present, but he wondered about the future. He next asked what will be done with the money once the County receives it. He agreed with previous speakers as to how the money should be spent, but he thinks the main goal should be to avoid getting into this position again in the future. He would suggest two things. First, he pointed out that under the State statute, money has to be earmarked for tourism. He urged the Supervisors to take a broad view of what is tourism. He would like the Supervisors to consider that Albemarle County is a very historic area, and there should be nothing done in the future to diminish the historical facili- ties located here, as well as the access to them. This should be one place where the extra tax dollars should go. Secondly, he noted that the people who come to Albemarle County do not just come to see Monticello, Ash Lawn, etc. There is more to the County, such as the quality of life here. In his opinion, anything enhancing the quality of life is in fact a tourism draw. Therefore, he urged the Supervisors to consider as part of their future deliberations the possibility of using some of this money generated by the tourism tax to implement a purchase of development rights program. He explained that this gives the County the ability to regulate the pace of growth. Growth can be speeded up or slowed down, and there are a lot of options to consider, if the money is available. This tax provides a source of money, and although he is sure it has probably been spent for this year, this is the time for some creative thinking about how things have been done in the past and how the same problems can be avoided several years from now. He mentioned that unless County officials get permission from the State Legisla- ture, they will not be able to increase this tax. He said new hotels can be built, but they do not usually pay for themselves and eventually they begin to cannibalize the market, so this is really a long-term solution. Mr. Elliott said he does not oppose this tax and he does not see how anybody who lives in Albemarle County can oppose it. It is a good tax, and it is probably time to collect all that is possible from the transients who come through this area. He asked the Supervisors, however, to keep in mind the problems he mentioned which will still be there unless they are considered and a solution is found for the future. Ms. Ellen Craddock stated that she lives on a tiny farm in the northwest part of the County. She believes a small additional tax on hotels, motels and inns is preferable to raising property taxes for the whole County. Ms. Babette Thorpe read a statement on behalf of the Piedmont Environ- mental Council requesting the Board to consider setting aside a portion of the funds for the permanent protection of land contributing to tourism in Albe- marle County. She noted in the statement that marketing is important, but it is just as important to protect the assets being marketed. (See statement to the Board of Supervisors from the Piedmont Environmental Council.) Mr. Harold Via remarked that he lives in Free Union. He was born in Charlottesville, he went to Lane High School, and he is back in the area again, after being away for 35 or 40 years. He echoed Forbes Reback's comments in that he has been a lot of places where he has paid a lot more than five percent, and he has also lived in other places in the Commonwealth of Virginia where he paid a lot more in real estate tax than he does in Albemarle County. He is in favor of increasing this Transient Occupancy Tax to take advantage of those who come and visit and enjoy this area. It is the same area that he thought enough of to come back to spend the remainder of his life, and he has enjoyed every minute of it. Ms. Greenwood stated that following the spirit of the enabling legisla- tion she is speaking to encourage this Board to consider spending any increase in Transient Tax revenue on a marketing effort for this community. She noted that the travel industry consists of many other industries beyond hotels and restaurants. She said there is retail, historical land sites, wineries, food and beverage vendors and numerous goods and services utilized during the course of business, ranging from professional services to the purchasing of uniforms locally. She added that there are many people affected by the tourism dollar. She said it is a highly competitive business, and there are fixed spending dollars in the tourism trade. She went on to say there is also fixed time which enables folks to travel and see different parts of the world, and what one region receives, this area loses. It is important for this area to capture those travel dollars as often as possible, and marketing is very March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 000285 influential in how travelers spend their time and dollars. There is an opportunity now for this area to market what it has. She said educational vacations, as well as cultural tourism, are very popular, and this is very much influenced now by other regions. This area has a strong educational bent, and it is steeped in historical and cultural tradition. She hopes this opportunity can be taken now and shared with the remainder of the region, the state and the United States. She mentioned that tourism is a highly competitive business, and in this day and age, there is not a domestic or international budget which does not focus its efforts on tourism. This area goes head to head regionally vying for fixed travel dollars; it will be exceedingly important to have a strong presence in the tourist market. This is a great opportunity now, because there is an active tourism council supporting the CACVB in developing new marketing efforts. Expertise is being brought in from the different indus- tries which she mentioned earlier. She believes the dollar spent will be returned to this community many times over through the wages and benefits to this community's work force involving many different industries, a strong tax revenue and a stabilized economy. With increased business revenues, there will be the ability to maintain and improve the environment in which we work live. She said tourism has been shown time and time again to be a good business to pursue. It is clean, it has a positive influence on the economy, supports the area's wages and benefits and encourages an interest in keeping what this area has in the best condition possible. Mr. Webber seconded the recommendation of the Piedmont Environmental Council that a certain portion of the funds be used to preserve green areas which are part of the tourist attractions, and he pointed out the historical nature of the Ivy Valley area. He mentioned that Woodstock Hall is the oldest frame house in Albemarle County, and it is to the west of the landfill. He said Malvern Farm was built in 1795, and his mother bought it in 1968. He stated that it was a derelict farm with eroded soil, but she has restored it, and it is now in the National Register of Historic Houses. He said it has in the past been part of the Garden Tour. He mentioned that Dick Woods Road has ~a tremendous amount of history, because it was the major east/west transport road during Eighteenth Century Albemarle County. He asked the Supervisors, as they begin thinking about their vision of bringing tourists into the area, to take into account this beautiful valley which is the center of the County. There was no one else who wished to speak, so Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. She said she wanted to share a communication with the Board members, as well as the other people at the meeting. She had a phone call last week from a representative of Golf Digest, and the purpose of the call was to announce that Albemarle County has been chosen as the Number One Best Golf Retirement County in America. She received a publication which she displayed it for the group. It is a publication entitled Golf Digest Retire- ment Planner which is developed by the editors of Golf Digest with personal finance editors of Business Week. She called attention to the name of an article on the cover of the publication relating to the 36 best places to live and play. She indicated that the article lists Albemarle County, Virginia, as number one. She said this is the best type of publicity, because there will be people coming here very soon who want to stay in this area's hotels and motels, while they shop for a place to live. Mrs. Thomas said the article is very timely. She then asked for a description of the increased funding to be put into tourism. She realizes it partially depends on the City officials coming up with a like amount. Mr. Tucker stated that there is a draft budget developed by the Tourism Council, and it is approximately $300,000. The plan is to utilize a portion of these additional funds from this increase in the tax to fund the County's portion and to share it 50/50 with the City of Charlottesville. He added that approximately $150,000 will go to the Visitors Bureau to fund the marketing effort. Mrs. Thomas stated that it appears the County officials are being responsive to the tourism budget requests. Mr. Tucker responded affirma- tively. Mrs. Thomas said she was concerned that the people in the audience may not have gotten this message. Mr. Tucker said he has been informed that City Council will be dealing with this matter either in April or May. He went on to say the Councilors will be considering a rate increase of five cents instead of four to match Albemarle County's increase. March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) 000286 (Page 14) Mr. Perkins asked how broad is the scope for spending this money, and he wondered if it could be spent for some of the things mentioned tonight. Mr. Tucker answered that last week during the Chamber's legislative session with the three legislators, Mitch Van Yahres had a very broad description of how the funds could be used, but Mr. Way had a different perspective on the matter. Mr. Tucker said he thinks it will depend a lot on the County Attor- ney's advice and opinion. He added that basically the language relates to tourism and travel-related types of expenditures, so he is unsure if the funds could be used for such things as the purchase of development rights. He said the County's first initiative will be to use the funds for the Visitors Bureau's tourism marketing, the Rivanna Greenway and an improvement on Route 250 for the outdoor theater. These items are obvious uses for the funds. He said beyond that, it will be on a case-by-case basis at budget time. He added that as future budgets are approached, these types of requests will be reviewed. Mrs. Humphris inquired if there has been a definitive answer on whether the money can be used for purchase of development rights. Mr. Tucker answered negatively. Mr. Davis concurred with Mr. Tucker's statement that this matter is something which will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. He said the door is not being closed to the possibility of using some of the funds to purchase development rights. This is something to be considered very carefully when County officials examine how the program might be defined, and it is premature at this time to make such a decision. Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks it is a fair tax, as taxes go. He believes this is one of the few times when there have been different groups of people who have spoken about a matter, and in this case the disposition of revenues, where the thoughts although somewhat different, were not mutually exclusive. He thinks the path the County officials have taken this year is reflective in that it is as important to increase tourism, as it is to protect what the tourists are coming here to see. It is for those two reasons, he support the tax. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman , seconded by Mr. Martin, to amend Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article IX, Transient Occupancy Tax of the Code of Albemarle to increase the transient occupancy tax rate from two percent to five percent, to be effective July 1, 1997. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Absent: Mr. Marshall. ORDINA/~CE NO. 97-8 (1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ~ REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION, ARTICLE IX, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX, 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 8, Finance and Taxation, Article IX, Transient Occupancy Tax, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 8-41, Imposed; amount of tax, as follows: Sec. 8-41. Imposed; amount of tax. There is hereby imposed a tax on the occupancy of all rooms in hotels, motels, boardinghouses and travel campgrounds within the county. Such tax shall be assessed at the rate of five (5) percent of the amount charged for such occupancy; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed as imposing any tax upon rooms or spaces rented for continuous occupancy to the same individual, person, firm, or corporation for thirty (30) or more days in hotels, motels, boardinghouses or travel campgrounds. (11-28-73; 8-15-74; 4-13-88.) The revenue collected from the portion of the tax over two (2) percent shall be designated and spent for promoting tourism, travel or business that generates tourism or travel in the county. This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 1997. March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 000287 *State law reference--Authority of county to adopt this article, Code of Va., §58.1-3819. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-96-04. J. Page Williams. Public Hearing on a petition to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, re: setback provi- sions of the R-4 Residential (section 15.3), R-6 Residential (section 16.3), R-10 Residential (section 17.3) & R-15 Residential (section 18.3) Districts to permit ~zero lot" lines. This will also require amendment to Section 3.0, Definitions, & Section 4.11, Uses & Structures Permitted in Required Yards. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg explained that the term, "zero lot lines," refers to a reduction in side yard requirements to a minimum of zero, but this change would only be applicable to one side yard and not both of them. He showed Board members an illustration of how this situation would work as compared to a conventional layout of lots. He noted that it does not change yard size requirements or the actual density allowance of any of the districts. It simply allows for another form of clustering. He described the four factors favorable to this request, as well as the one unfavorable factor. He noted that the staff recommends the zero lot lines change, and there is language provided by the County Attorney specifically covering how this amendment will be put in place. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 18, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of this change. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the zoning existing on the property would stay the same, and theoretically the number of dwelling units could not increase. He added that by the use of this change, there could be an increase of open space. He stated that it appears to him in some cases there may be some unbuildable lots which would then become buildable with this flexibility. Mr. Cilimberg responded that theoretically any piece of land normally has an area that is developable and there may be other areas which are not under the various provisions of the County ordinance. This change gives the possibility to utilize at a higher density the area that is developable, but not to exceed the underlying gross density requirement. Mr. Bowerman asked if the idea is to give more flexibility for the siting of the units and to increase open space. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. Mrs. Thomas asked if there are any conditions under which this change is available to developments today. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this has been seen in Planned Unit Developments, such as Four Seasons. Mrs. Thomas said the Four Seasons development happened a long time ago. She asked again if any of this is happening today. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he has not seen the zero lot lines situation pursued in any Planned Unit Developments since he has been associated with the County. It is a possibility, however, and could be sought through the PUD or PRD zoning, although it is not available in any of the conventional districts which are most of the County's residential areas. Mr. Cilimberg next noted that there were some modifications made after the Planning Commission meeting in the language of the ordinance. He went on to explain that these modifications do not change the intent or the applica- tion, but simply makes clearer the intent of the ordinance. At this time, Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Page Williams informed Board members that he is an attorney for Craig Builders, who is the applicant for this Zoning Text Amendment. He is delighted that the staff has recommended the zero lot line concept and appreciates the comments of not identifying this as just a zero lot line but as a reduced lot line. The zero lot line term has been'used throughout the country, but it does not necessarily refer to a dwelling situated right on a lot line. It is just something less than what is allowed now. He referred to the example shown to the Board, and he said this is the most extreme example which could be shown for this type of development. He next mentioned the portion of the staff report relating to public purpose which relates to the more efficient use of development areas by potentially increasing the density. He said there is support in the Compre- 000; $8 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) hensive Plan for this type of a feature such as greater utilization of land in the growth areas, infill development of growth areas, and providing greater flexibility in the use and density of development. The Comprehensive Plan also directs that zoning and subdivision regulations be evaluated and amended as necessary. This is something that would be advantageous in making more choices to the public as the public looks at home selections. He then referred to the concepts and purposes for setbacks as shown in the staff report. The first purpose identified by staff is to ensure adequate light and air particularly in consideration of this type of project versus a townhouse project. This separation is deemed to be good by the staff, and the plan promotes adequate light and air. He remarked that the staff also found fire protection measures were met. He said another is to establish character in a given area of development. He stated that zero lot line development, as identified by staff, can lead to the development of changing from an attached home setting to a detached home setting. This is a market driven concept. He added that the public needs more choices, and his company is trying to give them more choices. Mr. Williams also mentioned better utilization of land and the possi- bility of larger homes on smaller pieces of land with the outdoor living and recreational areas combined, rather than having one small lot to be maintained at the exclusion of everyone else. This plan would also give more flexibility in siting the houses. He agreed with the staff's comments with respect to the topography in the area that it makes it difficult to try to force this situation into a larger area or into a comprehensive or overall plan. His client's initial focus on this concept was in an area called Forest Ridge. He stated that company representatives informed County staff members that they were interested in taking a development which had been planned by someone else as an attached home development and separating the units into detached homes, where they would have more market appeal. This is true, because many people would rather live in a detached home than an attached home. He reiterated that his client's original application related to the R-10 district, but it was subsequently expanded, at the staff's request, to include the other zoning districts. He said the question has been asked as to why this plan should be supported now, and not deferred in view of the development designs and initiatives proposed by the staff. He went on to ask why his client should wait, since this is a good and useful tool which is needed now. He mentioned that this concern was addressed by the Planning Commission and the Commissioners unanimously approved the request. He said the Commissioners debated and considered it, and they felt it was a good tool which would be useful now to fulfill the infill strategies that have been proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Roland Stanton said he wanted to talk about new development. With ten acres of land today, there are usually approximately 17 structures. In those 17 structures, there are ten homes with at least one child attending Albemarle County schools. Most homes have an average of one and one-half children. The average valuation of these homes will be about $210,000 which means they will contribute approximately $1,500 in taxes, but it will cost $4,000 tax dollars to educate each one of those children. This means there is a deficit of approximately $1,500 every time one of these homes is created, so why would it be desirable to increase the density by a factor of two. He asked how Albemarle County and he, as a citizen, can benefit from this type of thing. He wondered if County officials are afraid that no manufacturing firms are going to come here because there is no place for their people to live. Over the past 15 years, the number of manufacturing firms have been few. He also asked if County officials are afraid that large tracts of homes will be built to mar the beauty of the County in too many areas, and he named Southern Hills, Highlands, Forest Lakes, Lake Reynovia, West Ridge and Corey Farms. There appears to be a subdivision in every one of the magisterial districts, and there are a lot more of them, so this could not possibly be the reason. He wondered if the County officials are afraid people won't move to Albemarle County. He wants to make a radical suggestion that no lots would be smaller than five acres anywhere in the County. Since development of the proposed type increases the cost of County services, especially in the area of education, anybody who wants to do something of this nature would be told that for every lot less than five acres, $15,000 would go into a special fund. The fund would be earmarked for school development, growth and support of community services, such as police, fire and emergency protection. All of these problems are going to happen, because people are being packed closer together. March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 000289 The number one problem with people is proximity, and the closer together they are, the more problems they have. For those who wish to create an environment where a person can borrow French condiments simply by opening a window in the kitchen, let them support the increase in cost that they are generating. Mr. Bob Helt, a resident of Crozet, mentioned concerns relating to the zero lot line development from a family perspective, especially when consider- ing it from a child's point of view. He has two boys, ages nine and twelve, and he is concerned that the zero lot line development without adequate infrastructure would be detrimental to families. He has ridden around western Albemarle County, and he does not see any sidewalks, bike paths or open areas that are level and acceptable to children. Most of the common areas are hilly and unacceptable. He believes these and other family supported facilities are needed even more so when high density areas are considered. He reiterated that families need to be considered. He is always trying to get his two boys away from the television set. He then mentioned two proposals for consider- ation. He said, first, when a common area is specified, it needs to be an open, level area and not just any open area. Secondly, consideration needs to be given to rights-of-way through developmental areas, not only to get to other developments, but to such things as County parks. He referred to Crozet Park, as an example. People cannot get to the Crozet Park except by going through someone's back yard, even if they live in some of the older develop- ments surrounding Crozet Park. This is also true with some of the new developments. He believes only the County officials can look at these long term issues, because builders look at short-term issues. He commented that this is not just his idea. He has talked it over with a lot of people, and he has gotten a lot of support. He would appreciate any consideration which could be given to these two issues, as well as others to help the families in Crozet. Mr. Charles Trachta said the Supervisors have heard from him and other community leaders during the last week, and he hopes they have listened to them on the phone, as well as some of the things that have been said here tonight. One of the problems relates to the fact of developers being seen as developing something good. These developers are builders, and they are builders of profits for themselves. He does not fault a builder or developer or anyone else wanting to make a buck because it is the American way. However, he does fault them for wanting to make two bucks, and the second one will be coming out of the pockets of the people of Albemarle County for no reason. For a business to make money, it must make a profit on its invest- ment, but the consumers must be given something in return for their hard earned dollars. The developers are offering over crowdedness in the schools, congestion on the roads and higher taxes just to maintain the basic quality of life, more garbage and less water. He will stop here because the Supervisors have heard it all before, but the list goes on and on. The citizens are not getting anything from the developers, and the developers are getting it all. The developers are saying this proposal is needed because it can help them develop more. Yet, if their developments fall under the PDR classification, and they come to this Board with a request, the Supervisors would grant it to them today. He said the developers will have to offer some proffers, but if this ZTA is granted tonight, they do not have to offer any proffers. The Supervisors will be losing a bargaining tool, and their strong position. He then wondered why the developers need this change now. He stated that Mr. Williams says it is needed now because it is a good thing. He asked where was this idea for the last 20 years. He asked if the developers are afraid the new Infill Committee may say this change is not needed and perhaps the developers will have to offer proffers. He remarked that the County is going to be spending money for a consultant. He added that Mr. Martin and some of the other members of this Board, as well as people from the community, are involved with this new Committee, and they are studying these types of things. He wondered if these Committee members will be told to keep on with their study, but rules are being passed now on the topics they are studying. He said this does not make sense. He told the Supervisors that they may eventually say yes or no to this item, but it needs to be done after the Infill Committee meets. Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, stated that this proposal should be deferred to the Infill Committee. He said the discussion tonight involves a technique which can be employed in land use management. He asked in what part of the design process should this technique be used, and who should be involved in the decision to employ such a technique. This is not being discussed tonight. He feels it will be the professional members of the Infill March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) OOO290 Committee, such as the landscape architects, not to mention the consultant who will be hired, as well as commercial and community interests who can best give this matter a full review. He remarked that to rule on this matter tonight would be to give the appearance of legislating around the Infill Committee, which was just appointed, to look into what should be the best land use management practices employed in Albemarle County. He said until that time, the matter should be handled on a case-by-case basis. He then mentioned the density issue. If a community of five acre lots is designed, then density should be considered. He said density, with good design, is not a four letter word. He remarked that there are good projects being built with density, and they build good communities. However, one of the biggest problems is not keeping up with the infrastructures. He would love to see the sidewalk design leading to the Crozet Park, Main Street and the elementary school put into play. He reiterated that infrastructure is the biggest problem this County has, but density can be handled with good design. Ms. Katie Hobbs, a member of the League of Women Voters for Charlottes- ville and Albemarle County, echoed Mr. Loach's remarks. She also commented that she thinks it would be better to defer the ZTA until the Infill Committee can help the Supervisors with some of the parameters of it. No one else came forward to speak, so at 8:20 p.m., Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman commented that this proposal may or may not be a good idea, because although it has benefits and merits, it is possible there may be some consequences. He feels strongly, since the Infill Committee has been formed, that this should be one of the things the Committee should consider. The Committee members will be examining such things as making the growth area more attractive, as well as being able to absorb the type of density this Board feels is important to have in order to keep it out of the rural areas. He does not want to take away any of the Committee's opportunities to deal with the whole package. This proposal is part of the package, and it may very well be that the Committee will recommend it as a good idea, and reasons will be given. This Board could then be asked to adopt it along with other things. However, he does not necessarily think the Infill Committee will be offering something that comes at one time in one big package. As certain matters are considered, recommendations could come to this Board that can be implemented prior to the Committee's complete work, and this proposal may or may not be one of those things. He, personally, wishes to defer this item 'to allow the Infill Committee time to consider it. The Infill Committee is comprised of citizens who live in this community, and they are affected by the decisions that will be made based on the Committee's recommendations. The Committee members cover a broad specter of the community, both rural and urban, and there are technicians involved, as well as a consultant to be hired. He thinks they should be given this opportunity, although he emphasized he is not pre-judging the merits of this ZTA. Mr. Martin remarked that whether or not this amendment passes tonight is not a big issue with him. He is a member of the group everyone is calling the Infill Committee, but he keeps reminding them that it is the Development Area Initiatives Committee and not an Infill Committee. He said recommendations coming from this group will involve a lot of changes in the rules, recommenda- tions and ordinances. A recommendation to change this item tonight, or to change it in such a manner that it no longer exists, is incidental. He said the recommendation coming from the Development Area Initiatives Committee will involve recommendations of lots of changes, and this change will not be a big deal one way or another. He is not advocating passage of this ZTA. He is simply saying this is not an issue. Mrs. Thomas commented that she does not believe Mr. Martin is implying the Supervisors should lightly approve something with the realization that within a year it may be changed. She asked if this is what Mr. Martin was saying. Mr. Martin responded that he meant the recommendations will involve a lot of changes, and he does not see whether this ZTA is approved or not will be significant to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee may recom- mend something exactly like this amendment, or it may recommend something completely opposed to it. He reiterated that what is done tonight is not significant to this group. He emphasized that he is not saying the vote tonight won't be significant to the County. He does not think it will be significant to the Committee. This is his opinion as one member, but two other members have spoken tonight who feel differently. March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 00029:1. Mrs. Thomas inquired if a proposal using this building technique came before the Supervisors and resulted in increased density from present zoning on a piece of the land, then would there be a rezoning with all the options of proffers, etc. Mr. Cilimberg replied, "yes." He said the Supervisors are looking at a change in the gross density of a piece of property where, for example, it is going from R-2 to R-4. If someone is considering having more than two dwelling units per acre or wants to take advantage of the lot size allowances of the R-4 district, it would result in a rezoning request, which makes it eligible for proffer. Mrs. Humphris concurred with Mr. Bowerman's comments. She said the Development Area Initiatives Committee was set up to consider this type of thing, but it should be considered as a whole with all the other options the Committee members may decide to consider. She is really surprised to see this amendment before the Supervisors at this time. It is so untimely, because it looks odd for this Board to take such action at a time when the Committee is getting underway. It is not known what the Committee members will consider as far as options, or what things will work together, or what things they might develop. She thinks it would be a much better idea to at least defer this item until the Committee members make a recommendation on an area such as this so this Board does not pre-empt them. There is no way the Supervisors can know or anticipate what might come before the Committee. Since it seems builders are not precluded from doing the same thing if they come forward with the right type of application, she does not see why this is necessary tonight. Mr. Bowerman stated that zero lot lines are being proposed in the Wetzel Farm Tracts for the units directly backed up to the bluff overlooking the flood plain of the river. He said zero lot lines can be used today under certain circumstances, such as a Planned Unit Development. Mrs. Thomas commented that one of the things government officials do, which she thinks is quite bad, is to set up a citizens committee and then prejudge it, or not use it, or close off options just as it is getting started. She agrees with that argument, but she does not agree with the arguments which react as if increasing the number of units that can be placed on a piece of property is a bad thing. She appreciates Tom Loach's comment to this effect. This is the type of thinking that leads to large lot zoning which has taken up so much of the countryside. The cost of development has been mentioned, but it is also costly in terms of land. One of the planning principles County officials are adopting is not to devour land. She said County officials are also becoming more aware of the importance of design, and design includes things such as rights-of-way. She is becoming more and more aware of what has been done to existing subdivisions when people are not allowed any sort of pedestrian access anywhere. She is willing to give this matter to the Committee to be included in the whole picture, but not if it implies that something is wrong with this proposal. She thinks the proposal should be included in discussions of design and infrastructure, but not with the idea that something is wrong with the possibility of having zero lot developments. She does not want to send the wrong message. Mrs. Humphris remarked that she does not think anyone on this Board has said that higher density is a bad idea. Mr. Bowerman recalled that it took a long time for the Fiscal Impact Committee to finish its work and come to this Board with the results. He hopes it does not take the Development Area Initiatives Committee anywhere near that amount of time, because answers are needed sooner than that. He said the Fiscal Impact Committee members had very different ideas going into the Committee's work, as well as coming out of it, but they were able to agree on different things. One of the things they agreed on is that money would have to be spent in the beginning, and a person would have to be hired. He said money is in the budget to do this. He added that everything in his district is very dense, and the development property still existing there will have an impact on an already dense community. He thinks it is critical no matter what the recommendations of the Development Area Initiatives committee are that there be agreement as much as possible on what should be done. He noted that all of the Supervisors are going to have situations in their districts where developments will be coming in, and the citizens are going to be impacted. There is going to be a lot of emotional discussion on these situations, and it is already known that the people who will be directly affected will be against them. He stated that what is key to the issue is the way the remainder of the community accepts the effect on the schools, trans- portation, infrastructure, open space and the amenities being brought with March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 000292 that development. It is also important as far as what the developers are willing to do to offset some of the problems created by bringing in such developments. The people who are going to live in these areas are going to have to live with the situation. He thinks it is important to get Committee members to make suggestions, and he does not want to foreclose the concept of what they have been asked to do by approving something and telling them deliberately. Mr. Martin stated that there are going to be recommendations affecting a lot of zoning ordinances, and he wondered how changing this ordinance now would affect anything the Committee will recommend. He recalled earlier comments from Mrs. Thomas and others who seem to feel strongly that homes being built in some way or another may increase the number of people who come to a community. He said the article to which Mrs. Humphris referred will increase the number of people coming to this community much more so than these homes. His father is a developer who has a fair amount of land in Patrick County. If his father built ten houses on some of this property, the result would not be that people would rush to live in Patrick County. The result would be that his father would go bankrupt because there would be no one to whom he could sell the houses. He does not understand why people seem to think the building of homes will cause people to come to this community because the homes exist. He strongly believes people come to this community for other reasons, and this Board has to deal with accommodating the people who are moving here. Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Martin's comments. At this time, Mr. Bowerman offered motion to defer ZTA-96-04 indefi- nitely and refer the matter to the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee to review and determine how to incorporate the same into the Committee's recommendations. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Mrs. Thomas pointed out that the Committee may come to this Board with pieces of information rather than the whole package. Mr. Bowerman stated that he does not want to preclude their recommenda- tions, but it does not mean this Board will have to wait until the end of the Committee's work to get all of their suggestions. The Committee members may want to institute some things sooner if they think they are important, and this could be one of those things. Mr. Martin commented that he will vote against the motion, because of all of the previous things he has said. However, he noted that this does not mean he is particularly for or against this Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Perkins concurred with Mr. Martin statements that if houses are built, it does not necessarily mean that people are going to come to this County. He does not think any builders in the County are building houses just to be building them. They are building houses because people are buying them. He said maybe County officials need to consider where these people are coming from, as well as why they are coming here, and then evaluate the situation. He wondered if people are moving here just because of articles such as the one to which Mrs. Humphris referred, or is it because of jobs. He does not think they are coming just because a house is already built. Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks people come here because of the way they are accommodated. He agreed with the point that if houses are built, and no one is moving here, they will go unsold. He said developers are building houses because people are buying them, and his only issue is how to accommo- date these people. Mrs. Thomas agreed. Mrs. Humphris remarked that if people look out the window, they will see why people come here. She said it is beautiful, the location is wonderful, and the climate has four good seasons. Mrs. Thomas said her theory is that if people are asked why they are here, it almost always leads back to their children. She said either their children were here as undergraduates, or they live here now, or they once lived here. She added that parents come to visit their children, and they like the area. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Martin. Absent: Mr. Marshall. 000293 (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 8:39 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-96-52. Hurt Investment Corporation (Signs ~15& #16). Public Hearing on a request for a day care center on 1.7 ac zoned R-1 in SE corner of Worth Crossing & Proffit Rd. TM32,P36G. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg explained that SP-96-52 involves a proposal by Northside Christian Schools, Inc., to construct and operate a day care center located on the southeast corner of Proffit Road and Worth Crossing, approximately one- tenth mile east of the Route 29/Proffit Road intersection. The day care center would have access from Worth Crossing and will be utilizing an existing commercial entrance serving the Apostolic Lighthouse Church, which is located adjacent to and southeast of the site. This is an area designated for this type of use in the Comprehensive Plan. He reported that only one issue was identified, and this issue related to traffic generation. In considering the road system improvements in that area, as well as VDoT officials' comments, indications are that traffic can be adequately handled. He said the staff recommends approval subject to the three conditions shown in the staff report. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 25, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of SP-96-52 subject to the three conditions. There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Melton, representing Hurt Investment Corporation, said he agrees with the staff report. The Corporation representatives were asked to provide a bike path along Proffit Road, and they have agreed to this proposal. He said the bike path worked out well with the proposed setbacks. Mr. Martin asked if Pastor Adams will provide for infant care in the day center. Mr. Perkins answered that the information included with the applica- tion indicates that infant care will cost $105 per week. Mr. Melton pointed out that Ralph Adams is the Pastor of the Apostolic Lighthouse Church next door, and William Templeton represents the Northside Ministries. Mrs. Thomas asked if there is any pedestrian access except along the road. She asked if there is any way to get to the site from behind the property. Mr. Melton responded, ~no." He said the church is directly to the south, and just to the east is a private residence which sets back off the road. The only access would be from Worth Crossing into the parking area. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that there is now a path from Forest Lakes to Worth Crossing. He also mentioned the improvements shown in the County's Six Year Plan which include not only the bike path, but pedestrian facilities, as well. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 8:43 p.m.) No one else came forward to speak, so Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. Mr. Martin commented that this particular area, as well as most areas in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, has a great need for infant care. He said $105 is the least amount to be paid for such care and lots of times infant care cannot be found at all. He stated that even though there is another child care place close to this one, some different needs will be met with the Northside Day Care Center. The community is looking forward to having the day care center in this area. Mrs. Thomas called attention to the map included in the information given to the Board relative to SP-96-52. She found this type of map very March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) 000294 useful, and she pointed out that it was better than the usual map used for location of structures. Motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas to approve SP-96-52 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Absent: Mr. Marshall. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 2 o Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance: so No such use shall operate without any required licen- sure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals there- after and to notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance; Co These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. Site shall be developed in general accordance with the site plan prepared by W. Aubrey Hoffman & Associates, Ltd. dated December 10, 1996 and revised January 27, 1997. Maximum enrollment shall not exceed ninety (90) students or such lesser number as may be approved by the Health Depart- ment; additional enrollment shall require amendment to the special permit. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-96-53. University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (Sign #17). Public Hearing on a request for a special use permit for existing Birdwood Golf Course to allow expansion of the facilities. TM75,P's63&63A. Samuel Miller Dist. {Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg informed Board members that SP-96-53 relates tO a proposal to obtain a special use permit for the existing Birdwood Golf Course and to improve an existing structure to house electric golf carts to be purchased to replace the existing gas operated golf carts. The golf cart storage would be enclosed, enlarged and attached to an existing building. He indicated that no additional driveways, road connections, buildings or construction other than the golf cart enclosure is proposed. He identified the favorable factors relative to this request, and he noted that the staff has identified no unfavorable factors. He said the staff recommended approval of this proposal with two conditions. However, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 25, 1997, added a third condition with its approval, involving continued implementation of an Integrated Pest Management/Nutrient Management Plan to reduce adverse water quality impacts. There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from Board members, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. 000295 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) Mr. Tim Rose stated that the people who manage the Birdwood Golf Course have a strong history of working with neighbors on the run-off issues that were previously discussed. He said some of these relate to the Golf Course, but frequently they are not so related. He added that, either way, represen- tatives of Birdwood have taken logs out of drainage culverts, firmed up ground and done whatever could be done to help the neighborhood situation. He referred to the third condition dealing with an Integrated Pest Management and Nutrient Management Plan. He said Birdwood representatives have agreed to continue to apply this type of program on an annual basis from this time forward. Relating to the pond edges, Mr. Rose said David Tice, of the Planning Commission, walked the site and suggested that the vegetation not be cut as low as it has been cut in the past so that it will act as a filter for some of the run-off even though it does not go into the reservoir. He said Birdwood officials have agreed to this suggestion, and have worked with Mr. Tice to create a good situation. He next mentioned that the County has a committee working with VDoT. He said Birdwood representatives have recom- mended to the University officials that they talk to County officials about representation on that group, and the entrances to the two Birdwood sites will be addressed as part of this study. Mrs. Thomas informed Mr. Rose that agreement has been reached relative to someone from the University serving on this committee. At 8:50 p.m., Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing, since no one else was present to speak to SP-96-53. Mrs. Thomas commented that she thinks the Planning Commission's discus- sion, as well as David Hirschman's and David Tice's suggestions are appropri- ate to this situation. She is always mindful that ownership can change, so it is always good to cement some of the conditions even if they are already being done by the current management of the property. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve a SP-96-53 as recommended by the Planing Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Absent: Mr. Marshall. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) Approval is for the existing golf course facility (including buildings, parking, and all site improvements) and the building enclosure/addition only. Any new construction, other than minor changes (such as additional practice tees, modifications of greens and other changes that do not re- quire a site plan) to the existing buildings and site, and any expansion outside of the Current boundaries of the existing golf course would require an amended special use permit. 2 o A field verified plan of the golf course be provided by the applicant showing the location of buildings, drives, parking lots and other constructed improvements. This field veri- fied plan or nas-built" plan should be provided in conjunc- tion with the Birdwood/Faulconer Neighborhood Plan which is part of the Area B Study. Continued implementation of an Integrated Pest Management/ Nutrient Management Plan to reduce adverse water quality impacts. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-96-55. Robert Colley (Sign. #18). Public Hearing on a request to establish commercial recreation on 0.4 ac zoned C-1 located on S sd of Westfield Rd W of Rt 29 (former location of Holiday Health Club). TM61W, Sec 1, BlkA, P2. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg discussed the staff report pertaining to SP-96-55 which is a proposal to establish an indoor commercial recreation activity (Laser Tag) in the former Holiday Health Club. The property is located on the south side March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) 000296 of Westfield Road just west of Route 29. The staff found no problems with the request. The facility already exists, and it has adequate parking and street access. He also noted that there were no comments from VDoT representatives. He stated that the applicant is agreeable to the two conditions recommended by staff. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 25, 1997, unani- mously recommended approval subject to two conditions. There were no questions or comments for Mr. Cilimberg) so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Robert Colley stated that Laser Tag will provide the County resi- dents and children another recreational option. It is an exciting physical sport and provides participants a healthy, substance free activity. He then asked the supervisors to support the staff and the Planning Commission and approve this special use permit. Mr. Bowerman stated that he was interested in the description of the activity. It seems as though the applicant is going to have to make a significant investment in order to convert the building to this use. Mr. Colley replied that this is true if the building is converted to the level in which he is interested, although it is possible to convert it to a lower level situation. He next mentioned a place in Frederick, Maryland, where not very much was done to an existing building for this type of activ- ity. He is planning on using a professional theme organization, and this organization will put some money into the project. However, a lot of money has to go into improving the building, because the building has been sitting vacant for a number of years. He then noted the high level equipment to be used, and he said he is trying to have a quality operation. Mr. Martin asked if the building will be leased. Mr. Colley answered, '~yes." At 8:55 p.m., Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing, since no one else came forward to speak. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin to approve SP- 96-55 subject to the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following record vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Absent: Mr. Marshall. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. Use shall be limited to indoor activities only; and 2. No sale of alcohol shall be permitted. (At 8:56 p.m., Mrs. Humphris announced that the Board would take a short recess. At 9:21 p.m., the Board reconvened.) Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Regional Competitiveness Program - Resolution to Support the Formation of a Regional Partnership in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Mrs. Thomas showed the Board members the proper draft of the resolution they should be considering for the Regional Competitiveness Program, since there have been several different versions. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that this topic has already been discussed to some extent. She said the resolution is an attempt to support a regional partner- ship which recognizes Albemarle County's role and place in regional economy, but also emphasizes the issues of new economic development as opposed to the tired old economic development relating to population growth. There are a lot of exciting things that can be done with the word, "economy," which do not stimulate population growth. She stated that in an attempt to incorporate the comments brought out at the public hearing, the resolution has been reworded in an effort to reflect people's concerns. She added that sometimes there seems to be a major reaction to the words, ~economic development," because they have taken on a certain set of stereotypes. She noted again that the March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) 000297 draft of the resolution has been changed in some ways, but the ~Whereas's~ are almost identical to the way they were in the beginning. She said the second page continues to try to capture things dealing with the concerns people have, while recognizing the County's position in a regional economy. She also noted that if there is not concurrence by this Board tonight, and people feel uneasy agreeing to something they have not already seen,'it can be taken care of Monday afternoon. She next stated that (b) under Number Five needs to be slightly changed to read: ~Consider agricultural, forestry and tourism opportunities and economic opportunities of protected landscapes in addition to commercial and industrial opportunities." She mentioned that the verb in this sentence is, ~consider," and people involved with the Partnership can deal with it. She said (d) under Number Five should read, "Identify specific programs to be supported by any incentive funds obtained by the Regional Partnership. As far as practical, consider consequences of the programs to the region's economy, natural and fiscal resources and population and a method to assess the success of such a program." She said it helps a lot to use the words, "as far as practical," because there certainly is a fair discussion as to whether it can be done, although she thinks a lot of people will agree this is a very desirable thing to happen. She stated that the question is.how much can it be done. She went on to say that as much as the County's Economic Development Policy and the Comprehensive Plan was a long and involved process brought together with many diverse interests into a policy she is quite proud of, she thinks this draft has taken the same journey. She then pointed out that other local jurisdictions do not have to adopt the same resolution, so this resolu- tion relates only to Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman said it is important to recognize that the Supervisors have to approve the by-laws and the strategic plan. Mrs. Thomas said the member- ship for the Regional Partnership from Albemarle County also has to be approved by this Board. Mrs. Humphris called attention to Number Six where it refers to each member jurisdiction. She asked if this should be changed to Albemarle County. Mrs. Thomas answered, ~yes." Next, Mrs. Humphris mentioned Number One on the first page where it states members will be appointed by TJPDC. She wondered why the TJPDC should be making the appointments instead of the localities directly. Mrs. Thomas referred to Number Two where it states that each member jurisdiction approves the members coming from its jurisdiction. She said the experience the Planning District officials have had is that it takes some counties a long time to make appointments. If the County officials are presented with a slate of names, then they can react and approve it. She thinks Albemarle County officials will be asked to propose their members, and in this case, the matter will move fast. Mrs. Humphris stated that she can see where the situation might be awkward, if the Supervisors have suggestions presented to them, and they do not want to appoint those particular people. She said this seems to be an extra step and the possibility for embarrassment. Mrs. Thomas remarked that she is happy to change the wording, but she is confident the Supervisors will be asked to appoint people in the different categories. She noted that the Planning District Commission will have to propose the categories based on the regulations. Mrs. Humphris commented that she hopes the State officials value all of the work some people in particular have put into trying to get this resolution into some type of workable order. She thinks they would want to make it easier for localities to go through this process, but it seems they have not thought through this matter. She then asked if the Supervisors will see a firm copy of this resolution on Monday. Mr. Tucker answered, byes." Mr. Martin stated that he has no problem with voting for the resolution at tonight's meeting. He said the changes made seem to be more cosmetic and explanatory than changing the intent. Mrs. Thomas then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the Resolution to Support the Formation of a Regional Partnership in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District as contained in the appropriate draft to which she referred. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) O00ZgS AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Mrs. Humphris thanked Mrs. Thomas and everyone else who participated in the redrawing of the resolution. RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE FORMATION OF A REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP IN THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (hereafter "Board") acknowledges that, although Albemarle County enjoys economic strength, other jurisdictions in the region may have greater economic challenges and needs; and WHEREAS, the economic development policy in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan does not support the stimu- lation of population growth by economic development but does recognize the County's role and place in a regional economy; and WHEREAS, the Board favors a cooperative effort by the member jurisdictions of the Thomas Jefferson Planning Dis- trict to develop a regional strategic plan to assess the region's strengths and weaknesses and to explore the possibility of obtaining funding pursuant to the Regional Competitiveness Program, as defined in the Regional Competitiveness Act, to address any such weaknesses and to implement plans to enhance the region. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors states its support for the forma- tion of a Regional Partnership in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District to address the s- trengths and weaknesses of the region, including issues such as education, housing, transporta- tion and the environment, as follows: 1. The Regional Partnership should consist of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (hereafter ~TJPDC") as the core members plus members appointed by TJPDC to provide additional representation from each member jurisdiction and its educational entities, businesses, and other groups such as historic preserva- tion, environmental, rural conservation, and housing organiza- tions; 2. Before the Regional Partnership begins work, each member jurisdiction shall by resolution approve the members which come from its jurisdiction; 3. As its first endeavor, the Regional Partnership shall write bylaws for the conduct of its business, as stipulated in the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development Guide- lines. Prior to the formal commencement of strategic planning, Albemarle County shall by resolution approve the bylaws; 4. The TJPDC should provide the support staff for the strategic planning process to avoid the creation of a duplicate regionally funded staff; 5. The Regional Strategic Economic Development Plan (hereafter "Strategic Plan") devised by the Regional Partnership must: (a) recognize and support each member jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, including the scale and character of the region, the preservation of its historic places, its rural land and its natural resources. 000299 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) (b) (d) consider agricultural, forestry, and tourism opportunities and opportunities of protected landscapes in addition to commercial and indus- trial opportunities. be developed in a public process which includes local public hearings and other opportunities for public participation; identify specific programs to be supported by any incentive funds obtained by the Regional Partnership and a method to assess the success of such programs; and, as far as practicable, consider the consequences of the programs to the regional economy, natural and fiscal resources, and population. 6. Prior to the submittal to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development of any application for the creation of the Regional Partnership and the submittal of the Strategic Plan, Albemarle County shall by resolution approve: (a) the Strategic Plan and the specific application for incentive funding; and (b) the formulas for the distribution of incentive funds within the region. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Ivy landfill Options. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board members that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority is scheduled to discuss and possibly take action concerning the GBB options presented at the public hearing on March 10th. He said there were nine different options recommended, and the Supervisors need to discuss and provide direction to their representatives of the RSWA with regard to which of the nine options they will support, as well as any comments or further direction regarding CDD, etc. He mentioned that City Council took action on Monday evening and gave direction to the City's representatives. He said the Councilors supported Option 7a which is the phasing out of MSW at the Landfill in FY 1998 and operation of a mini-transfer station at the landfill but maintaining CDD. He recalled Mr. Webber's comments with regard to CDD coming from some other area. He never heard that there is perhaps a quid pro quo with the MSW in Fluvanna County. He was surprised to hear these comments, and he is not supportive of them. He commented that the Ivy Landfill is for waste from Albemarle County, and in his opinion, it should be for that purpose. Mr. Bowerman wondered if it is legal to restrict the Ivy Landfill to Albemarle County citizens. Mr. Tucker replied that the landfill can be restricted as much as possible. The use of the Landfill can be overseen as waste comes into the area, and the best way to do this is by monitoring the vehicles by their decals. Mr. Bowerman inquired if one of the incentives could be that the CDD refuse be separated so the Ivy Landfill would only be getting waste that did not include such things as paint cans or the type of refuse that is not wood or inert products. He said these types of refuse would have to go to Fluvanna. Mr. Tucker responded that this is the type of direction needing additional consideration. He does not know how widespread this problem is or how difficult it might be to catch these types of potential contaminants. Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks this is a legitimate concern, and one the County officials should be able to certify that it will not happen. He thinks the suggestion is reasonable, although he does not know how it could be enforced. Mr. Tucker agreed that enforcing the regulation is the issue. Mrs. Thomas said this is a staff issue, and either someone could be at the Landfill all the time looking at everything or else someone could go there occasionally and pick out one load a day to check it. The Supervisors could direct the members of the Authority that it is high priority to make sure the CDD is separated. Mr. Tucker stated that this is a direction to be taken with the Authority and staff. He does not think the City officials would disagree with this direction. 000300 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) Mr. Bowerman asked if the Landfill would continue to take batteries, recyclables and toxic products and, if not, where would they go. He explained that he is speaking of cleanup days when people can bring in their things. Mr. Tucker answered that household hazardous waste and those types of things would continue at the Landfill. Mrs. Thomas disagreed. She said the informa- tion given to the Board indicates that household hazardous waste would not continue at Ivy. She assumed it was expensive, and that is why it would not be continued. She went on to say that, even if it takes money to dispose of household hazardous waste, it is an important item. Mr. Tucker said this is an important point, and he will talk to the staff about the matter before Monday. Mr. Bowerman wondered where people will take these types of things, if they cannot bring them to the Ivy Landfill. Mr. Tucker stated that this is his point. He went on to say that most of this waste will end up as MSW, and it will probably be transferred out of the County. He emphasized this is an issue which definitely needs to be examined. Mrs. Thomas brought up the issue of inspecting the waste going into the Landfill. This has been mentioned from time to time as the way the County would have to defend itself from the liability of a landfill being contami- nated in the future. The County could be held liable for whatever goes wrong at the Landfill, even if there are other counties dumping waste there. She said a good way of defending the County against this problem is to be more careful than other jurisdictions about what is really going on at the Land- fill. She added that she was not positive this was part of one of the recommendations or whether the Supervisors needed to give the staff direction on this matter. Mr. Tucker answered that he does not think this is part of the recommendation. He does not know, from a liability standpoint, how much these other counties could be affected. Mrs. Thomas suggested that perhaps the Supervisors should direct the Rivanna Board to pursue what it will take for the County to defend itself from this liability. She had understood that one way of approaching this was to have one of the staff members make frequent and unannounced visits wherever the waste was being taken. Mr. Tucker said this will be considered. He also mentioned that the transfer station is involved. Mrs. Thomas disagreed. She said she is talking about the eventual Landfill. Mr. Tucker answered that he understands Mrs. Thomas' remarks, but a transfer station is involved. He asked how anybody would know that the waste is not coming from another locality. Mrs. Thomas said none of this type of waste should be going into the Landfill. She said if this is happening, then the people associated with the Landfill are not doing their jobs correctly, and there will have to be a clause in the contract to this effect. She said Landfill employees are not supposed to be accepting any hazardous waste, but someone has to make sure they are not. She stated that it won't just be the neighbors, but it will be Albemarle County and the other haulers who will be held accountable some day if a problem arises. Mr. Tucker remarked that he does not have an answer to Mrs. Thomas' concerns. The staff will have to look at the matter from a legal standpoint. Mrs. Thomas commented that she feels this is a financial plan and not a solid waste management plan. It is a financial plan as to how the County can keep its trash from becoming a tax burden given private enterprise's position at the County's borders. There is the ability to undercut what the County is doing, because private enterprise does not have the recycling or education or other duties expected of the Authority. She reiterated that she does not think anyone should think of this as a solid waste management plan, and it is not what the Task Force requested. It is just a way to keep the County out of the business of supporting the solid waste disposal with tax dollars. She went on to say that it probably will work. She trusts the people who put the proposal together, and it coincides with the figures other people had devel- oped earlier. She stated that private industry has essentially said if the County will come quietly now, it will help with the County's financial needs, and if it does not come quietly now, it can undercut the County and wipe it out. She pointed out that this involves the local trash haulers, too, who will all be poorer if they get wiped out. Mrs. Thomas added that this proposal meets a lot of the Ivy neighbors' requests, but it is not all they asked for from the very beginning. She has the notes of what was said in June of 1996. She does not want the Board March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) oooaoa. members to feel as though they have done what the Ivy neighbors wanted, except that some of their requests fits into this financial plan. If this is viewed strictly as a financial plan of how to deal with the County's solid waste in the face of having no ability to control the flow of waste, as well as having a very large company on the County's borders that could afford to undercut for a long time until that company controls the business totally, then she thinks the Supervisors can move ahead with this plan. However, she would still like to discuss a lot of things the Task Force members developed. This plan is going to make it more difficult to recycle instead of easier, and she views this as a major problem. She also mentioned that it does not deal with any of the concerns about the neighbors having a neighborhood advisory committee. Someone asked how this plan makes it harder to recycle. Mrs. Thomas answered that the trash hauler picks up the trash and the blue bags, but he cannot drop off the blue bags at Zion Crossroads. She said he will have to make a separate trip for the blue bags, or it will be a longer trip, or Albemarle County will have to build a place where the blue bags can be dropped off on the border on the way to or from Zion Crossroads. She stated that it will be a lot harder and probably more expensive. Mr. Bowerman commented that BFI haulers pick up his blue bags, and he wondered what they do with them now. Mrs. Thomas responded that BFI haulers take their own blue bags, but it does not mean they take anyone else's, because those recyclable are generally a cost item, as opposed to a revenue item. Mr. Tucker stated that BFI handles its own recyclables, but he is not sure what BFI does with other haulers' recyclables. Mr. Bowerman wondered if this could be negotiated. Mr. Tucker said this problem can be handled in the bid process. Mrs. Thomas asked Mr. Tucker to comment on the remarks she heard about only three haulers using the mini-transfer station. She said the public testimony was contradictory. Either it will be readily available to only three haulers, so it is not worth it, or there will be many more than that, and it will increase traffic. Mr. Tucker answered that the mini-transfer station, as he understands it, is primarily there for the haulers in the western part of the County. He cannot confirm the number of haulers who will be using it, because it depends on where they are when they are picking up refuse. The mini-transfer station is obviously for the small pick-up truck type haulers, and it is also there for the people in and around the community who might want to take their own refuse there. He said this was being done as a convenience center, and it is the reason a mini-transfer station was being considered, rather than a full- fledged transfer station, which would be much more costly. He does not believe anybody could give a breakdown as to how many haulers will be actually using the mini-station. He reiterated that this was the GBB's suggestion to accommodate those in the western area. It will be more convenient for them and fairer than to have them drive a further distance to Zion Crossroads, rather than those people from the City or east of the City, who would be as close if not closer to Zion Crossroads. Mrs. Thomas then inquired if the City haulers would be using the mini- transfer station. Mr. Tucker answered that, as he understands it, the City haulers will not be using the Ivy Landfill. They will go directly to Zion Crossroads. Mrs. Thomas wondered if a cost analysis has been done by City officials to see which one they would want to use. Mr. Tucker replied that he has not seen any actual numbers, but he understands it is an almost break even situation. It would be no real benefit for them to go in either direction. He noted, however, that Mrs. Mueller has indicated the plans are to go directly to Zion Crossroads. Mrs. Thomas commented that she is sympathetic for the need for a different site. She is also thinking that since private enterprise has gotten the County to this point, private enterprise can also take care of a central transfer station, if this is open to bid, as to how to handle the County's waste. It might not just be Zion Crossroads that is being dealt with. She is also surprised that it costs no more for the City people to take their trash to Zion Crossroads than to Ivy. Mr. Tucker reiterated that this is just his understanding. Mrs. Thomas remarked that she thought City officials would discover that it cost a lot more, and they would develop a centrally located transfer station themselves in the City. Mr. Tucker responded that this was O00LiO2 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) one of the alternatives for consideration. However, the alternative was discounted this time, but it does not prohibit them from doing something of this nature in the future. Mrs. Thomas stated that she thought it would become a financial decision in a year or two when City representatives discovered they could save a lot by having one large truck instead of ten City trucks going all the way to Zion Crossroads. She said a central station could be created at Coiner's which is where every City truck goes today. Mr. Tucker stated that this was one of the options. Mrs. Thomas emphasized that she thinks economics will lead the City officials to this decision, but she does not know that it can be forced on them. Mr. Tucker said this plan does not prohibit the City officials from coming to such a decision. Mrs. Thomas commented that this is why she thinks the small transfer station at Ivy is much preferable. She said if the City officials decide to have their own transfer station, they won't feel as though they have put a half million dollars into a large transfer station at Ivy which might preclude them from doing something else. Mr. Perkins commented that he does not believe it would be to the City's advantage to have its own transfer station because of the size of its trucks. He said the trucks probably carry two-thirds of the load that could be carried on a bigger truck, so the cost of a transfer station and the cost of reload- ing, etc., would not be beneficial for that short haul. Mrs. Thomas noted that the trucks are built to hold the City's recycla- bles also, so once the recyclables are taken off, they would not be full trucks going to Zion Crossroads. Mr. Perkins said the trucks will still have to have a legal load. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Perkins is familiar with the situation because of weight limits on trucks carrying timber. He said this probably relates to the weight instead of the product. Mr. Perkins responded affirmatively. He said a panel truck can carry approximately 18 tons, and a tractor trailer truck can carry 25 tons. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Tucker needed direction before his Monday's meeting on this matter. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." If the Supervisors need more time to get answers to their questions it could be deferred another month. Mrs. Thomas stated that the good thing about this situation is that it totally gets rid of garbage going into the headwaters of the Rivanna Reser- voir, which is a better and quicker outcome than she had dreamed would happen. It seemed as though all of the financial implications were keeping the County in the garbage business longer and longer and suddenly this has turned around, and the County is in a great hurry to get out of the garbage business. She thinks this is very desirable, and there will be a great improvement in the quality of life in the Ivy valley instead of having garbage there. She commented that all of the information given to the Supervisors is based on the proposition that construction and demolition debris is going to continue at the Ivy Landfill, and at this point for the Supervisors to say this cannot happen, would send everybody back to the drawing board. It is not just this report, but it is everything the Rivanna representatives have been doing during the last year, which has not been changing municipal solid waste to construction debris, but it has been getting people to get their garbage out of the construction debris so that the lower tipping fee is paid, and it goes into a different place. She said the mini-transfer station is far better than the original station which was called a mini-station but really was a larger facility. The difference between the original station and a convenience station visually will not be any different, so the main difference will be the number of trucks going to the transfer station. If there are only three trash haulers involved, there will be a tremen- dous decrease in the amount of truck traffic on that road from the amount there is today. She then called attention to GBB Option 7a, with the mini- transfer station, which is the direction she thinks would be the most reason- able of the options given to this Board. Maybe the Supervisors have not thought of all the caveats tonight, but there should certainly be a high priority for inspecting the construction debris. She is concerned about a dozen buckets of paint being dumped in with the wood, but this is something that can be seen. She said construction is not a formless mass as garbage 000303 March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) tends to be. These things can be seen if someone is there to see them, but it won't happen if someone is just going to the site once a day. Mr. Tucker agreed. He added that the person should have the responsi- bility for seeing that the debris is coming from the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Mrs. Thomas concurred. She went on to say that the hazardous waste collections should continue or it needs to be at least understood why this item was removed. The County officials also need to take whatever action necessary to defend themselves from the new liability issue being opened up to them. Mr. Tucker mentioned handling the recyclables at Zion Crossroads. Mrs. Thomas said maybe the County wants its recyclables, but the County's ability to pull out recyclables has got to be greatly improved as opposed to it being more difficult, which is the way she sees this plan. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker what action he needs from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tucker answered that he would like a motion along the lines of Mrs. Thomas' comments. He thinks he understands everything that has been mentioned, but he would like to see all of the Supervisors' wishes in a motion. Mr. Bowerman suggested that if issues come up in Monday's meeting which are unable to be addressed, then the action should be deferred and Mr. Tucker should come back to this Board. Mrs. Humphris wondered what type of time frame is involved. Mr. Tucker said the time frame is based on the direction relating to the recommendations that GBB indicated. He stated the quicker the staff can be given direction, the quicker the alternatives can be implemented, so the longer the matter is deferred, the longer it will take to phase some of the problems out. He does not believe extensive periods of time are involved. Mrs. Thomas referred to her comments and concerns about the landfill options, which would serve as a motion, and inquired if Mr. Tucker had heard all of them. Mr. Tucker said he would repeat Mrs. Thomas' remarks. He went on to describe Option VIIA, which is being referred to as the mini-transfer station. He said there would be the phasing out of MSW by FY 1998 and only CDD would be accepted from the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. He added that the CDD would be monitored, as thoroughly as possible, for any contaminants. He noted that the collection of household hazardous waste would be considered, because County officials believe it is probably better to continue to do this, if possible. He stated that the Landfill will be monitored because of potential hazardous wastes from other jurisdictions which might have a liability question for this locality. He said the issue needs to be examined of assuring that recyclables, such as blue bags, etc., are handled at Zion Crossroads or at Ivy by private haulers. Mrs. Thomas remarked that indications have been that answers are available as far as the last two items mentioned by Mr. Tucker relative to the liability question and the recyclables. She said, though, this is not true, and she would like for Rivanna representatives to find the answers. Even if someone has to go to Henrico County, a solution is needed. She added that one answer needed is how to get the recyclables conveniently collected. She then said the question about competitive bidding was raised both at the public hearing and also today. She asked if competitive bidding would be taking place. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. He said the County has to have competitive bidding for everything. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. None. Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Approved by Board Date ~'1'~ Initials ~.~ March 19, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) 000304 Mr. Martin informed the Board that the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee has set the date of April 21, 1997, to interview consul- tants. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the Board needed to make appointments to the Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee. He said Mr. Marshall has the name of one person, but he has not had a chance to get back to this Board with it. Motion was made by Mr. Martin, to appoint Cindy Perry to the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, to appoint Eric Strucko to the Develop- ment Area Initiatives Steering Committee. Mrs. Thomas seconded the appointments. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Mrs. Thomas requested that the County Executive urge staff to move forward on the Mountaintop Protection Plan. She said there was such a tremendous amount of work done on the Plan and a momentum started, but it all seems to have come to a halt. Mr. Tucker said he would follow up on this request. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to March 24, 1997, 12:00 noon. With no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adjourn to March 24, 1997, 12:00 noon. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Absent: Mr. Marshall.