1997-05-21May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
000069
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 21, 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. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
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.
Mrs. Katie Hobbs, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle League of
Women Voters, asked the Board to reconsider the amount of time given organiza-
tions to speak to a public hearing. Organizations used to have five minutes
to speak, and each individual was given three minutes. The League feels it is
unfair to require organizations with several hundred members, and who speak to
the Board quite often, to be limited to three minutes. She asked that the
Board reconsider and revert to allowing five minutes for organizations and
three minutes for individuals.
Ms. Jo Anne Ebersold, a resident of Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes
South, requested that a cul-de-sac be installed in their neighborhood. She
said the traffic has changed dramatically, especially after the installation
of the traffic light on Route 29 North, resulting in a dangerously high volume
of traffic. A recent traffic count showed 1,264 cars passed through the area
in a single day, while there are only 17 homes in the neighborhood. She
believes that the road cannot safely handle this amount of traffic. This is a
high density growth area, and traffic is routed through this neighborhood,
creating a Route 29 bypass. Ms. Ebersold said there should be bike paths and
walking trails, not cars and trucks. Students are now cut off from their
schools by the road. She added that they are the only neighborhood in the
area without curbs and a cul-de-sac. Whenever the subject of a cul-de-sac is
mentioned to the developer, he says that the County wants interconnecting
neighborhoods. She said that apparently a traffic study was not done for the
road prior to it being built, and that it is time to correct the mistake that
this created. She suggested that, since additional building is planned, which
will only make the road more hazardous, a building moratorium should be called
for until this issue is resolved. Ms. Ebersold said that the school traffic
is minimal. The Forest Lakes South clubhouse property touches on school
property, so a connecting path or drive-up point could easily be constructed.
Walking paths from other neighborhoods could also be made, or people could
drop off students at Sutherland at their cul-de-sac, so that they could walk
over. It would not be a problem for people to go through one more traffic
light, leaving this neighborhood its tranquility. In a recent letter, Mr.
Runkle, the developer, said that before he initiated rezoning for Powell
Creek, it would somehow have to be demonstrated to him that support would come
from the staff, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Ebersold
asked the Board to let Mr. Runkle know that not only would the Board support
rezoning of Powell Creek, but that they strongly encourage it.
Mr. Jessie Cornelius agreed with Ms. Ebersold. In 1992 the road was
intended to support 250 vehicle trips per day, and currently the traffic count
is over 1,200 trips per day. He said the road cannot safely handle that
volume of traffic. There is no tranquility at the end of the road, which is
the only one in the neighborhood without a cul-de-sac. He felt the cul-de-sac
had been sacrificed to create a through road for commuter traffic for all
three sections of developments. Mr. Cornelius said that the non-stop traffic
is devastating for all three communities' home values, safety of pedestrians
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
000070
and school children. Mr. Cornelius added that everyone living on the road is
in support of this request.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker for an update, adding that she had
received letters from Mrs. Ebersold on this matter. Mr. Tucker said Planning
staff is aware of the issue and has discussed it with Mr. Runkle. Staff will
provide a presentation to the Board at a subsequent meeting.
Mr. Martin added that the road was part of a proffer, and it would be up
to the Kessler Group to initiate any kind of action. However, they have
indicated that they will not initiate any action unless they feel the Board
will be receptive to it, specifically the installation of a cul-de-sac. Staff
is aware of the issue and is reviewing the matter. An informational report is
forthcoming which will address all the issues, including the Board's desire to
have connected neighborhoods.
Mrs. Humphris asked for a show of hands of those present who were in
support of this request. Ten people stood up.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4 and to accept the
remaining items as information. (Note: Mr. Perkins voted no on Item No.
5.4.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution to abandon old State Route 631.
(The public hearing on this item was held on May 7, 1997. Since the
language for the resolution was not available, the Board asked that the
resolution be included on this agenda for adoption.)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board was requested by a citizen to abandon a section of an
old road in the State Highway or Secondary System; and
WHEREAS, the Board, on March 5, 1997, ordered that this matter be
advertised for public hearing in accordance with Virginia Code §§33.1-156
through 33.1-166; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on May 7, 1997, the Board is
satisfied that no public necessity exists for the continuance of the section
of road as a public road;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that "old State Route 631" (and shown on the attached
exhibit) be abandoned to public use as per the following description:
~A public roadway, displayed in Deed Book 437, Page 601,
beginning on the northern boundary of the Commonwealth of
Virginia right-of-way for Interstate 64, a thirty (30) foot
prescriptive easement for old State Route 631, laying south
of the City of Charlottesville in the County of Albemarle
and parallel to Fifth Street Extended, relocated State Route
631; thence meandering in a north easterly direction less
than three-tenths of a mile through the property and along
the property lines of Erin, Inc.; ending in the middle of
Moores Creek, the boundary between the County of Albemarle
and the corporate limits of the City of Charlottesville."
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: School Division Compensation Adjustments,
$60,004.12 (Form #96075).
In the final FY 1996/1997 operating budget, the Board approved $94,685
in a compensation plan reserve account to fund projected adjustments to the FY
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) 000071
Page 3)
1997 compensation plan that were unknown at the time of the budget adoption,
i.e., bringing everyone up to their minimum, potential classification appeals
and other adjustments. Additional funds were not provided to the School
Division for those same adjustments, but it was agreed administratively that
any funds remaining in the reserve after general government adjustments were
made would be transferred to the School Division for similar adjustments to
their compensation plan.
From the $94,685 compensation reserve account, General Government salary
adjustments required approximately $30,000, leaving a remainder of approxi-
mately $65,000. The School Division estimates that $60,004.12 needs to be
added to various compensation accounts to address the additional costs of the
salary study after the budget was adopted.
This appropriation transfers $60,004.12 from the salary compensation
reserve account in the General Fund to the School Division to offset compensa-
tion shortfalls in several accounts due to final adjustments in the compensa-
tion plan.
The appropriation is simply a transfer from the General Fund to the
School Fund, and does not require any additional funding from the Board.
Staff recormmends approval of Appropriation ~96075 in the amount of
$60,004.12 to address the compensation shortfalls in the School Division due
to final adjustments from the salary study.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of
appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQLrEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97
NIIMBER: 96075
FO-N-D: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
PAY STUDY.
FUNDING FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENTS RESULTING FROM
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOI/NT
1210061211115000
1210061211210000
1210061411112600
1210061411115000
1210061411210000
1211161311111400
1211161311115000
1211161311210000
1211261102113200
1211261102210000
1211261312111400
1211261312111400
1211361311111400
1211361311210000
1211461311111400
1211461311210000
1241062120115000
1241062120210000
1241262125115000
1241262125210000
1243062150111300
1243062150210000
1243162160111400
1243162160210000
1243262310111400
1243262310210000
1243262340111400
1243262340210000
1243362410111400
1243362410210000
1243362420119100
1243362420210000
SALARIES-OFFICE CLERICAL
FICA
SALAi~IES-PRINCIPAL
SALARIES-OFFICE CLERICAL
FICA
SALARIES-OTHER M3INAGEMENT
SALAi~IES-OFFICE CLERICAL
FICA
SALARIES-PSYCHOLOGIST
FICA
SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT
FICA
SALARIES-OTHER M3INAGEMENT
FICA
SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT
FICA
SALARIES-OFFICE CLERICAL
FICA
SALARIES-OFFICE CLERICAL
FICA
SALARIES-DEPUTY/ASSIST~kNT
FICA
SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT
FICA
SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT
FICA
SALARIES-OTHER M2kNAGEMENT
FICA
SALARIES-OTHER M3kNAGEMENT
FICA
SALARIES-CUSTODIAL
FICA
$7,000.0O
535 50
14,000 00
3,000 00
1,300 50
3,000 00
3,000 00
459.00
3,000.00
229.50
2,000.00
153.00
2,000.00
153 00
2,200 00
168 30
250 00
19 13
400 00
30 60
1,700 00
130.05
1,800.00
137.70
3,000.00
229.50
500.00
38.25
4,990.00
381.74
3,900.00
298.35
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
1100093010930014
1100095000999977
TRANS. ONE TIME SCHOOL OPERATIONS
COMPENSATION PLAN RESERVE
000072
60, 004.12
(60,004.12)
TOTAL $60,004.12
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200051000512004 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND $60,004.12
TOTAL $60,004.12
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Stone Robinson School, $500 (Form
076).
At its meeting on April 28, 1997, the School Board approved the appro-
priation of a donation to Stone Robinson School from the Junior League of
Charlottesville, to be used to fund a series of "Family Reading Nights" at
Stone Robinson School. The activities are intended to help parents learn ways
to assist their young children with reading.
Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $500 as
detailed on appropriation #96076.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of
appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97
NUMBER: 96076
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATION TO STONE-ROBINSON SCHOOL FROM THE
JUNIOR LEAGUE FOR A SERIES OF FAMILY READING NIGHTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1221061101601300 INST/REC. SUPPLIES $500.00
TOTAL $500.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200018000181109 DONATION $500.00
TOTAL $500.00
Item No. 5.4. Approve Request for Additional Revenue Sharing Funds.
The executive summary states that, pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1[D] of
the Code of Virginia, the County has an opportunity to request additional
Revenue Sharing Funds. Funds will come from unused allocations from FY 1996-
97. Seventeen counties throughout the state are eligible to apply for
$630,880.
The County allocated $500,000 for Revenue Sharing in FY 1996-97. In FY
1996-1997, the County received $358,910, which was applied to the Rio Road
'ect from Hydraulic Road to Berkmar Drive. The County can apply for up to
$50,000 in additional funds. Staff and VDOT recommend the $50,000 also be
designated for Rio Road from Hydraulic Road to Berkmar Drive.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved the staff's recommendation
to participate in securing additional Revenue Sharing funds to be designated
for Rio Road from Hydraulic Road to Berkmar Drive. (Note: Mr. Perkins voted
no on this item.)
Item No. 5.5. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for April 15, April
29 and May 6, 1997, were received for information.
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
000073
Item No. 5.6. Notice from the Department of Transportation that
beginning May 12, 1997, Route 633 in southern Albemarle will be closed to
through traffic for approximately six to eight weeks for replacement of
railroad bridge, was received for information.
Mrs. Thomas commented that this item has been before the Board for a
number of years.
Item No. 5.7. Report of expenditures and activities of the James River
Watershed Coalition's Tributary Strategy projects for the period of November
1, 1996 through April 30, 1997, was received for information.
Item No. 5.8. Report of Jaunt services for Albemarle County from June
1996 through March 1997, was received for information.
Item No. 5.9. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority for March 24, 1997, was received for information.
Item No. 5.10. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority for March 24, 1997, was received for information.
Item No. 5.11. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for March 20, 1997, was received for
information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Presentation by Scott Peyton, re: Scenic Highway
Committee report.
Mr. Peyton, a resident of Greenwood, served as spokesman for an organi-
zation of Albemarle County citizens known as Scenic 250. He asked those in
the audience who were in support of his remarks to stand, and many did. He
said there is a broad basis of interest in this matter, which reflects the
pride many citizens take in having a scenic Route 250. Referring to the
written information he had provided in advance, Mr. Peyton said that the
group's proposal would not require a significant capital outlay by the County,
and that the benefits would go far beyond the value of mere dollars and cents.
He said the major investment would be time and talent, and that the Scenic 250
group would willingly be a resource to the County.
Mr. Peyton said that all scenic corridors have value and are deserving
of protection, comparing them to prize roses that need proper care to flour-
ish. The group Scenic 250 requested that the Board take the following
actions:
Adopt a resolution acknowledging the special scenic and historic
character of the Route 250 West corridor; and
2 o
Immediately initiate a new process to identify and implement
measures to protect and enhance the corridor, both in its own
right and as a model for other scenic corridors in the County.
In order for Scenic 250 or any other residents to be actively involved
in the process, Mr. Peyton said the County should commit to provide meaningful
and timely public notice prior to taking actions that may affect the character
and nature of the Route 250 corridor, over and above the minimum and legal
requirement. He said the process proposed is one that must take place
independently of VDOT's Route 250 Corridor Study, because ultimately VDOT's
analysis and study of the highway corridor will result in a proposed engineer-
ing solution. Mr. Peyton said it is crucial to understand that the organiza-
tion of Scenic 250 was not in response to the VDOT Corridor Study. The VDOT
study and numerous other development initiatives along the Route 250 West
corridor underscore the timeliness of the group's concerns. He said that the
County must recognize and acknowledge the inherent value of what Route 250
represents today, and must define its vision for the corridor's future.
Mr. Peyton said the group has no desire to duplicate the VDOT Corridor
Study, and observed that VDOT's priorities and perspective may be different
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
000074
from the group's. He said that controversy surrounding the Route 29 bypass
serves as an example of this.
Mr. Peyton suggested the following initial recommendations as part of
the group's proposed County process:
Establish set-back rules and requirements for natural buffers.
Set-back rules should be re-examined and revised to accommodate
the specific features of this road. In addition, the beauty of
the corridor should be enhanced by requiring natural buffers to
screen new development.
Oppose widening of Route 250 and explore ways to reduce the volume
and velocity of traffic.
Ensure that commercial development is appropriate to the corridor.
Future commercial development should be appropriate in size and
scale to the existing nature and character of the scenic Route 250
corridor.
Provide incentives for commercial development in Crozet. Crozet,
not the corridor itself, should be the hub of commercial develop-
ment in the County. This development should respect the character
and integrity of the community.
5o
Establish programs and incentives for private landowners. Most of
the property along Route 250 and other highways in the County is
owned by private individuals who have significant property rights
which must be respected.
6 o
Strengthen requirements for aesthetically pleasing signs and
lighting.
With these suggestions in mind, the group requested the Board take the
additional following action:
Direct Planning staff to review with Scenic 250 and respond to the
feasibility and desirability of these initial recommendations
within three months, and to begin working with Scenic 250 and
other interested citizens to develop specific policies and ap-
proaches to implement these recommendations.
Mr. Peyton said it was important to have a focused time frame and to
address the issues in a timely fashion, independently of VDOT's initiative.
He said this was not a private, special-interest concern, but a matter of
significant public interest.
Mr. Bowerman said that he was confused. He believed that the corridor
study the County was doing was dealing with these issues, not VDOT's concerns
about the corridor. Mrs. Thomas said the corridor study is V-DOT's study, in
the sense that it is paid for by V DOT, who has hired a consultant. She was
part of the team that selected the consultant; however, due to disagreements
over the cost of the study, a contract has not yet been signed. She under-
stood that the Scenic 250 group did not want to be lost in the corridor study,
and wants to have some of the items included which will not be in VDOT's
study, including more advanced notice of planning proposals. She said the
corridor study is going to be an engineering study only if it takes place in a
vacuum, which it is not. The Board recently appointed a committee, and can
see that Scenic 250 is connected to that committee in some fashion.
Mrs. Thomas said the study, by federal law, has to take place in a way that
looks at all ways of moving people and goods, so it is a multi-modal mobility
study which takes into consideration railroads, bicycles, etc. She added that
it will be a better study than the County has seen from VDOT in the past, and
urged Scenic 250 not to write off the study before it has even begun.
Mr. Peyton said he was aware of the citizens' advisory board that will
work with the consultant in the VDOT study, and that there is likelihood the
outcome of the study will have a significant effect on shaping the future of
Route 250. The group is concerned that the solution will be an engineering
one. They believe that the County's vision should shape the future of Route
250, and only asks for time spent with County staff to examine issues to
provide information above what the lrDOT study will provide.
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
000075
Mr. Bowerman asked if any members of Scenic 250 were also members of the
corridor study. Mr. Peyton said there were at least a couple of individuals
who are members of both groups. He does not discount the study, but believes
that Scenic 250's process is a significant one that should take place inde-
pendently of VDOT's study.
Mrs. Thomas said that Scenic 250 has done what the Board requested
several months ago when staff said they were not sure what could be done. The
Board had asked that Scenic 250 examine the issues and report back to the
Board, which was accomplished with Mr. Peyton's presentation. She appreciates
the group's interest in becoming fully involved in the process, and believes
the next step would be for the group to meet with staff to find ways to inform
Scenic 250 of what is going on, as well as other matters. Mrs. Thomas said
she hopes this many interested individuals show up when %/DOT holds its first
public hearing, rather than refusing to participate. Mr. Peyton said the
group has specific suggestions they would like to discuss with Planning staff.
Mr. Perkins suggested that the Board begin by adopting a resolution to
acknowledge the special scenic and historic character of the Route 250 West
corridor and to begin the process to identify and implement measures to
protect and enhance this corridor and others. He agreed with Mr. Peyton's
comment that if the Board does not do something, the matter will get out of
hand. Mr. Peyton said the group had asked the Board to reinstate the scenic
highway designation, but has come to understand that issues pertaining to the
scenic corridors are more expansive than that. He said this needs to be
examined in a fresh view.
Mr. Martin said he is not opposed to the proposal, but is concerned
about maintaining the Board's consistency in how it conducts business. When
there was a proposal about zero lot size, and the Board had just initiated a
group to search for a consultant to examine infill growth areas and boundary
areas, the Board went against his wishes and said that it did not want to get
involved in areas the newly formed group was to examine. Mr. Martin had felt
that stance was inappropriate, since zero lot size was just one particular
issue, and the group was going to deal with a wider array of issues, which may
or may not have included the zero lot issue before the Board. For consis-
tency, Mr. Martin asked how the Board could deal with this item, which
included a wide array of issues, many of which could and should be examined by
the group recently charged with the job of making a proposal to the Board.
Mrs. Humphris responded that there was a significant interest, since the
Route 250 West study is a VDOT study, a road engineering improvement study,
which means widening and straightening roads, permitting greater road capac-
ity, etc., the opposite of what she or Scenic 250 would like to see done. She
said that, although citizens do sit on an advisory committee to VDOT, VDOT is
not charged with protecting the scenic beauty and the natural resources of the
Route 250 West area.
Mr. Martin said it sounded as if Mrs. Humphris was saying that, because
she agrees with what is proposed now, it should be dealt with independently of
the study, while she felt the prior issue should not be included as part of
the study because she had not agreed with what had been proposed. Mrs.
Humphris said the group was asking for an Albemarle County task force, which
would examine the whole idea of all our scenic highways, whereas the VDOT
study is a road engineering study that does not take into consideration the
trees and the views. Mr. Martin said that was not what Mrs. Thomas had just
said, because, with people's help, the study would more likely include all the
proposed items. He reiterated that his concern is that the Board maintain
consistency.
Mrs. Thomas suggested another analogy where, if the infill committee was
working along, and a group of realtors came to the Board with a concern about
the taxes, there is no way the Board would say that the realtors could not
talk to them until after the infill committee has completed its work. She
said this is a group of citizens who have a specific area they are particu-
larly interested in, concerned about, and knowledgeable about, and the Board
cannot tell them they should not get involved while the corridor study is
underway. Mr. Martin said that Mrs. Thomas was telling the group to get
involved with the process as it currently exists, which is what the Board said
to those concerned about infill issues, other than acting independently. Mrs.
Thomas said she was suggesting that the Board make some response, but that the
group also get involved, because the VDOT study will come out better if the
citizens are involved than if they are not.
000076
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Peyton said the VDOT study specifically focuses on Route 250, and
although that is a specific focus of Scenic 250, they would like for this to
serve as a model for other scenic corridors in the County that once had the
scenic corridor designation. Mr. Martin said he was in agreement with Scenic
250, but was concerned about the fact that when he raised the other issue, he
received the exact opposite argument. He felt that the Board did not follow
the same thinking on the issue he had proposed, and he was dealing with the
Board's need to be consistent.
Mrs. Humphris asked if staff could provide some guidance, since there
were so many things that need to be dealt with. Mr. Tucker suggested that
Planning staff and Mr. Cilimberg meet with Mr. Peyton and other members of the
committee to determine how to implement some of the recommendations. He also
suggested that Mr. Peyton make the same presentation to the citizens' advisory
committee, as they need to know the sentiment of the people who live along the
corridor. The group should not just show up at the public hearing, but become
involved at the onset, since by the time VDOT gets to a public hearing, things
are in somewhat of a final format.
Mr. Bowerman said that, to the extent that Route 250 is beyond the
right-of-way, it is Albemarle County's highway. To the extent that it is in
the highway right-of-way, it is a VDOT primary highway. He had some very
~erious concerns about VDOT being willing to accept the view of the community
in terms of its charge of moving people. VDOT already knows what they want to
do. The rest is superficial, and people have to get in at the very beginning
before VDOT has accepted anything. He said that Interstate 64 is there to
move people, not Route 250. The Board's experience with VDOT is, that when it
comes to state issues and state highways, the community's and the Board's
wishes are not necessarily the direction VDOT chooses to take. Mr. Perkins
said Route 250 in Augusta County serves as an example of just that.
Mr. Peyton said Scenic 250 welcomes the opportunity to express their
concerns at the very outset. Mr. Bowerman said there are two local members of
the Commonwealth Transportation Board who also need to hear the group's
sentiments. Mrs. Thomas said the consultant should also receive immediate
correspondence from Scenic 250 when it is employed. Mr. Peyton asked the
Board to advise Scenic 250 how to disseminate information to the proper
entities. Mr. Bowerman said the Resident Engineer should also be involved,
and Mrs. Humphris asked that Planning staff provide guidance to Scenic 250.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it would be valuable for staff to meet with Mr. Peyton
others to address each item, but added that Planning staff are quite busy
at the present time with other matters. Some concerns could be taken care of
quickly.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that the Board is not just talking about Route
250. He also commented on how much traffic has increased on the road he uses
every day. Mr. Cilimberg agreed, and said there were many pieces of this
puzzle which will require more time. Mr. Marshall agreed with Mr. Bowerman,
stating that V/DOT is in the business of moving people. VDOT is going to take
the path of least resistance, and he wanted to make sure that all primary
roads are included in discussions. Mr. Peyton noted that the Board has
significant input into other factors that impact the highway corridors.
Mrs. Humphris asked that Mr. Cilimberg contact Mr. Peyton to set up a
meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said he would work with Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Perkins to do so. Mrs. Thomas added that she had spoken with Mr. Peyton
previously, and she told him there are a lot of other entrance corridors and
scenic byways, but that the group had decided to focus on what they new best,
which is Route 250 West. It is up to the Board to apply that knowledge to all
the other roads.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on an ordinance to Amend and Reordain
Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles & Traffic, Article I, In General, to incorporate by
reference pursuant to Section 46.2-1313 of the Code of Virginia, as amended,
appropriate provisions of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, as amended,
Article 9 (§ 16.1-278 et seq.) of Chapter 11 of Title 16.1 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended, and Article 2 (§ 18.2-266 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title
18.2 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, regarding motor vehicles and/or
driving under the influence, to expand and clarify the parking rules and
regulations of the County, to grant police officers expanded authority to
issue parking tickets and fire marshals authority to enforce fire lane
violations, to establish a schedule of fines for parking violations and to
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 9 )
oooo??'
revise procedures governing enforcement of parking violations.
the Daily Progress on May 5 and May 12, 1997.)
(Advertised in
Mr. Tucker said the General Assembly added Albemarle County to those
jurisdictions with expanded powers to regulate parking within their limits and
on County-owned property. As a result of these legislative changes, and
because of the increase in population and traffic in the County, the Police
Department has requested revisions to the County Code dealing with motor
vehicles and parking in order to provide effective enforcement of traffic
regulations consistent with state law.
The revisions to Chapter 12 include expanded authority for police
officers to issue parking tickets for specific violations, as well as expanded
authority for the fire marshal to enforce fire lane violations; restrictions
on parking on county-owned and on privately-owned property; amendments to
disabled (handicapped) parking provisions to conform to state law; a schedule
of fines for parking violations and revised procedures for payment and
appeals; and restrictions on parking in emergency situations. In addition,
the revisions recodify the incorporation of various state code provisions
dealing with motor vehicles in effect as of July 1, 1997.
The purpose for the effective date of July 1, 1997 is two-fold. First,
this date will allow the Police Department sufficient time to plan for
implementation and enforcement of these provisions, including printing ticket
books. Second, several state code amendments passed by the General Assembly
this past session dealing with motor vehicles and addressed in the ordinance
revisions take effect on July 1, 1997.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that, following the public hearing, the
Board adopt the proposed ordinance and amend County Code Chapter 12 to
incorporate these changes.
Mr. Davis said this is a housekeeping ordinance which implements the
parking enabling authority granted to the County a year ago. He has made some
small editorial changes to the proposed ordinance after working with the
Police Department, and provided a revised draft to the Clerk. He noted that
the ordinance was delayed because there were several changes made in the
enabling authority by the last General Assembly, so it has been recommended
that the ordinance be adopted effective July 1. This would give the Police
Department time to print ticket books and to make one ordinance adoption
without having to go back and re-adopt something else after the enabling
authority takes effect in a couple of months.
Mr. Davis said the changes were not substantial to the nature of the
ordinance. He pointed out one error, on page 11 of the draft, Section 12-6,
Subsection D, referencing the penalty provision for that section. It should
state that Subsections B, C and D are punishable as provided in Section 1-6.
The significance is that these are all more serious crimes already in the Code
which should be treated as misdemeanors rather than as traffic infractions.
That section had inadvertently been changed to reference a traffic infraction.
On page 12, Section 12-6.3, referencing putting glass on the highway, Subsec-
tion D should read ~as provided in Section 1-6" On page 16 the grace period
for paying parking tickets before there is an enhanced fine has been extended
from 48 hours to 96. The chart reflected 48 hours and should say 96 hours.
The other errors were editorial.
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. There being no one present to
speak to this matter, she closed the public hearing.
With the matter before the Board, Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Davis about an
item on page four, under the section on general prohibitions. It states that
a car may not be parked on any grass unless such parking is indicated by sign
as permissive. She asked if that meant that you could not park on the grass,
and Mr. Davis said that was correct. The Police Department said parking
should be done only on an impervious substance unless it is otherwise indi-
cated.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
adopt the proposed ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles
and Traffic, Article I, in General, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
with the changes recommended by Mr. Davis. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
000078
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 97-12(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN
CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL,
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 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article I, In General,
is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Section 12-1
Section 12-18
Adoption of state law.
Penalty.
By Renumbering:
Section 12-5
Section 12-6
Section 12-7
Section 12-8
Stopping or parking; generally.
Vehicles; generally.
Emergencies; parking restrictions.
Authority of fire department officials to direct
traffic, etc.
By Renumbering and Amending:
Section 12-3
Section 12-4
Section 12-8.1
Section 12.-8.2
General prohibitions.
Restricted parking on county-owned property.
Parking-Certain restricted areas.
Same-Enforcement of parking regulations; notice of
violations; waiver of trial; contesting charges;
penalties.
By Adding New:
Section 12-3
Section 12-4
Section 12-5
Section 12-5.3
Section 12-5.4
Section 12-5.5
Section 12-6
Section 12-6.2
Section 12-6.4
Section 12-7
Section 12-8
Section 12-9.2
Section 12-9.3
General Prohibitions.
Restricted parking on county-owned property.
Stopping or parking; generally.
Parking on private property.
Parking or standing in fire lanes.
Regulated parking areas; parking meters.
Vehicles; generally.
Vehicle requirements.
Removal and disposition of abandoned or unattended
vehicles.
Emergencies; parking restrictions.
Authority of fire department officials to direct
traffic, etc.
Presumption in prosecution for parking violations.
Removal or immobilization of vehicles with outstanding
parking violations.
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
§ 12-1
§ 12-3
§ 12-4
§ 12-5
§ 12-5.1
§ 12-5.2
§ 12-5.3
§ 12-5.4
§ 12-5.5
§ 12-6
§ 12-6.1
§ 12-6.2
§ 12-6.3
§ 12-6.4
§ 12-7
Adoption of state law.
General prohibitions.
Restricted parking on county-owned property.
Stopping or parking; generally.
Restricted areas -- handicapped parking.
Stop signs; yield right-of-way signs.
Parking on private property.
Parking or standing in fire lanes.
Regulated parking areas; parking meters.
Vehicles; generally.
Permits for parades and processions.
Vehicle requirements.
Putting glass, etc., on highway prohibited.
Removal and disposition of abandoned or unattended
vehicles~
Emergencies; parking restrictions.
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
000079
12-8
12-9
12-9.1
12-9.2
12-9.3
Authority of fire department officials to direct
traffic, etc.
Compliance with chapter; penalty for violation of
chapter.
Same--Enforcement of parking regulations; notice of
violations; waiver of trial; contesting charges;
penalties.
Presumption in prosecution for parking violations.
Removal or immobilization of vehicles with outstanding
parking violations.
ARTICLE IIi. SNOW ROUTES
§ 12-18
Penalty
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 12-1. Adoption of state law.
Pursuant to the authority of Title 46.2-1313 of the Code of Virginia, as
amended, all of the provisions and requirements of the laws of the common-
wealth contained in Title 46.2, Article 9 of Chapter 11 of Title 16.1, and
Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, as in force on
July 1, 1997, and as amended from that date and in the future, except those
provisions and requirements the violation of which constitutes a felony, and
except those provisions and requirements which by their very nature can have
no application to or within the county, are hereby adopted and incorporated in
this chapter by reference and made applicable within the county. References
to "highways of the state" contained in such provisions and requirements
hereby adopted shall be deemed to refer to the streets, highways and other
public ways within the county. Such provisions and requirements are hereby
adopted, mutatis mutandis, and made a part of this chapter as fully as though
set forth at length herein, and it shall be unlawful for any person, within
the county, to violate or fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any provision
of Title 46.2, Article 9 of Chapter 11 of Title 16.1, or Article 2 of Chapter
7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia which is adopted by this section;
provided, that in no event shall the penalty imposed for the violation of any
provision or requirement hereby adopted exceed the penalty imposed for a
similar offense under Title 46.2, Article 9 of Chapter 11 of Title 16.1, or
Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia.
(10-19-72, § 3; 10-9-74; 4-13-88; Ord. of 3-14-90; Ord. of 6-5-91)
Sec. 12-3. General Prohibitions.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park or stop a vehicle,
except when necessary to avoid traffic or with the directions of a police
officer or traffic-control device, in any of the following locations:
(1) On any sidewalk.
(2)
In or in front of any driveway so as to block the use of
such driveway to others.
(3) Within fifteen (15) feet of any fire hydrant.
(4)
Any closer to a corner than is indicated by signs or marks
upon the road or curb.
(5)
Within any bus zone, as indicated by signs or marks upon the
road or curb.
(6) Within a marked crosswalk.
(7)
Abreast of another vehicle parallel to a curb (double park-
ing).
(8)
Within any loading zone, as indicated by signs or marks upon
the road or curb.
(9)
Within any zone indicated by signs or marks upon the road or
curb as a no parking zone.
000080
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
(10) At any location for a longer time than is permissible by
signs or marks upon the road or curb (overtime parking).
(11) In any fire lane marked or indicated as such.
12) On any grass, unless such parking is indicated by sign as
permissive.
13) Within fifty (50) feet of the nearest rail of a railroad
grade crossing.
(14) Alongside or opposite any street excavation or obstruction,
when such parking would obstruct traffic.
(15) Upon any bridge or other elevated structure on a highway or
within a tunnel.
(16) At any place where official signs prohibit parking.
(b) Law-enforcement officers may move or cause to be moved motor
vehicles to any place they may deem expedient without regard to the provisions
of this section, when in the performance of their lawful duties.
State law reference -- for state law as to the authority of the county
to adopt this section, see Code of Va. § 46.2-1220. (Previous § 12-3 Tail
gates on vehicles is now § 12-6 Vehicles; generally.)
Sec. 12-4. Restricted parking on county-owned property.
(a) The county executive is authorized to designate specific areas on
county-owned property to be restricted parking zones. The county executive
shall designate the types of motor vehicles which may be permitted to park in
the restricted zones and the time, place and manner in which such vehicles may
be permitted to park in the restricted parking zones. The county executive
shall make such rules and regulations as parking conditions may require in the
restricted parking zones and under the varying conditions that may exist at
different times.
It shall be the duty of the county executive, upon the adoption of such
regulations but before the same shall become effective, to give public notice
thereof by establishing and posting signs or by other means which may be
reasonably adequate to readily inform the operators of vehicles in restricted
parking zones of the existence, nature and requirements of such regulations.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to park or stop a motor vehicle
of a type or in a manner which violates the provisions of any rule or regula-
tion restricting the parking of motor vehicles on county-owned property
adopted and promulgated in accordance with this section.
State law reference -- for state law as to the authority of the county
to adopt this section, see Code of Va. § 46.2-1221. (Previous § 12-4 Injur-
ing, tampering or interfering generally with vehicles is now § 12-6 Vehicles;
generally.)
Sec. 12-5. Stopping or parking; generally.
(a) No person shall stop a vehicle in such a manner as to impede or
render dangerous the use of highways or county roads by others, except in the
case of an emergency, an accident or mechanical breakdown. In the event of
any such emergency, accident or breakdown, the emergency flashing lights of
such vehicle shall be turned on, if the vehicle is equipped with such lights
and such lights are operating. A report of the vehicle's location shall be
made to the nearest police officer as soon as practical. The vehicle shall be
moved to the shoulder as soon as possible and then removed from the shoulder
without unnecessary delay. If such vehicle is not promptly removed, removal
may be ordered by a police officer, at the expense of the owner, if such
vehicle creates a traffic hazard.
For state law as to stopping on highways, see Code of Va., § 46.2-888.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to any vehicle
owned or controlled by the virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
or the county, while actually engaged in the. construction, reconstruction or
maintenance of highways and roads.
For state law as to exceptions for certain vehicles, see Code of Va.,
46.2-891.
(c) No person having control or charge of a motor vehicle shall allow
such vehicle to stand on any highway unattended, without first effectively
setting the emergency or parking brake thereon, stopping the motor and turning
the front wheels into the curb or side of the roadway.
(d) The operator of a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, when
temporarily stopped on the traveled or paved portion of a highway so as to
create a traffic hazard, shall flash all four (4) turn signals simultaneously
to signal approaching motorists of the existing hazard, whenever such vehicle
is equipped with a device which will cause the four (4) turn signals to flash
simultaneously.
(e) No truck or bus, except a school bus, shall be stopped wholly or
partially on the traveled portion of any highway in the county outside of a
town for the purpose of taking on or discharging cargo or passengers, unless
the operator cannot leave the traveled portion of a highway with safety. A
school bus may be stopped on the traveled portion of a highway when taking on
or discharging school children, but such stops shall be made only at points
where the bus can be clearly seen for a safe distance from both directions.
For state law as to stopping on highways, see Code of Va., § 46.2-893.
(Previous § 12-5 Authority of fire department officials to direct
traffic, etc., is now § 12-8.1.)
Sec. 12-5.1. Restricted areas -- handicapped parking.
(a) It shall be unlawful for a vehicle not displaying disabled parking
license plates, an organizational removable windshield placard, a permanent
removable windshield placard or a temporary removable windshield placard
issued under section 46.2-1241, of the Code of Virginia, or DV disabled
parking license plates issued under subsection B of section 46.2-739 of the
Code of Virginia, to park in a parking space reserved for persons with
disabilities that limit or impair their ability to walk or for a person who is
not limited or impaired in his ability to walk to park a vehicle in a parking
space so designated except when transporting a person with such a disability
in the vehicle.
(b) Any person violating this section may be issued a summons without
the necessity of a warrant being obtained by the owner of such privately owned
parking area.
(c) Proof that the vehicle described in the complaint, summons, parking
ticket, citation, or warrant was parked in violation of this section, together
with proof that the defendant was at the time the registered owner of the
vehicle, as required by section 46.2-600 et seq., of the Code of Virginia,
shall constitute prima facie evidence that the registered owner of the vehicle
was the person who committed the violation.
(d) No violation of this section shall be dismissed for a property
owner's failure to comply strictly with the requirements for disabled parking
signs set forth in section 36-99.11 of the Code of Virginia provided the space
is clearly distinguishable as a parking space reserved for persons with
disabilities that limit or impair their ability to walk.
(e) Any person who creates a counterfeit or unauthorized replica of a
disabled parking license plate, DV disabled parking license plate which has
been issued under subsection B of section 46.2-739 of the Code of Virginia,
organizational removable windshield placard, permanent removable windshield
placard or temporary removable windshield placard, shall be guilty of a Class
2 misdemeanor.
(f) Any person who displays a counterfeit or unauthorized replica of a
disabled parking license plate, DY disabled parking license plate which has
been issued under subsection B of section 46.2-739 of the Code of Virginia,
organizational removable windshield placard, permanent removable windshield
placard or temporary removable windshield placard and parks in a disabled
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
000082
parking space or attempts to use the parking privileges afforded by section
46.2-1245 of the Code of Virginia, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(g) Any person who alters a disabled parking license plate, DV disabled
parking license plate which has been issued under subsection B of section
46.2-739 of the Code of Virginia, organizational removable windshield placard,
permanent removable windshield placard or temporary removable windshield
placard, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(h) Any person who parks in a space reserved for persons with disabili-
ties that limit or impair their ability to walk or attempts to use the parking
privileges afforded by section 46.2-1245 of the Code of Virginia and displays
a disabled parking license plate, DV disabled parking license plate which has
been issued under subsection B of section 46.2-739 of the Code of Virginia,
organizational removable windshield placard, permanent removable windshield
placard or temporary removable windshield placard which has been issued to
another person, and is not transporting a person with a disability which
limits or impairs his ability to walk, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misde-
meanor.
(I) Any person who makes a false statement of material fact to obtain or
assist an individual in obtaining a disabled parking license plate, DV
disabled parking license plate which has been issued under subsection B of
section 46.2-739 of the Code of Virginia, organizational removable windshield
placard, permanent removable windshield placard or temporary removable
windshield placard, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(j) Any person who sells or exchanges for consideration any valid,
altered or counterfeit disabled parking license plate, DV disabled parking
license plate which has been issued under subsection B of section 46.2-739 of
the Code of Virginia, organizational removable windshield placard, permanent
removable windshield placard or temporary removable windshield placard, shall
be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(k) Any person who knowingly provides to another person, without sale or
exchange of consideration, any valid, altered, or counterfeit disabled parking
license plate, DV disabled parking license plate which has been issued under
subsection B of section 46.2-739 of the Code of Virginia, permanent removable
windshield placard, temporary removable windshield placard or organizational
removable windshield placard, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.
(1) Parking a vehicle in a parking space reserved for persons with
disabilities in violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not
less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than five hundred dollars
($500.o0).
State law reference--for state law as to authority of county to adopt
this section, see Code of Va., § 46.2-1237.
Sec. 12-5.2. Stop signs; yield right-of-way signs.
The county executive, or his designated agent, shall have the power to
designate intersections at which vehicles shall come to a full stop or yield
the right-of-way; provided, that nothing herein shall be construed as autho-
rizing the county executive to so designate any intersection within the Town
of Scottsville.
(12-19-74)
Sec. 12-5.3. Parking on private property.
No person shall stand or park a vehicle on any private lot or lot area
without the express or implied consent of the owner thereof. Whenever signs
or markings have been erected on any lot or lot area, contiguous or adjacent
to a street, road, highway or alley, indicating that no vehicles are permitted
to stand or park thereon, it shall be unlawful for any person to stop, stand
or park any vehicle in such lot or lot area, or to drive a vehicle across any
curb or lot line or over any driveway from a street, road, alley or highway
into such lot or lot area for the purpose of standing or parking such vehicle.
Sec. 12-5.4. Parking or standing in fire lanes.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park or stand a vehicle in
any designated and marked fire lane, except as follows:
O0008,3
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Fire lanes within commercial or school properties, or within
residential or industrial lanes, may be used for temporary stop-
ping to pick up or discharge passengers or supplies; provided that
a vehicle shall be so stopped parallel and immediately adjacent to
the curb and a licensed operator shall occupy and be in control of
the vehicle while it is so stopped.
(b) The placement of a vehicle, for any purpose, within a fire lane
perpendicular to the curb or edge is prohibited.
(c) Any police officer or the fire marshal or his authorized representa-
tives who finds any vehicle in violation of this section shall have the
authority to remove such vehicle at the owner's risk and expense. This
authority shall extend to any fire or rescue officer in charge of a fire or
rescue operation who finds any such violation to be interfering with such
emergency operations.
(d) The county police or the fire marshal or his authorized representa-
tives are authorized to enter any fire lane for the purpose of enforcing the
provisions of this section.
(e) No provision of this section shall apply to fire, rescue or police
vehicles while they are involved in emergency operations.
Sec. 12-5.5. Regulated parking areas; parking meters
(a) The board of supervisors shall have the authority to direct the
county executive to order and arrange for the installation and maintenance of
parking meters at sites designated by the board. The board shall by resolu-
tion set the prices and time limits for parking in the areas regulated by such
parking meters.
(b) Members of the police department and any other county personnel
designated by the police chief shall enforce the restrictions and regulations
set by the board regarding parking meters. Such enforcement shall be in
compliance with section 12-9.1 of this Code.
State law reference -- for state law as to the authority of the county
to adopt this section, see Code of Va. § 46.2-1220.
Sec. 12-6. Vehicles; generally.
(a) It shall be unlawful for the operator of any truck, trailer or other
vehicle equipped with a tail gate, to lower or open the tail gate thereon, or
to suffer or permit such tail gate to be lowered or opened, except during the
time the vehicle is being loaded or unloaded, and except during the time the
load on the vehicle necessitates a lowered or opened tail gate as a support
for the load. It shall be the duty of the operator of any such vehicle to see
that the tail gate on such vehicle is kept closed or raised, except during the
times hereinbefore specified.
(10-19-72, § 2)
(b) No person shall individually or in association with one or more
others wilfully break, injure, tamper with or remove any part of any motor
vehicle, trailer or semitrailer for the purpose of injuring, defacing or
destroying such motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer or temporarily or
permanently preventing its useful operation, or for any purpose, against the
will or without the consent of the owner of such motor vehicle, trailer or
semitrailer, nor shall any person in any other manner wilfully or maliciously
interfere with or prevent the running or operation of such motor vehicle,
trailer or semitrailer.
(c) No person shall, without the consent of the owner or person in
charge of a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, climb into or upon such
motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer with intent to commit any crime,
malicious mischief or injury thereto; or, while a motor vehicle, trailer or
semitrailer is at rest, shall attempt to manipulate any of the levers and
starting crank or other device, brakes or mechanism thereof or to set such
motor vehiclef trailer or semitrailer in motion, except that the foregoing
provision shall not apply when any such act is done in an emergency or in
furtherance of public safety or by or under the direction of an officer in the
regulation of traffic or the performance of any other official duty.
000084
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
(d) Any person violating the provisions of subsections (b) or (c), of
this section shall be punished as provided in section 1-6.
(Code 1967, § 12-6)
For state law as to injuring, destroying, etc., see Code of Va., §
18.2-146. (Previous § 12-6, Stop signs; yield right-of-way signs is now § 12-
5.2.)
Sec. 12-6.1 Permits for parades and processions.
No athletic contest, race, demonstration, planned gathering or parade,
excepting the military forces of the United States, the military forces of the
state and police and fire vehicles and personnel, shall occupy, march or
proceed along any street, road or highway, except in accordance with a permit
issued by the chief of police and such other regulations as are set forth in
this chapter which may apply.
(Code 1967, § 12-8; 4-13-88)
Sec. 12-6.2 Vehicle requirements.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to park, keep or permit to be
parked or kept any motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer in or on any public
highway, street, alley, public easement or other public thoroughfare in the
county, or any other area in the county subject to regulations by the county,
unless:
(1)
The motor vehicle shall be currently inspected and approved
in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the state;
(2)
The vehicle shall be currently registered and licensed to be
operated upon the highways of this state in accordance with
the provisions of the laws of this state and a valid state
license plate shall be visibly displayed; and
(3)
The vehicle shall be currently licensed to be operated upon
the highways and roads of the county in accordance with the
laws of the county, and the county motor vehicle sticker
shall be visibly displayed.
Sec. 12-6.3 Putting glass, etc., on highway prohibited.
(a) No person shall throw or deposit or cause to be deposited upon any
street or highway any glass bottle, glass, nail, tack, wire, can or any other
substance likely to injure any person or animal or damage any vehicle upon
such street or highway, nor shall any person throw or deposit or cause to be
deposited upon any highway any soil, sand, mud, gravel or other substances so
as to create a hazard to the traveling public.
(b) Any person who drops, or permits to be dropped or thrown, upon any
street or highway any destructive, hazardous or injurious material shall
immediately remove the same or cause it to be removed.
(c) Any person removing a wrecked or damaged vehicle from a street or
highway shall remove any glass or other injurious substance dropped upon the
street or highway from such vehicle.
(d) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be
punished as provided in section 1-6.
(Code 1967, § 12-10)
For state law as to placing glass, etc., on public roads, see Code of
Va., § 18.2-324.
Sec. 12-6.4. Removal and disposition of abandoned or unattended vehicles.
(a) A vehicle shall be deemed abandoned if it lacks a valid license
plate, valid county sticker or valid state inspection sticker and the vehicle
has been in the same specific location for forty-eight (48) hours without
being moved.
(b) A vehicle shall be deemed unattended if:
OOO085
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
1)
The vehicle is illegally parked and the owner or operator is
not present; or
2)
The vehicle is stopped on a public highway or road, consti-
tutes a traffic hazard and the owner or operator is not
present; or
3)
The vehicle is stopped on a public highway, public road or
private property without the consent of the property owner,
lessee or occupant and the vehicle has been in such location
for more than forty-eight (48) hours without being attended
by the owner or operator.
(c) Police officers or other uniformed personnel designated by the
chief of police may remove or cause to be removed any abandoned or unattended
vehicle from public highways or roads.
(d) Abandoned or unattended vehicles left on private property may be
removed or caused to be removed by police officers or other uniformed person-
nel designated by the chief of police, but only at the written request of the
property owner, lessee or occupant. The property owner, lessee or occupant
must provide in writing for the indemnification of the county against any loss
or expense incurred by reason of removal, storage or sale of the abandoned or
unattended vehicle.
(e) As soon as possible after removal has occurred under subsection (c)
or (d), the police department must notify the owner of the vehicle of the
vehicle's location and the procedure for the owner to recover the vehicle.
State law reference -- for state law as to the authority of the county
to adopt this section, see Code of Va. § 46.2-1213.
Sec. 12-7. Emergencies; parking restrictions.
(a) No vehicle shall be stopped at or in the vicinity of a fire, vehicle
or airplane accident or other area of emergency, in such a manner as to create
a traffic hazard or interfere with police, fire fighters, rescue workers or
others whose duty it is to deal with such emergencies. Any vehicle found
unlawfully parked in the vicinity of such fire, accident or area of emergency
may be removed by order of a police officer or, in the absence of a police
officer, by order of the uniformed fire or rescue officer in charge, at the
risk and expense of the owner, if such vehicle creates a traffic hazard or
interferes with the necessary procedures of police, fire fighters, rescue
workers or others whose assigned duty it is to deal with such emergencies.
The charge for such removal shall not exceed the actual and necessary cost.
Vehicles being used by accredited information services, such as press, radio
and television, when being used for the gathering of news, shall be exempt
from the provisions of this subsection, except when actually obstructing the
police, fire fighters and rescue workers dealing with such emergencies.
(b) It shall be unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to park such
vehicle within five hundred (500) feet of where any fire apparatus has stopped
in answer to a fire alarm. This section shall not apply to any division
responding to such alarm in the performance of his lawful duties.
(Previous § 12-7 Permits for parades and processions is now § 12-6.1.)
Sec. 12-8. Authority of fire department officials to direct traffic, etc.
(a) While any fire department is in the process of answering an alarm
of fire or extinguishing a fire and returning to station, the fire chief or
other officer in charge of such fire department at that time shall have the
authority to maintain order at the fire or its vicinity, direct the actions of
the firemen at the fire, keep bystanders or other persons at a safe distance
from the fire and fire equipment, facilitate the speedy movement and operation
of fire fighting equipment and firemen and until the arrival of a police
officer, direct and control traffic in person or by deputy and facilitate the
movement of traffic.
(b) The fire chief or other officer in charge shall display his
fireman's badge or other identification of authority. Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, this authority shall extend to the activation of
traffic control signals designed to facilitate the safe egress and ingress of
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
000086
fire fighting equipment at a fire station. Any person refusing to obey the
orders of the fire chief or his deputies or other officer in charge at that
time shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than
ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) .
(Code 1967, § 12-7; 4-13-88)
For state law as authority of fire department to activate electric
traffic control signals when on duty, see Code of Va., § 46.1-184(e).
(Previous § 12-8 Putting glass, etc., on highway prohibited is now § 12-6.3.)
(Previous § 12-8.1. Parking-Certain restrict areas is now ~ 12-5.1
Restricted areas -- handicapped parking.)
Sec. 12.9. Compliance with chapter; penalty for violation of chapter.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse, fail or neglect to
comply with any of the provisions of this chapter or any rule or regulation
promulgated pursuant thereto.
(b) Every person convicted of a violation of any of the provisions of
this chapter or rule or regulation promulgated pursuant thereto, for which no
other penalty is provided, shall be guilty o~ a traffic infraction, punishable
by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00).
(Code 1967, § 12-14; 8-11-76; 4-13-88)
State law reference--For state law prohibiting county from imposing a
penalty for violation of traffic regulations in excess of that imposed for
similar offense by the state, see Code of Va., § 46.2-1300. As to state law
penalty for violation of motor vehicles and traffic regulations generally, see
Code of Va., § 46.2-113.
Sec. 12-9.1. Same--Enforcement of parking regulations; notice of violations;
waiver of trial; contesting charges; penalties.
(a) Police officers and other uniformed personnel designated by the
chief of police to enforce the parking provisions of this Code shall post a
written notice of violation on the windshield of each vehicle found illegally
parked. Such notice of violation shall state that the recipient of the notice
may elect to waive his or her right to appear and be tried for the offense or
offenses indicated in the notice.
(b) Persons desiring to waive trial may do so by voluntarily remitting
to the office of the director of finance the amount of the fine stipulated for
each violation marked on the notice. Such fines shall be levied in accordance
with the schedule set forth in subsection (e) of this section. If the
required amount is not received in the office of the director of finance or
mailed and postmarked within ninety-six (96) hours after the notice of
violation is issued, the amount of the applicable fine shall be doubled.
(c) Whenever the fines are paid by mail, the responsibility for receipt
of the payment by the director of finance shall lie with the registered owner
of the vehicle parked in violation.
Payment may be made by personal check; provided, that if such check is
returned for insufficient funds, the vehicle owner shall remain liable for the
parking violations, and shall likewise be subject to a service charge of
twenty dollars ($20.00) for processing the returned check.
(d) Any recipient of a notice of violation desiring to contest the
charges cited in the notice shall appear at the office of the director of
finance and, on forms provided by the director of finance, file a written
request for administrative review and dismissal of the charges. The facts of
the request shall be reviewed and commented upon by a representative of the
director of finance and a representative of the police department, who shall
recommend whether the request should be approved or denied. Acting on such
request and recommendation, the director of finance shall decide whether the
charge shall be dismissed. The recipient of the notice shall indicate on the
request for review whether a hearing in court is demanded in the event the
request for dismissal is denied. If the request for review is made within
ninety-six (96) hours of the violation, the recipient shall have an additional
ninety-six (96) hours after denial of the request to remit the fine, before
the amount thereof is doubled.
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
(e) The schedule of fines shall be as follows:
oooos?'
Offense
Parking on Sidewalk
Blocking Driveway
Park within 15 feet of fire hy-
drant
Park within bus zone
Park in crosswalk
Double Parking
Parking in Fire Lane
Parking in loading zone
Parking in prohibited zone
Overtime parking
Parking within 50 feet of rail-
road crossing
Parking alongside or opposite
street obstruction or excavation
Parking on bridge
Parking where prohibited
No County Decal
Handicapped Parking
Paid before 96 Paid after 96
hours hours
10.00 20.00
10.00 20.0O
10.00 20.00
10.00 20.00
10.00 20.00
10.00 20.00
25.00 50.00
10.00 2O.00
10.00 20.00
5.00 10.00
10.00 20.00
10.00 20.00
10.00 20.00
10.00 20.00
25.00 50.00
100.00 200.00
(f) Any vehicle owner who fails to respond to a notice of violation,
either by paying the stipulated fines or by filing a request for review or
hearing with the director of finance within ten (10) days, shall be subject to
summons and arrest pursuant to section 46.2-941 of the Code of Virginia.
State law reference--For state law as to authority of county to adopt
this section, see Code of Va. § 46.2-1225. (This section was previously
§ 12-8.2.)
Sec. 12-9.2. Presumption in prosecution for parking violations.
In any prosecution for a violation of any provision of this article,
proof that the vehicle described in the citation or summons was in violation
of such provision, together with proof that the defendant was, at the time of
such violation, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Chapter 12
of Title 46.2 of the Code of virginia, shall constitute in evidence a rebutta-
ble presumption that such registered owner was the person who committed the
violation which occurred.
Sec. 12-9.3. Removal or immobilization of vehicles with outstanding parking
violations.
(a) Any vehicle parked or stopped on any public highway, public road or
public property against which there are three (3) or more unpaid or unsettled
parking violation notices may be removed or immobilized or caused to be
removed or immobilized by police officers or other uniformed personnel
designated by the chief of police. Such immobilization shall be in a manner
which will prevent the removal or operation of the vehicle except by autho-
rized law enforcement personnel.
(b) The police department shall, as soon as possible after the vehicle
has been removed or immobilized, notify the owner of such vehicle of the
nature and circumstances of the prior unsettled or unpaid parking violation
notices. If the vehicle has been immobilized or caused to be immobilized by
the law enforcement personnel, such personnel shall place on the vehicle, in a
conspicuous manner, a notice warning that the vehicle has been immobilized and
attempts to move the vehicle could damage it.
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
OOO088
(c) The owner of an immobilized vehicle, or the owner's agent, has
twenty-four (24) hours from the time the vehicle was immobilized to secure the
release of the vehicle. After that time, police officers or other uniformed
personnel designated by the chief of police may remove or cause to be removed
the vehicle to a storage facility.
(d) If the owner refuses or fails to pay the outstanding parking
violation notices and the costs, or the owner is not ascertainable after a
diligent search by the police department, the finance department shall send
notice to last known address of the owner and to the holder of any lien of
record on the vehicle. The vehicle shall then be subject to the sale provi-
sions of Va. Code § 46.2-1209.
State law reference -- for state law as to the authority of the county
to adopt this section, see Code of Va., § 46.2-1216.
ARTICLE III. SNOW ROUTES
Sec. 12-18. Penalty.
Any person convicted of violating any of the provisions of this article
shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not to exceed fifty
dollars ($50.00) for each such offense.
(Code 1967, § 12-89)
State law reference--For state law establishing maximum penalty for
violation of snow route regulations, see Code of Va., § 46.2-1302.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall be effective
July 1, 1997.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-96-28. Glenmore Assoc (Signs #36 & #40).
Public Hearing on a request to rezone 6.6 acs from RA to PRD & amend existing
agreements for Glenmore PRD. Properties are near end of Ashton Drive adj to
Glenmore development. (This site, in the Community of East Rivanna, is
recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential [3-6 du/ac] by the Comprehen-
sive Plan. The existing density is 0.5 du/aC.) TM93,P's 61&6lB. Rivanna Dist.
(Deferred from April 16, 1997.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 5
and May 12, 1997.)
(Mr. Bowerman said that he had an on-going business relationship with
Forest Lakes North and South, and therefore excused himself from hearing the
matter. He left the room at 7:59 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that the request from the applicant would add 6.6
acres to the Glenmore Development and modify some of the development regula-
tions for the remainder of Glenmore. This was an internal area that was not
part of the Glenmore property until recently. It would increase the total
number of dwelling units by six, it would remove references to Forest Lakes in
the lot standards, and it would add a provision that would allow for the use
of private roads meeting private road standards rather than public road
standards. The original plan for Glenmore was approved with 758 lots. Three-
quarters of those have been platted. The major change proposed would provide
for Glenmore to develop private roads to meet private road standards. Private
roads would only be built where such a road would alleviate a demonstrable
danger of degradation to the environment as currently stated in the Subdivi-
sion Ordinance. Traffic calming devices would be used to help make the
transition from the public road design segments to the private road design
segments that serve five lots or less.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff feels that such changes are justified in the
setting. Some areas remaining in Glenmore are more difficult to develop, and
utilizing private roads standards would help to reduce the potential for
environmental degradation. The requested changes are viewed as reasonable
requests for additional acreage and the ability to better utilize areas for
development, although the density proposed in the Comprehensive Plan is much
higher than what is proposed in the rezoning.
At the Planning Commission meeting, the issue of future access provided
by Ashton Road was discussed. Residents along Ashton Road objected to this
000089
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
being used as the access for new development areas in Glenmore. The applicant
stated that was not their intent; all access to property within the Glenmore
boundary has been, and is to be, through the existing gatehouse entrance,
rather than via Ashton Road. Only allowance for emergency access to Glenmore,
if required by the County, is intended for Ashton Road. The applicant has
subsequently proffered, in part, that vehicle access to Section 41 in Glenmore
will be through the existing private road network within Glenmore. Ashton
Road may be used for emergency access. The applicant has allowed for Ashton
Road to be part of a future road system called for in the Land Use Plan for
the Rivanna Village; however, those plans have not been developed in detail
and would be subject to change as to the use of Ashton Road.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following memorandum, dated May 13, 1997, to
the Board:
"You will find in this packet the original staff report provided
to the Planning Commission on March 25, 1997, for ZMA 96-28 by
Glenmore Associates, et.al. Since application was made originally
for the Glenmore PRD rezoning, the County has received three sets
of proffers. The original set of proffers is attached to the
original staff report. The set that the Planning Commission
received was a "reconstitution" or "rewording" of those same
proffers (also enclosed for information only). And the third set
of proffers contains revisions made in response to comments made
at the Planning Commission meeting. This memo specifically covers
the third set of proffers.
The effect of the proffers under consideration by the Board is as
follows:
hereinafter
1. 1997 Proffer 1. adds the parenthetical phrase, "
referred to as the Zoning Ordinance" after making reference
to the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County and stated that
residential development would not exceed 764 (instead of
750) units. The 1997 proffer also adds the phrase, "as that
Section is in effect on April 16 1997" for future refer-
ence.
2. 1997 Proffer 2. deletes the word "access" when describing
the "right-of-way" to the 6.0 acres on the Application Plan
for a fire department. This right-of-way exists and the
word access is not needed. Proffer #2 also adds the words,
"dated November 2, 1990" to the description of the original
Clower Associates Application Plan for reference.
3. 1997 Proffer 3. adds the words, "dated November 2, 1990" to
the description of the original Clower Associates Applica-
tion Plan for reference.
4. 1997 Proffer 5. deletes the word "country" when describing
the private club. The word "country" is not necessary. The
1997 proffer also adds the words, "dated November 2, 1990"
to identify the original Clower Associates Application Plan.
5. 1997 Proffer Y. adds the words, "dated November 2, 1990" to
the description of the original Clower Associates Applica-
tion Plan for reference.
6. 1997 Proffer 10. replaces the phrase "as described in Ex-
hibit B to the petition" in the sentence, "Development
shall be in general accord with the Application Plan and
Glenmore Rezoning Application including textual program of
development as described in Exhibit B to the petition" with
the following sentence. "Development shall be in general
accord with the Application Plan dated November 2. 1990.
revised May 13. 1997 and Glenmore Rezoning Application dated
September 24. 1990 and amended November 2. 1990 including
textual program of development as approved under ZMA-90-19
and amended by subsequent rezoning actions." This change
updates what has happened with Glenmore since the original
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22
OOOO9o
approval and the proffers revised from the Planning Commis-
sion meeting.
1997 Proffer 11. deletes the statement, "Ail private roads
shall be constructed to VDOT mountainous terrain standards,
however, clearing of private road easements shall be re-
stricted to matters of safety as identified by the County
Engineer in the final review process" This proffer has been
modified and is now a part of the General Conditions. An
analysis of the effects of the change from private roads
constructed to meet public road standards to private roads
constructed to meet private and public standards was made in
the original staff report.
1997 Proffer 11. now contains the statement, "Maintenance of
private roads and private drives serving two lots will be in
accord with Section 18-7 and Section 18-36 of the County's
Subdivision Ordinance as it exists on April 16, 1997" This
statement replaces the phrase, "Road maintenance fees shall
be in accord with VDOT subdivision streets maintenance fees
(as amended from time to time) and provisions satisfactory
to the County Attorney shall be made for continuous collec-
tion and expenditure of such fees." The change was made to
clarify that, regardless of which type of private road is
installed, (either to serve two lots with a private driveway
or to serve 3 5 lots with a private road) it will be
maintained and it will be in a form acceptable to the county
attorney as the Planning Commission determines is necessary
to protect the public interest.
1997 Proffers 12. was stated previously as part of Proffer
11. No changes are proposed.
1997 Proffer 13. has been added to address concerns raised
of adjacent property owners that residents from Glenmore and
construction traffic will use Ashton Road which currently
provides access to the Lang properties and the Tillman
property. (An agreement for the Tillman property to gain
access through the Glenmore road system has been signed and
ratified by the Glenmore Homeowner's Association.) The
revised proffer states that, "Vehicular access to Section 41
of Glenmore will be through the existing private road net-
work within Glenmore. Ashton Road may be used for emergency
access. This proffer does not affect Proffer 7 above."
With the new proffer 13, the developer has agreed that he
will not use Ashton Road for access, even though he owns the
right-of-way, unless it is used to provide emergency access.
Proffer 7, which speaks about access to the remainder of the
Rivanna Village through Ashton Road, is not affected by the
new Proffer 13.
10.
1997 Chart II: Summary of Acres and Densities by Tract:
14.78 acres has been added to the total acreage and shown in
Tract 41 to correspond with the Lang properties which have
been and are being acquired. The total acreage is being
increased by 14.78 acres. The minimum number of lots are
changed from 18 to 34 and the maximum number of lots are
changed from 80 - 136. This Chart II references the origi-
nal application plan for a map showing Tract 41 which now
includes the Lang properties.
11.
1997 Chart II Note: The note at the bottom of the chart is
changed to say that "Even though the last column shows 2,084
potential lots (at smallest lot size), the Developer will
adhere to a maximum limit of 764 dwelling units (of varying
lot sizes. The effect of the changes on the chart is to show
the range of possibilities but not to increase the number of
lots by more than 6, as described in the staff report.
12. 1997 General Conditions #2. is changed to reflect 764 units.
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
000091
13.
1997 General Conditions ~10. deletes the references to
Forest Lakes in 10.c. and 10.d.
14.
1997 General Conditions ~11 adds the standards for private
roads in Glenmore, which were described in the staff report.
15.
1997 General Conditions #12. adds the yard requirements in
a., b., c., and d. which were approved in 1994 and deletes
the reference to Section D, since Section D has already been
built and would not be affected by this rezoning.
16.
Chart II a: Summary of Areas and Densities of Developed
Areas is included in the proffers for information only. This
summary shows the current number of lots and acreage plat-
ted, to date, and the current amount of acreage in roads and
open space.
Additionally, the following phrase has been added to the Proffers:
These proffers run with the land. Upon transfer of title by
Randolph R. Lang and Catherine Childs Lang to Glenmore
Associates Limited Partnership of their real estate subject
to these proffers, Randolph R. Lang and Catherine Childs
Lang shall have no further personal obligation regarding the
terms herein.
This phrase has been approved by the County Attorney for addition
to the proffer form; it does not affect the proffers in any way,
since the proffers run with the land.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the PRD
Amendment as presented."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission at its meeting in March 25,
1997, by a five to one vote, recommended approval the additional land area to
the Glenmore PRD and the proffered changes to the density, modifications to
the General Conditions, minor wording changes recommended by the staff and
with the applicant's offer to proffer that Ashton Drive would not be used to
provide access to Glenmore except as an alternate emergency access point.
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Frank Kessler,
Mr. Stephen Runkle and Mr. Don Franco were present. Mr. Runkle said this was
a logical addition to Glenmore, and had no further comments.
Mr. Neil Goldwein asked who maintains private roads and repairs common
driveways shared by two or more homes. Mr. Cilimberg responded that private
road maintenance is subject to a maintenance agreement within the development,
which must be approved by the County, to ensure that maintenance is provided
adequately. The County does not get involved in how the agreement is assessed
within the development. The applicant would be bonded as the subdivision
process proceeds.
Mr. Franco said that there in an interpretation that if two lots share
a driveway it is termed a road, and there is no provision to use private roads
in Glenmore. A shared driveway between two lots therefore becomes a public
road and must be designed to those standards. He would like to explore, in
settings where there are up to five units, reduced standards similar to what
is in the Subdivision Ordinance, (14-foot-wide pavement, four-foot shoulders),
that would enable the applicant to work with the existing terrain better to
access the lots. Depending on the circumstances, he is open to looking at
something that is maintained by the individual lots that would benefit from
this, or the community association in general, that will benefit from the
reduced amount of pavement and construction. Mr. Franco said he does not have
a firm stance on the issue and planned to handle the matter as it arises with
each individual case.
Mr. Goldwein said the community seems to be controlled by the developer,
and wondered how the community's needs could be served under this control. He
wanted to know what safeguards he can obtain. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr.
Cilimberg to explain what the Board's role was in this matter. Mr. Cilimberg
said the Board will decide whether or not to accept the proffer that will
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
000092
allow for a lower design road. If the Board decides to do so, staff will
ensure that all Glenmore maintenance agreements address and ensure maintenance
of those roads. Staff does not get involved in determining the way the
assessment is made within Glenmore. Mr. Davis said there is simply a require-
ment in the Subdivision Ordinance that says there shall be maintenance, and it
must be clearly stated that it is not the County's responsibility to maintain
the roads. How maintenance is achieved is up to property owners themselves.
Different developments have different arrangements, generally equally dividing
up the cost amongst the property owners.
Mrs. Humphris asked what criteria the Board is to use when deciding
about the private road. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes this is an opportunity
to reduce degradation of the natural areas. The applicant could then design a
narrow road with a steeper grade for up to five lots where they otherwise
would have to build to a public road standard, with a lesser grade and wider
area of construction, with potentially more severe effects on the lay of the
land. The original Glenmore decision that allowed a private road system,
utilizing a public road design with a mountainous terrain standard, was
designed to allow less environmental degradation.
Mrs. Thomas asked if there was any way that in the future private roads
would create problems for the County; Mr. Cilimberg said he had no way of
predicting. Private roads with standards of design and maintenance agreement
requirements have been in place for years, and staff feels that will ensure
those roads will be maintained over time. Mrs. Thomas said Glenmore has
private roads built to state standards, but now there is a proposal for
private roads better for the environment than roads built to state standards.
She wondered if this would create a problem for the County. Mr. Cilimberg
said there are many roads in the three to five lot category that are being
designed at a lower standard than public roads, and any one case has the
possibility of being a bad situation in the future, if not properly main-
tained. The Planning staff still feels this is the preferable allowance for
road construction to what would otherwise be a public road requirement. If
the Board now has doubts, he said it should not be in the ordinance, but
Planning feels it should not be changed. Having it there is a positive
situation.
Mr. Goldwein said he did not care if the road was public or private. He
just wanted to know what safeguards he could have from an assessment stand-
point. Mrs. Humphris said the Board does not deal with this; he would have to
discuss this with the developer.
Mr. Runkle said that the roads will be maintained to at least the
standards required by VDOT. The difference is that the roads will be built
slightly narrower and steeper than what otherwise permitted now.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve
ZMA-96-28 as proffered on May 21, 1997, with changes recommend by staff and to
include the applicant's proffer concerning Ashton Road and that it not be used
to provide access to Glenmore except to provide emergency access to Glenmore.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
PROFFER FORM
93A1, Parcel 1
Date: 5/21/97 ZMA #96-28 Tax Map Parcel(s)#93-61. 93-61A, 93-61B
6.6 Acres to be rezoned from PRD & RA to PRD.
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby volun-
tarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied
to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a
part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the
rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2)
such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning re-
quested.
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
000098
The development of the Property will be limited to those
uses allowed by right under Section 19.3.1 (1), (5), (6),
(7), (8), (9) and (10) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle
County, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the Zoning
Ordinance) as that Section is in effect on April 16, 1997,
with a residential development not to exceed 764 single
family units together with a site for a school, and a site
for a fire house, either of which sites may be used for
other public use facilities, and development of a private
country club and recreational facilities including but not
limited to tennis, swimming, a golf course with related club
house, and equestrian center. To be excluded from use by
right or special use permit under the Zoning Ordinance are
Section 19.3.1 (2) and (3); and Soction 19.3.2 (1), (3),
(5), (6) and (7).
Upon the request of Albemade County, Virginia, to donate by
gift to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to items
of record affecting title, for a public school or other
public use facilities as the County may select a parcel of
approximately 27.0 acres as shown on the Application Plan
for Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November
2, 1990, together with an appropriate right of way, provided
owner may require reasonable visual screening/buffering of
the 27 acres.
3 o
Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by
gift to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to items
of record affecting title, for a fire department or other
public use facilities as the County may select a parcel of
approximately 6.0 acres as shown on the Application Plan for
Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2,
1990, together with an appropriate right of way, provided
owner may require reasonable visual screening/buffering of
the six acres.
4 o
At the time of closing of the sale of each residential lot
or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each
residential lot, whichever first occurs, to contribute
$1000.00 to an escrow fund to be established by Albemarle
County for (1) a school capital improvement fund for use by
Albemarle County to either expand the capacity of Stone
Robinson Elementary School or to construct a new school on
the site described in paragraph 2 ofthis proffer, or (2) the
costs, including any awards to the owner of the mineral
rights for the property described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of
this proffer, or (3) other items in the Albemarle County
Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) related to this project
(Glenmore) or to other items not normally included in C.I.P.
directly related to this project {Glenmore).
These funds shall be held by the County in an interest
bearing account with an annual accounting to the owner. All
interest earned on the account shall be used for the same
purposes as the original $1000.00 contribution. It is re-
quested that Frank A. Kessler or his family be consulted in
connection with naming of any facilities for which these
funds are used.
5o
To provide water and sewer collection, distribution and
treatment facilities at the owner's expense for the residen-
tial lots in Glenmore and private club and to dedicate such
facilities to the Albemarle County Service Authority and/or
the Rivanna Service Authority. These facilities are to be
built at no cost to the taxpayers of Albemarle County or to
the customers of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
6 o
To reserve along the boundary of the Property adjacent to
the Rivanna River a 100 Foot wide green belt. No buildings
shall be constructed, or erected within the green belt
without the consent of Albemarle County and it shall be
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
000094
preserved in its natural state except for building of pedes-
trian and riding trails and general beautification including
but not limited to the clearing of underbrush, removal of
dead tre~s and shrubs, and cleanup of the river. The owner
may grant across the green belt utility easements, access
easements to the Rivanna River for residents of Glenmore and
members and guests of the private country club and may build
riding trails or make similar uses ofthe area.
At such time as the County of Albemarle decides to establish
along the Rivanna River a public area or park, the 100 foot
wide green belt area, upon the request of Albemarle County,
will be conveyed by gift and dedicated to the County, pro-
vided the uses allowed for utilities, accesses to the river,
and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the deed of gift and
provided further that the green belt area will continue to
be counted as open space for the purposes of the Glenmore
Master Plan and required density. The green belt may con-
tinue to be maintained by the owner of the property, however
in the absence of such maintenance Albemarle County at its
option may maintain the 100 foot wide green belt.
(a) Road A as shown on the Application Plan of Glenmore made
by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 2, 1990 shall be
built at time of residential lot development to VDOT stan-
dards and placed in the State Secondary System from U.S.
Route 250E to Point A as shown on the aforesaid Application
Plan of Glenmore.
(b) Upon request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to dedicate
as right-of-way for public road purposes (i) a strip of land
not to exceed sixty (60) feet in width from Point A to Point
B as Shown on the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore and
(ii) an existing strip of land of variable width owned by
the owner from Point B to Point C as shown on the aforesaid
Application Plan of Glenmore.
(c) To construct a road to VDOT standards from Point C
extending through the northeastern portion of the develop-
ment in a location and with a termination point to be deter-
mined by the owner. It is intended that this roadway shall
provide access to properties northeast of Glenmore in at
least one location. To dedicate at such time as owner may
select or upon request of Albemarle County, Virginia, which-
ever first occurs, the road described in this paragraph, 7
(c), together with a right-of-way, including the built road,
not to exceed 60 feet in width.
(a) To construct within the existing right-of-way of U. S.
Route 250E and if necessary partially on the property cur-
rently owned by owner an ultimate entrance to serve Glen-
more. This shall be constructed at the time of initial
residential lot development in Glenmore or at a later date
if approved by VDOT.
(b) To install upon the request of V/DOT on Uo S. Route 250E
at the entrance to Glenmore a traffic signal, provided the
request from V DOT is made prior to completion of Glenmore
which for purposes of this paragraph shall be deemed to be
the day the last residential lot is sold to a third party
purchaser or 15 years from date of final approval of the
Zoning Map Amendment, whichever first occurs.
(c) Providing the work is completed within 15 years from
date of final approval of this Zoning Map Amendment, to
contribute upon completion (i) a pro-rata contribution of
the cost of construction (as hereinafter defined) to four-
lane U. S. Route 250E from the Glenmore entrance to Route
22, or (ii) $500,000.00, whichever sum is less.
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
oooo s
A traffic count on U. S. Route 250E shall be made by VDOT
immediately to the east of the intersection of U. S. Route
250E and Route 22 within a reasonable time prior to con-
struction with the pro-rata contribution of the owner deter-
mined by a formula which includes a fraction the numerator
of which is the trafflc count on U~ S. Route 250E between
the Glenmore entrance and Route 22 attributable to resi-
dences in Glenmore and to the country club facility in
Glenmore (Glenmore Traffic) and the denominator of which is
the total traffic count on U. S. Route 250E between the
Glenmore entrance and Route 22 (Total Trafflc) as follows:
Glenmore Traffic X Construction Cost = Pro-Rata
Contribution Total Traffic
In the event that there shall not have been substantial
performance of proffers contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and
5 within ten (10) years from the date of final approval of
this Zoning Map Amendment, then the undersigned applicant
agrees to waive his rights under Virginia Code Section 15.1-
491(al). Substantial performance shall include (1) donation
ofthe land described in paragraphs 2 and 3 ofthis proffer,
if requested by Albemarle County, (2) payment of at least
$150,000.00 in cash pursuant to paragraph 4 of this proffer,
and (3) construction and dedication to the appropriate
authorities of the public water and sewer facilities pursu-
ant to paragraph 5 of this proffer.
10.
Development shall be in general accord with the Application
Plan dated November 2, 1990 revised May 13, 1997, and Glen-
more Rezoning Application dated September 24, 1990 and
amended November 2, 1990 including textual program of devel-
opment as approved under ZMA-90-19 and amended by subsequent
rezoning actions. Final development plans shall incorporate
all comments and recommendations of the SRC of October 11,
1990.
11.
Maintenance of pnvate roads and private drives serving two
lots will be in accord with Section 18-7 and Section 18-36
of the County's Subdivision Ordinance as it exists on April
16, 1997.
12.
At least one deputized security officer (special police
officer) shall be employed for security purposes.
13.
Vehicular access to Section 41 of Glenmore will be through
the existing private road network within Glenmore. Ashton
Road may be used for emergency access. This proffer does not
affect Proffer 7 above.
14.
These proffers are substituted in place of proffers dated
November 8, 1990.
These proffers run with the land. Upon transfer of title by
Randolph R. Lang and Catherine Childs Lang to Glenmore Associates
Limited Partnership of their real estate subject to these prof-
fers, Randolph R. Lang and Catherine Childs Lang shall have no
further personal obligation regarding the terms herein.
GLENMORE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BY:
BY:
Signatures of Ail Owners
Printed Names of Ail Owners Date
Signatures of Ail Owners Printed Names of Ail Owners Date
000096
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
OR
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of
Attorney)
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reordain
Section 2.1-4, of Chapter 2.1, Agricultural & Forestal Districts, of the
Albemarle County Code, in subsection (j) known as the ~Carter's Bridge
Agricultural and Forestal District" to add 4 parcels described as TM102,
Psl9,19A, 19B&19C, totaling 262.76 acs. Property on W sd of Rt. 627 (Carter's
Mountain Rd). (Property designated Rural Areas in Comprehensive Plan.)
Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 5 and May 12,
1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that the request is to add four parcels of about 263
acres to the Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District. Currently
there are a little over 11,660 acres in the district. It is land now being
used for pasture and forestry, but there are four dwellings on the properties.
It is designated as important forestland and farmland. One third of the
addition is located in an area on Carter's Mountain that has been recommended
for Mountain Protection in the Open Space Plan. There is also a surveyed
historic site on one of the properties.
The Planning Commission and staff have recommended approval, as has the
Agricultural Forestry Advisory Committee, that this be added to the district
to run concurrent to the rest of the district's time, which will be up on
April 20, 1998.
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Seeing no one to speak on the
matter, Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Mr. Davis said there is a typographical error on the ordinance. The
last line should read, "...created on April 29, 1988..."
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2.1, Agriculture and Forestal Dis-
tricts, Section 2.1-4, Districts Described, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 97-2.1(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN
CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS,
SECTION 2.1-4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, is
hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2. 1- 4 (j), ~Carter's Bridge
Agricultural and Forestal District", as follows:
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
(j)
The district known as the ~Carter's Bridge Agricultural and Forestal
District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map
101, parcels 55A, 60; tax map 102, parcels 17A, 17B, 17B1, 17D, 18
19, 19A, 19B, 19C, 20 (part); tax map 112, parcels 3, 15, 16, 16C
16D, 16E, 16F, 17, 18H, 20 (part), 21, 33A, and 37D; tax map 113
parcels 1, 1Z, 2, 3, 6A, 11, llA; tax map 114, parcels 21, 25, 30
51, 55, 56, 67, 67B,. 69, 70; tax map 115, parcel 10; tax map 122
parcels 4, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 12N, 33, 33A, 36; tax map 123
parcels 2, 34, 59; tax map 124, parcel 11. This district, created
on April 20, 1988 for not more than ten years, shall be reviewed
prior to April 20, 1998.
000097
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-97-06. David & Joseph Wood. (Signs #59 & ~60) .
Public Hearing on a request to establish drive-thru windows at proposed bank
[22.2.2], on approx 2.4 acs, zoned C-1. Property in SW corner of inter of Rt
29 & Dominion Dr. (Property is designated for Community Service in Neighbor-
hood 1 of Comprehensive Plan.) TM61M, Secl2, Psl&iH. Rio Dist. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on May 5 and May 12, 1997.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request is in association with a proposed bank
at the corner of Dominion Bank and Route 29 North, and would include four
drive-through windows. Three of the windows would be standard and the fourth
would be an automatic teller. There was previously a restaurant on the lot,
and there is an accessory building on site. The site is not used at this
time. The buildings would be removed, and the bank, with its associated
driveway facilities, constructed at that location.
Mr. Cilimberg said the major issue regarding the drive-through aspect is
the direction of the traffic moving through the site and headlights as they
might be cast into additional residence areas. The applicant has proposed
landscaping, and the Planning Commission recommended, as a third condition,
that an opaque fence run on the outside of the landscaping to further screen
the adjacent residential areas. Traffic was also a consideration, and there
is no significant traffic increase anticipated in the Berkley Subdivision.
There are no major traffic circulation problems associated with the proposal.
The Planning Commission granted one-way circulation, feeling that would be a
better movement of traffic on the site. VDOT recommended that the entrance
move toward the west, away from Route 29. The Planning staff supported the
site plan drawing which shows the entrance lining up with where an entrance
could be taken from the other side. The proposal is consistent with provi-
sions of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission
at its meeting on April 15, 1997, unanimously recommended approval of SP-97-
06 subject to three conditions.
Mrs. Thomas asked why the drive-through windows were limited to three
traditional and one ATM, since technology indicates that automatic teller
machines (ATM) are the way of future. Mr. Cilimberg said there would be
nothing wrong with not referencing the type of window to be installed. Staff
included the reference in order to capture the intent of the applicant.
Mrs. Humphris then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peter Bishop, representing First Citizens Bank, said that the bank
wanted to keep flexibility where windows are concerned, but the intent at this
time is to have only one ATM window and three regular drive-through windows.
That could change in the future, but it is not intended at this time. He said
the wording could be changed if the Board so desired. Additionally, he said
the bank would adhere to the Planning Commission's request that a fence and
landscaping be installed.
Mrs. Humphris asked if this distinction was made because there is a
different layout required for an ATM; Mr. Bishop said that was not the case.
It would have been an issue before technology made it possible to locate them
in more locations, but it is not now. Mr. Martin said there might be a
different traffic level associated with more than one ATM. Mrs. Thomas said
she was concerned about writing something in the permit that would have to be
amended in the future.
Mr. Cilimberg recommended that the Board state that drive-through
windows would be limited to four.
With no one else present to speak, Mrs. Humphris closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bowerman said that it was not his intent, if the other lot was
developed, there would have a connection to both Dominion Drive and the
shopping center. It should have a connection to one or the other. He
believes this is an appropriate use of that site.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to
approve SP-97-06 subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission, with
number one amended as follows: ~Drive-through windows will be limited to
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) 00009~
(Page 30)
four." Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Drive through windows will be limited to four;
2. Screening shrubs shall be planted along the residential side of the
parking area and bypass lane; and ~
3. Erect and maintain an opaque stockade-style fence, six feet in height,
on the northwest side of the building and outside of the landscaping
abutting the parking area, as shown on the preliminary site plan dated
February 24, 1997, except where such area is in the floodplain (copy
attached).
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-96-24. N&S, L.L.C. (Signs #75, #76, #77 &
#78). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx. 43 acs from R-2 & EC to
R-15 & EC. TM76,Ps54,54A, 55B&55D. Properties on N sd of Rt 631 (Fifth St Ext)
approx .2 mi SW of 1-64. (Ps54,54A&55B are recommended for Transitional Use
in Neighborhood 5. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 5 and May 12, 1997.)
Mr. Marshall disclosed that the applicant was the landlord of one of his
buildings. Mr. Davis said that is an agreement that does not create a
personal interest, and there is no problem with Mr. Marshall participating in
this item. Mr. Davis said he does not consider it a conflict of interest.
Mr. Cilimberg informed the Board that the proposal would rezone approxi-
mately 28 acres from R-2 to R-15. This is 28 out of a total of 43 acres, and
it would allow 15 dwelling units per acre, or approximately 420 apartment
units. A request has not been submitted for the adjacent area (the remaining
150 acres. Originally the applicant had presented the concept of developing
both locations, but it was withdrawn and would be subject to future rezoning
consideration unless the applicant developed the property under the current R-
2 zoning.
He informed the Board that some members of the Planning Commission felt
the commercial development should have been included as part of the overall
proposal, in keeping with the transitional use designation to provide for
mixed use of the development; however, the applicant has not made that
proposal. As an R-15 zoning proposal, it meets the requirements of transi-
tional development under the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does
express the desire to have any proposal in a transitional area submitted as a
planned development. In lieu of that, the applicant has proffered that the
development of the residential area requested for rezoning, which is in four
parcels, would be submitted as one site plan, so that all issues of site
development in the entire area could be considered in one review and under one
plan. This would not include the second area, unless the applicant submitted
a by-right development of R-2 in the undeveloped area, which could be part of
that site plan.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board approved this plan at this meeting,
would they be approving only the residential plan, and no retail. Mr.
Cilimberg said that was correct.
Mr. Cilimberg said two of the issues were the failing level of service
for a couple of the ramp interchange locations at Fifth Street, and the level
of service for traffic eastbound on Interstate 64 turning left into the City,
which are based upon current development and traffic. There also would be,
with the development of this site and the Jefferson National Bank site, a
failing level of service for traffic coming westbound on 1-64 turning left
onto Fifth Street. Staff noted that the need for improvements at the 1-64
interchange recommended by VDOT to address the failing level of service is not
substantially generated by this project alone, but is the result of develop-
ment that has occurred over the years, both in the City and the County. The
000099
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
staff opinion is that the County and VDOT should work toward improving the
level of service at the interchange. The improvements would most likely
include signalization of those ramps mentioned, and would have to be addressed
through the Six Year Plan process.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are no physical barriers identified against
developing the site for residential use as multi-family or under by-right
development. Staff can address issues as they relate to site development,
access, circulation and preservation of areas as identified in the County's
Open Space Plan, in the site review process. This site is also near an
entrance corridor in two locations, along 1-64 and along Fifth Street, and
will be subject to a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural
Review Board (ARB).
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning application and acceptance of
the applicant's proffer. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 6,
1997, unanimously recommended approval of the R-15 rezoning subject to
acceptance of the aplicant's proffer.
Mr. Marshall asked what the Board's legal responsibility was with regard
to traffic flow. Residents who live on Ridge Street are concerned about the
additional traffic that will be generated, as well as the interchanges being
inadequate. Mr. Davis said the traffic factors can be considered in the
rezoning deliberati6ns, but case law in Virginia says that traffic alone, not
substantially generated by the development itself which causes the traffic
concerns, is not a basis for denying the rezoning. The Commonwealth of
Virginia is responsible for building adequate roads, and the court recognizes
that generally that happens after development occurs, because of the way the
system works in Virginia. The fact that there are inadequate public facili-
ties is not a reason to deny rezoning as it relates to roads. He advised the
Board not to use this as a sole reason to deny a rezoning request at any time.
There would have to be other planning-related reasons identified in order to
deny it.
Mr. Cilimberg said there has been, in the past, consideration of
rezonings in areas where there were not inadequate levels of service already
in existence. In fact, those proposals would push roads into inadequate
levels of service, and they have typically been addressed through proffers for
improvements to those roads associated with the proposal.
Mrs. Thomas said the letters from the Highway Department mentioned cost-
sharing of the 1-64 ramps, and asked if that meant that the applicant would be
asked to share in the cost of the signals on the ramps. Mr. Cilimberg said
the applicant could be asked to participate, during the site plan process,
when VDOT will be required to issue entrance permits. It is not a requirement
the Board can make of the applicant, since it is an off-site improvement.
Mrs. Thomas asked if VDOT could make the requirement of the applicant, and Mr.
Cilimberg said that he did not know. Mr. Bowerman said that if it was offered
as a proffer by the applicant, it would be done at the rezoning stage. Mr.
Cilimberg said, for the reasons Mr. Davis mentioned, the Board could pursue
that as part of the proffering.
Mrs. Thomas asked if this road would be connected to Old Lynchburg Road
since the Board prefers that there be alternative entrances and emergency
access. She asked if the residential and commercial areas under discussion
would be connected. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission and Planning staff
expressed interest in having that connection, not only for vehicular, but also
pedestrian traffic. Considering that if this property were to be rezoned to a
higher density use or to a mixed-use, it would be to the benefit of the people
in that area to be able to circulate between sites. How that gets connected
to Old Lynchburg Road would be subject to the site plan. This proposal does
not show a direct access to Old Lynchburg Road. In the site development plan,
the applicant could propose to do so, even if the commercial property was not
developed. Staff focused on the main entrance, which is at the crossover that
currently exists on Fifth Street, as being the primary entrance for this
development proposal.
Mrs. Thomas said that in older developments there is often no pedestrian
access. She asked if the Board could require that there be pedestrian access
to that area and to Fifth Street so that bicycles and pedestrians could use
it. Mr. Cilimberg said this could be required as part of the site plan, and
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
000'100
the Board could also require a path or sidewalk be installed along the
frontage. A path currently does exist in this area; it could remain a path or
become a sidewalk. When requiring any allowance to access to adjacent
property, which is very typical in urban development, the Board can require
access to adjacent property for both vehicles and pedestrians, which is
typical in an urban development.
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing.
Mr. Donald Jones, a resident of Pinehurst Court, said this is not just a
proposal for the apartment dwellings, because it is an easy step from a
residential area to a more dense residential area. He believes the applicant
will eventually attempt to get the entire acreage approved. Mr. Jones said
that, if the Board approves the proposal for the apartment building, it is
then an easy step for the applicant to approach the Board to put in something
else, with opposition only from the apartment dwellers. When the property was
purchased, it was proposed at a density of two dwellings per acre. This
request for 15 dwelling units per acre is a large step. He said this would
essentially inflate the value of the property many times, turning it into a
long-term investment property. Mr. Jones added that the drainage in the area
leaves a lot to be desired, and that an unsightly and dangerous large hole
collects drainage from the street and the bank across the street. If the
Board allows the rezoning, it will be done without regard to the people living
in the area, and that it would be a violation of their safety and health.
Ms. Nancy Hurrelbrinck, a resident of East Jefferson Street, said she
supports dense urban development and open space in the County, but believes
that land use and transportation issues have to be looked at together. County
roads impact City neighborhood traffic. Residents living near entrance
corridors and on other large streets have busy roads that compromise the
quality of life. She suggested that the City and County examine transporta-
tion issues together. Ms. Hurrelbrinck said if mass transit was examined, the
County could grow without having to pave the entire City and County. She
suggested that park and ride lots are needed at the entrance corridors, and
added that the developer should have to pay part of that price since it is his
development that is increasing traffic.
Mr. Ed Stephenson, a resident of Sunset Avenue Extended, spoke against
the proposal. This proposal would alter the entire nature of the area, which
is semi-rural and zoned not for this type of development. He asked why there
are zoning regulations if they can be altered at the will of the developer.
He said that adequate attention has not been given to the additional traffic
that will result if the rezoning is approved, noting that Old Lynchburg Road
is already narrow and curvy, and cannot be enlarged. He said the entire area
is becoming increasingly dangerous, and that additional lights will have to be
installed to control traffic if this development is permitted. Mr. Stephenson
also asked the Board to consider the desecration of the beautiful landscape in
its deliberations.
Mr. Herb Green, a resident of Stagecoach Road, asked if there would be
only one entrance to the development. Mr. Cilimberg said that the site plan
has not been developed yet. Mr. Green presented the Board with a plan he had
been given, which showed only one entrance. He said a traffic light would
need to be installed if the request was improved, because the traffic has
already increased and is traveling at a higher rate of speed. Mr. Green
complained that traffic is already backed up, and the situation will get worse
if more cars are added. He said the Board should have a site plan before
making any decision.
Ms. Margaret Pertzoff said Old Lynchburg Road cannot take any additional
traffic. She opposes the rezoning.
Mrs. Humphris then asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Stan Tatum, representing the applicant, said staff has been helpful
in trying to resolve some of the conflicts that have arisen from the rezoning
request. He then presented an analysis which covered three points. First,
the owners of the property wish to use the property in a reasonable fashion,
which he said calls for a relatively high level of development. The density
that is designated in the Land Use Plan recommends transitional rezoning,
medium to high density development, which is consistent with the owners'
000 0
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
wishes. Second, the County has designated the area a transitional area, and
staff told the owner that his plan met the requirements of a transitional
area. Third, if the property is not rezoned, it would be a waste of property,
and inconsistent with the County's Land Use Plan. In response to the comments
made earlier, Mr. Tatum said that the owner purchased the property in 1965,
when there was no zoning assigned, and that 1-64 and Fifth Street Extended
divided the property.
Mr. Marshall asked what the price range would be for the proposed
housing. Mr. Tatum said he did not yet know, but it would probably be
comparable to the Lakeside apartment complex. Mr. Marshall noted that this
would not be considered affordable housing. Mr. Tatum said he did not know
what price range would be considered ~affordable", but it would be affordable
to some portion of the population.
Mr. Hugh Underwood, a resident of Stagecoach Road, asked the Board to
consider the homeowners who purchased their homes in the 1960's, as there
seems to be no consideration for those people. There has been discussion
about putting up a fence to shield a bank in the area, but the homeowners will
be faced with headlights in their bedrooms. The area is already saturated,
and 15 dwelling units per acre is too high. Mr. Underwood also pointed out
that this development is not, as advertised, going on the north side of Route
631, but on the west side. He said that Planning provided him with a layout
that showed that the apartments would be next to the 1-64 and commercial
development would be near Jefferson National Bank across from Route 631.
However, in today's Daily Progress, it appeared that the apartments will be
located across from the bank, so there is a lot of confusion. Traffic has
increaSed tremendously over the past twenty years, and congestion is a
problem, leading to serious accidents. The owner has a right to make a
profit, but 15 units per acre is asking too much.
Mr. Fred Nelson, a resident of South Street, spoke in opposition of the
rezoning. He said the Board does not have enough information at this time to
make a decision, and asked that it defer action on the request until more
information is provided. He said that traffic will impact not only the
County, but also many City neighborhoods.
Ms. Darcy Willis, a resident of Bolling Avenue, said that the Lakeside
development, in conjunction with other developments, and Mill Creek, have been
a disaster for the Belmont neighborhood. She said traffic has been increased
to the point where it is difficult to get out of the neighborhood onto the
main roads. She felt that Mr. Tatum, having served on the Planning Commission
for several years, should know what is considered affordable housing. It was
obvious that this plan does not provide affordable housing. Ms. Willis said
that this is piecemeal planning being done with no consideration to the ripple
effect on other areas.
A resident of Ridge Street, who did not give her name, asked the Board
to deny this request. The volume of traffic that will be generated will make
it even more difficult to get from the Ridge Street neighborhood onto the main
streets in the area. Mr. Satyendra Huja, of the City planning staff, said that
the peak rush hour on Ridge Street is between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, but
she said that the situation is actually worse earlier in the morning. Adding
this commercial development will make the situation even worse. Once the
Meadow Creek Parkway is developed, she feels the City will be presented with
many traffic problems as it tries to handle the increased traffic coming into
the City. She concluded by saying the Board seems to think that reversion is
a plot by City Council, but, since this type of planning proposal just outside
the City limits will mostly impact the City, this is an excellent example of
how reversion could let everyone who is affected by a decision have a part in
making the decision.
Mr. Lester Frye, a resident of the Fifeville neighborhood, said he is
concerned about the traffic flow into the City, and the effect of 420 apart-
ments on the school system. He asked that the Board consider school transpor-
tation issues before making any decision, then ultimately deny the request.
Mr. Maurice Cox, a resident of Ridge Street, expressed concern that
property currently zoned R-2 could be considered to receive 420 units without
adversely impacting neighborhoods. He wondered where the residents would work
and shop, and how they would get there. He believes the City will be used as
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
OO0:I.02
a bypass to reach any location. He observed that Fifth Street Extended is not
a high speed artery, but instead, dead-ends into a neighborhood. Mr. Cox said
that the Ridge Street Neighborhood Task Force is deliberating on how to
institute traffic calming measures to make it less attractive as a thorough-
fare. The City and the County are not working on the problem together, and
asked the Board to delay taking action until such time as efforts could be
coordinated.
Mr. Robert Wood, a resident of Pinehurst Court, said he supports the
other speakers' comments, and strongly opposes the request, saying that 15
units per acres was ridiculous. The Board does not have enough information
before it to make a decision. The applicant did not provide information
concerning price or design, information he felt was necessary before making a
decision. Mr. Wood also expressed concern about noise, and asked whether or
not sound barriers would be constructed.
With no one else present to speak on the issue, Mrs. Humphris closed the
public hearing.
Mrs. Thomas said she serves on the Metropolitan Planning Organization,
which is involved in the Joint City/County planning for transportation and
roads. She noted that the Southern Area Study, which both the City and County
participated in, was concluded last year. The Board can require the developer
to make transit easily accessible from this area, in the form of adequate
pull-off and turn-around spaces, but residents would have to request that it
be a part of the City and County's capital improvement and transit plans. She
said that often the City does not want its transit vehicles coming out into
the County. Mrs. Thomas said that decisions are not made at the will of the
developer, and the Board tries to abide by its Comprehensive Plan, with which
this request is consistent. She said that drainage and other matters are
covered by the Zoning Ordinance and dealt with at the site plan. The Board
cannot know exactly what the development will look like at this point, as that
is a long and expensive process for County staff and the developer.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant had discussed the concept of a
Planned Residential Development (PRD). Mr. Cilimberg said the request began
as a planned development with mixed uses, covering both the commercial and
residential developments. Planning staff asked the developer if he was
willing to go with a planned development for just the residential area as it
is proposed, but the applicant did not want to do that. Staff then asked
about a consolidated site plan, which planned development presented as a
rezoning would otherwise allow staff to do. The applicant agreed to proffer a
consolidated site plan. The proffer is not of a plan with the rezoning, but
it is to file a site plan that covers the entire property. The entire 28
acres would be reviewed under all the site development requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said there are advantages to getting the
planned development in the zoning action, but it usually takes place at the
site plan level.
Mr. Marshall asked if what had been presented only had to do with the
residential area, and not the commercial area. Mr. Cilimberg reiterated that
was correct.
Mr. Martin asked how many by-right entrances and exits there would be if
the four parcels were developed independently and by-right. Mr. Cilimberg
said if there was no rezoning, each parcel has the potential of having its own
entrance to the public road. If four parcels are developed at the site plan
process, Planning typically tries to work toward joint entrances. Theoreti-
cally, each parcel, by law, has its own access to a public road, if frontage
is available. Under the one site plan that would be submitted, staff would be
able to address appropriate access and circulation within the site.
Mr. Martin questioned why, if the Comprehensive Plan supports high
density, the property is currently zoned for two dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Cilimberg said they were discussing 28 units on four parcels. Mr. Martin
asked if the applicant would need permission to subdivide in order to put two
lots on each acre. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant would have the potential
under R-2 to go with two plats, even then there will be subdivision activity
occurring.
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
000103
Mr. Cilimberg said before last year, when the Board approved the Land
Use Plan with this as transitional, there was discussion of having the entire
area deemed regional service, which would have allowed much more of the
commercial development, but which the Board said it did not want in that area.
Under the previous Land Use Plan, the area was planned to have commercial
development down toward the interchange, and everything else was to be high-
density residential. Therefore, the transitional has changed the orientation.
It allows for residential, office and a much lower-scale commercial and retail
development than what the prior Plan or regional service proposal would have
allowed. Mr. Marshall added that the Board had discussed what to do with the
transitional area, and he had said at the time that he was adamantly opposed
to having a shopping center in that area; 250 long-time neighborhood residents
had signed a petition that said they did not want commercial development in
that area. Commercial development is readily available across 1-64. His
problem with this tonight is that this is a proposed high density development,
not knowing whether it is affordable housing, and he has to be consistent
while on this Board. He said he would oppose the rezoning based on the
residents' wishes.
Mrs. Humphris asked what was the Planning Commission discussion on
transitional areas. The staff report indicates that areas should be developed
under an overall plan for the designated area to ensure coordination of uses,
access and circulation, landscaping, and maintenance of natural environmen-
tally sensitive areas. Mr. Cilimberg said the original intent was, when an
area was proposed for development, staff would know how the area was to
develop through an overall plan. Ideally, that would be under a PRD approach.
In this case, for the area proposed for R-15 zoning, staff looked at what
could be accomplish, and realized that the things mentioned could be accom-
plished through a site plan, if they could get one for the entire development
area, not by parcel. He said that is the real concern, because when areas are
designated in the Plan, they are not designated by parcel, but by area. The
only way to address those areas, from Planning's standpoint, is to get an
overall plan of development. Typically, areas are developed separately, with
separate site plans. Staff is particularly interested in an overall plan that
addresses how development will occur over all the parcels involved in the
zoning action. Mrs. Humphris said this is a large group of parcels under one
ownership that obviously is going to be developed subsequent to this, and it
is in the same transitional area. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has never asked
someone to rezone an area included in a plan for which they are not seeking
rezoning. He added that he does not know how the staff can review what they
do want to have rezoned and then say the developer did not show them the
other, and then say what that zoning is going to be. He said there is no
phasing statement in the plan, so staff tries to look at the development in
total as it is being before them. The R-15 is one rezoning proposal for 28
acres involving four parcels. Mr. Cilimberg said the key is being able to
look at one plan of development, so that staff can ensure that connections
made to other areas are subject to the future development. Staff did not feel
they could order the applicant to rezone everything or else nothing at all,
especially since the developer began with that approach, which was consistent
with the transitional area approach. He said even bigger issues of transpor-
tation and access problems the developers were not prepared to address were
raised, particularly in the area they had been considering for office and
light retail or light commercial.
Mr. Bowerman said that was part of the issue. He knows that in an
application the Board will be seeing, there will be infill in the Carrsbrook
area, and the applicant has been required to do an extensive traffic study for
150 units; the by-right increase is 50 units. He noted that there have been
major questions and hoops for the developers to work through. This is a
rather substantial request in terms of its impact. Four hundred twenty units
can generate 420 vehicle trips per day, which is a significant number. When
combined with the balance of the land, this could have a major impact on the
infrastructure. There has been no recognition by the applicant that there is
a major infrastructure cost associated with this as identified by Planning
staff. He noted that this will have a significant impact on Cale and the new
high school. There is no direct way to get to these schools except by the
interstate or through the City. This is the type of planning the Board is
talking about for the Infill Committee, where all aspects of a piece of land,
in terms of its impact on the community, is done in a way that can mitigate
those impacts and end up with the best plan for the entire area, recognizing
the rights of the applicant to develop the land, but also recognizing the
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
OO0:I.04
responsibilities he has to the rest of the community. Mr. Bowerman said he
was not saying this was appropriate or inappropriate, but he does not feel
that the impacts have been identified enough for him to make a rational
judgement as to whether or not the rezoning should be approved at this time.
The Board has not seen 420 units in quite awhile.
Mr. Cilimberg said the major emphasis was placed on the traffic study.
Staff provided the Board with impact information on residential change and
what that means to schools and so forth, but did it within the parameters that
exist under state law. Mr. Bowerman said he was not proposing that the
applicant had to make some gesture to get approval, but, since the public has
to share the cost of the infrastructure for all the new developments, when the
Board gets a request as large as this, it makes the impact so much more
apparent that it cannot be ignored.
Mr. Martin asked how large the Rio Road developments were; Mr. Bowerman
replied that both were in the 150 range. Mr. Bowerman reminded the Board of
the community's reaction to that request, in terms of the traffic on Rio Road,
which handles over 10,000 vehicle trips per day. Those were going to be
substantial traffic generators. This proposal has a much greater impact
because the road does not currently have the volume of traffic that Rio Road
does.
Mr. Marshall said the only way to solve the traffic problem to and from
the school is extension of the Southern Parkway. Mr. Bowerman said that would
be difficult to do, because of public concern. Mr. Marshall said that was
true, noting that Mill Creek's Homeowners' Association is already opposing
building of that road. Additionally, this will be a County road, paid for by
County funds, and it will be expensive since it must cross a creek.
Mr. Marshall then made the motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to deny
ZMA-96-24.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the timing is poor, because the Infill
Committee is working on these issues. The basic instinct is to have density
instead of sprawl, but it does not have to happen before the Committee makes
its recommendations. Mr. Bowerman said the Board can require that certain
levels of information be provided with each request. If the applicant does
not provide enough information for the Board to make an intelligent decision,
he makes the request at his own risk.
Mr. Davis suggested that, if the rezoning appears to be unacceptable,
the Board defer the request so that staff can look at the basis for the
Board's opinion and provide additional information and background. The
difficulty with denying the request is that the Comprehensive Plan has
recognized this area for this type of use, and the traffic study has not
identified any traffic improvement, the need for which is substantially
generated by this development. The traffic improvements that are indicated
already are needed based on existing traffic and approved development. Staff
needs to provide a better analysis of the legal manner in which to deal with
this rezoning. Mr. Marshall asked if the Board might have a legal problem if
it supported his motion. Mr. Davis said the Board would be in a better
position if provided additional information.
Mr. Marshall then withdrew his motion to deny ZMA-96-24. Mr. Perkins
withdrew his second to the motion.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
defer ZMA-96-24.
Mr. Tucker said it would be helpful to staff for the Board to provide
more specifics of what type of information would be helpful. He suggested
that staff work with the applicant to consider the impact of other alterna-
tives of lower density.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that the fiscal impact model be implemented at
this time. The Board needs to understand the possible fiscal impacts this
development could have on taxpayers, which should be factored into the Board's
decision. The Board hopes that high density and infill resolve problems
associated with sprawl, yet the public does not like the alternative of high
density, making this is difficult question.
000 05
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Martin said he agrees with the idea of high density in order to
protect the rural area. However, high density has to do one of two things:
it must make housing more affordable, or allow ownership and prevent sprawl.
Mrs. Humphris added that the problem is that the applicant says that the
rental cost of the units is a function of the market and his infrastructure
cost, which does not take into account the County's infrastructure cost. The
developer wants to get the most out of the property, and the County wants the
utmost density, but at an affordable price.
Mr. Perkins asked if R-2 was a reasonable use of the property.
Mr. Davis said staff should examine that issue before making a determination.
Mr. Perkins said that was a consideration the Board often had when turning
down such request~s, noting that the owner must be allowed a reasonable use of
his property. Mr. Bowerman said there is a big difference between R-2 and R-
15, with nothing in-between. Mr. Davis said obviously it is a use of the
property, and would not be a taking of the property, if the zoning is left at
R-2. There are other factors that must be taken into consideration in a
zoning action as to whether or not it is a reasonable use. He said the
Planning staff and County Attorney's staff should examine those factors and
report back to the Board. Mr. Perkins said the Infill Committee's goal is to
just pack more things into a space, which is not the answer. Mr. Bowerman
agreed that the public will not stand for it.
Roll was then called and the motion the defer ZMA-96-24 passed by the
following vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Tucker said the staff would work with the applicant on the issues,
but he did not know how long it would take to get back to him.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adoption of Thomas Jefferson Venture Bylaws.
Mr. Davis said late yesterday he received a revised draft from Bonnie
Frondfelder, a staff person from TJPDC. This revised draft is the result of
conversations he had with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
(TJPDC) staff. The draft cleaned up typographic errors and grammatical
changes with one exception. In article IX, Finances, Section 1, Funding
Formula, the second sentence should read, ~The funding formula shall be
approved annually by resolution of all member localities." Previously it did
not state it would be done on an annual basis. The significance of that is,
under the proposed funding formula scenario in the resolution, it states that
the TJPDC will be the fiscal agent for the Venture. That would allow money
from the state to go directly to the TJPDC without being appropriated by the
Board of Supervisors. The amendment gives the Board the ability, on an annual
basis, to review the funding formula and to determine whether or not it wants
the money to be sent directly to the TJPDC as the fiscal agent. He has not
received any indication from the TJPDC that this would be a problem.
Mrs. Thomas went over the history of the document. There was an
original proposal for bylaws. A committee was appointed, with one representa-
tive from each of the jurisdictions, who reworked the document and developed a
draft. Drafts were subsequently forwarded to Mr. Davis for review, and the
bylaws are not ready for approval. Mrs. Thomas noted that a majority of these
Board members are representatives on the Venture in one way or another. She
is unaware of any problems with the document.
Mrs. Thomas said at its last meeting the Venture decided not to approve
this document until its last meeting on June 10, because Greene County had not
yet decided whether to participate. Rather than adopt the document and then
readopt it, or to avoid making Greene County feel unwelcome, the group decided
to wait until after they made a decision. She said that although this Board
does not have to adopt the document at this meeting, doing so would reassure
the other localities. Albemarle is the only County that put this in resolu-
tion form. Mr. Davis said that state regulations require that the Venture
have adopted bylaws or a charter prior to making the application to receive
funding.
000 .06
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mrs. Humphris asked what happens under Article X Amendment of Bylaws.
S~e understood that the bylaws could be amended by a simple majority of the
voting members present and voting, and a quorum could be as little as one-
third, which meant that the bylaws could be amended by as few as one-sixth of
the membership. Mr. Davis said that was true. Before the bylaws can be
amended, all members must be notified, at least ten days prior to the meeting,
that the bylaws are going to be amended, so the burden would be on the
membership to attend the meeting to protect themselves from unpopular amend-
ments. Mrs. Humphris said the wording should reflect that, "the intention to
amend the bylaws must be mailed..." Mr. Davis said that, since it said,
~prior to such meeting..." that the intention was fairly clear. Mrs. Humphris
asked that it read, "notice of all proposed amendments .... " Mr. Davis said he
would make the change.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the bylaws in substantial compliance with what is before the Board, subject to
the determination of that either by the Chair or the County Attorney.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
Mrs. Thomas said that the Board also had to approve the funding formula,
which was reviewed by the Chairs of each jurisdiction. Mr. Davis said he had
expressed some concerns about the funding formula because there had been a
change in the interpretation as to how the money would flow from the state to
the localities. At a previous meeting, Mr. Shelton indicated that the money
would go directly to the localities and be appropriated by the localities as
they saw fit, with no strings attached, other than if the Strategic Plan was
not implemented, in which case the money might be cut off. The Venture
thought a better idea would be for the money to go to the TJPDC as a fiscal
agent to implement the Strategic Plan initiatives. The statute says that the
funding shall go to the localities pursuant to a funding formula approved by
each of the localities. Today Mr. Shelton told him that the Department of
Housing and Community Development construes that statute to mean that, if the
localities, by resolution, say that zero money shall go to the localities, and
it shall all go to a fiscal agent, that it is acceptable to the state to say
that the money shall go to the localities. If the money goes directly to
TJPDC, then there is no need for each locality to appropriate the money. He
believes that is what this resolution accomplishes. As a safeguard, Mr. Davis
recommended that the bylaws reflect that the Board will approve the funding
formula on an annual basis. That way any year that the Board wanted to change
the direction of the flow of the money, it could be accomplished by saying
that the money shall come to the Board for appropriation, rather than through
the TJPDC. If there is no problem, TJPDC can then act as the fiscal agent.
Mrs. Humphris noted two typographical errors, one in the last line of
the second paragraph that should read, "...in a manner consistent with their
local comprehensive planning and policies, and...", and the date at the end
should read, ~1997" Mr. Davis said there was an additional typographical
error. Item number one should read, "...shall be placed in a ..." and, item
number two should read, "...title 15.1..."
(Mr. Martin left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.)
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the
following Resolution to Approve the Funding Formula for Activities Undertaken
in the Regional Competitiveness Program Known in the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District as Thomas Jefferson Venture.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
FUNDING FORMULA FOR ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN
IN THE REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS PROGRAM
000 107
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
KNOWN IN THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT AS
THOMAS JEFFERSON VENTURE
WHEREAS, the local governments of Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvanna,
Greene, Louisa, and Nelson have joined together under the Regional Competitive-
ness Act to form the Venture; and
WHEREAS, the funding formula agreed upon for the first year is to place all
funds received under the Regional Competitiveness Act Program into a Strategic
Plan Fund to fund the priority activities and/or projects identified in the Plan
and approved by the member localities as furthering the economic vitality, as
defined by the VENTURE, of the region and the localities within the region in a
manner consistent with their local comprehensive planning and policies, and
WHEREAS, the formula is subject to annual review by the Venture and the
local governing bodies; and
WHEREAS, approval of said formula is, under the By Laws of the VENTURE, by
local government resolution; and
WHEREAS, said formula directs the Thomas Jefferson Planning District to act
as fiscal agent for regional grants ant activities on behalf of the member
localities; and
WHEREAS, the Venture has submitted said funding formula for approval by the
local governing bodies;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, approves the following:
2 o
All funds coming to the localities in the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District under the Regional Competitiveness Act shall be placed in
a "Strategic Plan Fund" for use in implementing the priorities
identified in the Strategic Plan developed by the Venture and
approved by the localities;
?
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, a legal unit of
government under the Code of Virginia (Title 15.1, Ch. 34), shall
act as Fiscal Agent for the localities in use of the Fund;
Unless the local government is directly contracting for a program,
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District will have the authority to
sign contracts to implement approved projects;
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District will monitor the use of funds
and report quarterly to the localities and the Venture regarding the
status of the funds; and
5o
In all cases, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission will
act with direction from the local governments and the Venture in
carrying out the Strategic Plan.
This resolution was approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
on May 21, 1997.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
At 10:01 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into
executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under
subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal
matters relating to reversion. Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion.
oooa.o$
May 21, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
Roi1 was called and the motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, that the
Board include as part of its executive session under subsection (7), probable
litigation related to a land use issue.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session.
(Mr. Martin returned during the executive session. )
At 11:24 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully
exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session
were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session.
(Mr. Marshall left during the executive session. )
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. At 11:25 p.m., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
Approved by
Board