1997-06-18June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 18, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Deputy County Executive, Richard E. Huff, II, County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and, Chief of Community Development, David Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Ms. 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. There were none presented.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall,
seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.3 and to accept the
remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin
and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Item 5.1. Amendments to the Albemarle County Personnel Policy, Section
P-03, dealing with employee grievances.
It was noted in the staff's report that Section 15.1-7.1 of the Code of
Virginia requires the Board to maintain a grievance procedure for its employ-
ees that affords an immediate and fair method for resolution of disputes which
may arise in the workplace. The current Grievance Procedure is set forth in
Section P-03 of the Albemarle County Personnel Policy. Pursuant to require-
ments set out in the State Code, all non-probationary local government
permanent full-time and permanent part-time employees are eligible to file
grievances with certain exceptions. Currently the Personnel Policy does not
specify within the Grievance Procedure which employees are eligible to file
grievances. Instead, eligible employees are defined in other sections of the
Personnel Policy. This has led to some confusion. In addition, the process
is difficult to interpret by employees attempting to utilize the procedure.
The proposed amendments clarify how a decision can be appealed. Staff
recommends that the Board adopt amendments to the County's Personnel Policy,
to be effective upon passage.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following amendments:
RESOLUTION
TO AMEND SECTION P-03 OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Grievance Policy is
intended to provide a fair, equitable and satisfactory method of
addressing employee complaints and grievances; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-7.2 of the Code of Virginia, relat-
ing to local government grievance procedures, requires a public
body to establish and maintain written grievance procedures
applicable to its employees, but exempts certain employees from
those procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board
of County Supervisors hereby amends Section P-03 of the County
of Albemarle Personnel Policy by adding the following new para-
(Page 2)
000, 59
graphs preceding the secti6h entitled "Definition of Grievance"
as follows:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY §P-03
§P-03
GRIEVANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURE
Objective:
It is the objective of the Board of Supervisors to provide
fair, equitable and satisfactory working arrangements for its
employees. Every effort will be made to resolve employee griev-
ances informally with the least amount of worry and delay.
However, in some cases it becomes necessary to proceed through a
formal appeal and panel review to handle thoroughly a given
grievance. Accordingly, the following procedures and regula-
tions are established.
Eligible Employees:
Only employees deemed eligible to file grievances may
utilize this grievance procedure.
Unless otherwise provided by law, all permanent full-time
and permanent part-time local government employees are eligible
to file grievances with the following exceptions:
1. Appointees of the Board of Supervisors;
Officials and employees who serve at the will or
pleasure of the Board of Supervisors or the County
Executive;
3. Deputies and Assistants to the County Executive;
4. Department or agency heads;
5o
Employees whose terms of employment are limited by
law;
6. Temporary, limited term and seasonal employees;
7. Probationary employees; and
Law enforcement officers whose grievance is subject
to the provisions of § 2.1-116.1 et seq. of the Code
of Virginia (1950) as amended, and who have elected
to proceed pursuant to those provisions in the reso-
lution of their grievance.
The Director of Human Resources or his designee shall
prepare and maintain a list of all officers and employees ex-
cluded from the grievance procedure. Such list, however, shall
be advisory only and shall not be binding upon the County Execu-
tive in determining whether those officers or employees are
eligible employees for purposes of this grievance procedure.
Definition of Grievance:
A grievance shall be a complaint or dispute by an eligible
employee as defined in this policy relating to his employment,
including but not necessarily limited to:
Disciplinary actions including dismissals, disci-
plinary demotions, and suspensions, provided that
dismissals shall be grievable whenever resulting
from formal discipline or unsatisfactory job perfor-
mance. If an appeal is made of any disciplinary
action, the appealing employee should recognize that
at each level of the process, a new hearing on the
matter will be held and the disciplinary action
rendered at subsequent levels may be either more or
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night M~i
(Page 3) ~D~D~DI60
less stringent than that recommended at a previous
level;
The application of personnel policies, procedures,
rules and regulations, including the application of
policies involving the contents of ordinances,
statutes or established personnel policies,
procedures, rules and regulations;
Acts of retaliation as the result of utilization of
the grievance procedure or participation in the
grievance of another local government employee;
Complaints of discrimination on the basis of race,
color, creed, political affiliation, age,
disability, national origin or sex; and
5o
Acts of retaliation because the employee has
complied with any law of the United States or of the
Commonwealth, has reported any violation of such law
to a governmental authority, or has sought any
change in law before the Congress of the United
States or the General Assembly.
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County shall retain
the exclusive right to manage the affairs and operations of
government. Accordingly, the following complaints are non-
grievable:
Establishment and revision of wages or salaries,
position classification or general benefits;
2 0
Work activity accepted by the employee as a
condition of employment or work activity which may
reasonably be expected to be part of the job
content;
The interpretation of contents of ordinances,
statutes or established personnel policies,
procedures, rules and regulations;
Failure to promote except where the employee can
show that established promotional policies or
procedures were not followed or applied fairly;
The methods, means and personnel by which work
activities are to be carried on;
Except where such action affects an employee who has
been reinstated within the previous six (6) months
as the result of the final determination of a
grievance, termination, layoff, demotion or
suspension from duties because of lack of work,
reduction in work force, or job abolition;
The hiring, promotion, transfer, assignment and
retention of employees within the County of
Albemarle;
The relief of employees from duties of the County of
Albemarle in emergencies.
In any grievance brought under the exception to provision
6 of this subdivision, the action shall be upheld upon a showing
by the local government that:
there was a valid business reason for the
action; and
II.
the employee was notified of the reason in
writing prior to the effective date of the
action.
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night
(Page 4)
000161
Grievances f~led With regard to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) shall follow the grievance procedure
established in the County's ADA Transition Plan.
Management Riqhts:
Nothing in this procedure is intended to circumscribe or
modify the existing management right of the County to do the
following:
Direct the work of its employees as well as
establish and revise wages, salaries, position
classification and general employee benefits;
2 o
Hire, promote, transfer, assign and retain employees
within the agency;
3. Maintain the efficiency of governmental operations;
Relieve employees from duties of the agency in
emergencies; and
Determine the methods, means, and personnel by which
operations are to be carried out.
Determination of Grievability:
If a question arises as to whether an employee is eligible
to grieve under this policy, or whether a particular complaint
constitutes a grievance as defined by this policy, and the
department head/supervisor determines that the complaint is not
grievable because the employee is not eligible to grieve or
because the complaint does not state a grievance, the employee
may appeal the decision regarding Grievability to the County
Executive. Such appeal shall be filed by the employee in
writing within five (5) working days following the department
head/ supervisor's determination that the complaint is not
grievable. The County Executive shall issue a decision
concerning Grievability within ten (10) working days of receipt
of the written appeal by the employee. The County Executive
shall not be required to meet with the employee, but shall base
his decision on the written record.
In the event that the employee disagrees with the decision
of the County Executive concerning Grievability, the employee
may appeal the issue of Grievability to the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County for a hearing. The employee shall perfect his
appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the Circuit Court
within ten (10) working days following the date of the County
Executive's decision regarding Grievability. A standard form
for this purpose is available from the Department of Human
Resources. The employee shall serve copies of such notice of
appeal upon the County Executive and County Attorney. Within
ten (10) working days after receipt of service of the notice of
appeal, the County Executive shall transmit to the Circuit Court
the written record, including copies of the decision of the
County Executive regarding Grievability, the notice of appeal
and any exhibits. The County Executive shall also serve a copy
of the list of evidence furnished to the Circuit Court upon the
employee.
The failure of the County Executive to transmit the
written record within the ten (10) day period shall not entitle
the employee to pursue his complaint on the merits, nor shall it
prejudice the rights of the employee in any manner. In the
event the County Executive fails to transmit the written record
within the ten (10) day period to the Circuit Court, the
employee may petition the Circuit Court for a writ of certiorari
requiring the County Executive to transmit the record on or
before a certain date.
The Circuit Court shall hold a hearing to consider the
issue of grievability only, and shall not consider the merits of
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night M~i~g)
(Page 5)
000 ! 62
the complaint. The Circuit ~Court may affirm the decision of the
County Executive, or it may reverse or modify the decision. The
Circuit Court's decision shall be final and non-appealable.
Either the employee or the County may raise the issue of
grievability at any stage of the grievance procedure prior to a
panel hearing, but once raised, the issue of grievability shall
be resolved prior to further proceedings. In any event, the
issue of grievability must be resolved prior to the panel
hearing or it shall be deemed to have been waived.
The classification of a complaint as non-grievable shall
not be construed to restrict any employee's right to seek or the
County's right to provide customary administrative review of
complaints outside the scope of the grievance policy.
Policy:
Ail stages of the grievance beyond the first step (see
following procedure) shall be in writing on forms supplied by
the Human Resources Department of the County.
Once an eligible employee as defined in this policy
reduces his grievance to writing he must specify on the
appropriate form the specific relief he expects to obtain
through use of this procedure.
After the initial filing of a written grievance, failure
of either party to comply with all substantial procedural
requirements of the grievance procedure, including the panel
hearing, without just cause, shall result in a decision in favor
of the other party on any grievable issue, provided the party
not in compliance fails to correct the non-compliance within
five (5) working days of receipt of written notification by the
other party of the compliance violation. Such written
notification by the grievant shall be made to the County
Executive, or his designee. The County Executive, or his
designee, at his option, may require a clear written explanation
of the basis for just cause extensions or exceptions. The
County Executive, or his designee, shall determine compliance
issues. Compliance determination made by the County Executive
shall be subject to judicial review by filing a petition with
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30)
calendar days of the compliance determination.
Required Steps in the Grievance Procedur~
Any eligible employee as defined in this policy who timely
files a grievable complaint shall have the right to follow all
the steps of this procedure as listed below with complete
freedom from reprisal. Albemarle County police officers have
the right to file a grievance under this procedure or the State
Law Enforcement Officers grievance procedure, but not both.
With the exception of Step IV (Upper Management Level) the only
person who may normally be present in the Management Step
meetings are the grievant, the appropriate official at the level
at which the grievance is being heard, and appropriate witnesses
for each side. Witnesses shall be present only while actually
providing testimony. At the Upper Management Level, the
grievant, at his option, may have present a representative of
his choice. If the grievant is represented by legal counsel,
the County Executive likewise has the option of being
represented by counsel. If an appeal is made of any
disciplinary action, the appealing employee should recognize
that at each level of the process, a new hearing on the matter
will be held and the disciplinary action rendered at subsequent
levels may be either more or less stringent than that
recommended at a previous level.
1. Step I (Supervisory Level)
within thirty (30) calendar days after the
occurrence or condition giving rise to the
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night M~eti~)
(Page 6)
oooa.6a
grievance, the employee affected may identify the
grievance verbally to the employee's immediate
supervisor.* Within three (3) working days of such
presentation, the supervisor shall give his/her
response to the employee with respect to the
grievance, or shall advise the employee that
additional time for such decision is needed, in
which case a decision must be given the employee
within three (3) working days thereafter.
b)
If a satisfactory resolution is not reached by this
process, the employee shall produce the grievance in
writing, identifying the nature of the grievance and
the expected remedy on Grievance Form A. Such
written grievance shall be presented to the
immediate supervisor and Director of Human Resources
within three (3) working days of the supervisor's
verbal reply.
2. Step II (Management Level)
If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the first
step, the employee may so indicate on the grievance form and
submit the grievance to his/her department head within ten (10)
working days. A meeting to review the grievance shall be held
between the employee and the department head within three (3)
working days. The time between the second step submission and
the second step meeting may be extended by mutual agreement.
When the action being grieved was initiated by
a level above the immediate supervisor, the
grievance shall be presented to the person
whose action is being grieved.
A second step written reply to the grievant shall be
provided to the employee within three (3) working days after the
second step meeting.
3. Step III (Upper Management Level)
If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the second
step, the employee may submit the grievance to the Deputy County
Executive. Submission to the third step must occur within ten
(10) working days of the second step. The Deputy County
Executive will meet with the employee within three (3) working
days or indicate an extension is necessary. Such extension
shall not exceed three (3) additional working days except by
mutual agreement. The Deputy County Executive shall render a
written reply to the grievance within three (3) working days
following the third step meeting.
4. Step IV (Upper Management Level)
If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the third
step, the employee may submit the grievance to the County
Executive. Submission to the fourth step must occur within ten
(10) working days of the third step. The County Executive will
meet with the employee within three (3) working days or indicate
an extension is necessary. Such extension shall not exceed
three (3) additional working days except by mutual agreement.
The County Executive shall render a written reply to the
grievance within three (3) working days following the fourth
step meeting.
5. Step V (Panel Hearing)
If the reply from the fourth step meeting is not
acceptable to the grievant, he/she may submit the grievance to a
fifth step panel hearing. The request for a fifth step panel
hearing shall be indicated by the employee on Panel Hearing Form
B and submitted to the County Executive. A request for panel
hearing must be submitted within ten (10) working days of the
000±64
ffune 18, 1997 (~egular Night Mee~i~g)
(Page 7)
fourth step reply. The County Executive will arrange for the
panel selection and schedule the panel hearing.
A panel shall be chosen which shall be composed of three
(3) members and shall be chosen in the following manner: one
(1) member appointed by the grievant, one (1) member appointed
by the County Executive and a third menlber selected by the first
two. To ensure an objective panel, neither the grievant nor
supervisory personnel responding to the first four (4) steps of
the grievance may serve on the panel. Panels chosen in
compliance with these requirements shall be deemed to be
impartial. In the event that agreement cannot be reached as to
the final panel member, the chief judge of the Circuit Court of
this County shall select such third panel member. To insure an
impartial panel, such panel shall select such third panel
member. To insure an impartial panel, such panel shall not be
composed of any person having direct involvement with the
grievance being heard at the panel, or with the complaint or
dispute giving rise to the grievance. Managers who are in a
direct line of supervision of a grievant and the following
relatives of a participant in the grievance process or a
participant's spouse are prohibited from serving as panel
member: spouse, parent, child, descendants of a child, sibling,
niece, nephew and first cousin. No attorney having direct
involvement with the subject matter of the grievance, nor a
partner, associate, employee or co-employee of such an attorney
shall serve as a panel member. Panel members chosen in
compliance with these requirements shall be deemed to be
impartial.
In cases involving retaliation or employee termination,
Albemarle County retains its right to use an administrative
hearing officer as a third panel member. When this option is
exercised, the administrative hearing officer shall be appointed
by the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court. The
appointment shall be made from a list of Administrative Hearing
Officers maintained by the Executive Secretary pursuant of
Section 9-6.14:14.1 and shall be made from the appropriate
geographical region on a rotation basis. If the local
government elects to use an Administrative Hearing Officer it
shall bear the expense of such officer's servides.
In all cases, the third panel member shall be the
chairman, set the time for the hearing and notify the employee.
The hearing shall be held no later than (10) working days after
the date of the request unless the selection involves the use of
the Circuit Court. In such case, the hearing shall be held as
soon as practicable, but no more than ten (10) working days
after the final panel member has been selected. The grievant
may have present at this meeting representatives of his/her
choice. Copies of Form A shall be sent by the County Executive
to the panel members.
The majority decision of the panel, acting within the
scope of its authority, shall be final, subject to existing
policies, procedures and law. The question of whether the
relief granted by the panel is consistent with written policy
shall be determined by the County Executive of Albemarle County,
or his designee, unless such person has a direct personal
involvement with the event or events giving rise to the
grievance, in which case a decision shall be made by the
Attorney for the Commonwealth of Albemarle County.
The panel has a responsibility to interpret the
application of appropriate agency policies and procedures in the
case. It does not have the authority to formulate policies or
procedures or to alter existing policies or procedures.
The conduct of the hearing shall be as follows:
The panel shall determine the propriety of
attendance at the hearing of persons not having a
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night M~e~ing)
(Page 8)
direct interest in the hearing.
ooo 6s
At the request of
either party, the hearing shall be private.
The County shall provide the panel with copies of
the grievance record prior to the hearing and
provide the grievant with a list of the documents
furnished to the panel. The grievant and his
attorney, at least ten (10) calendar days prior to
the scheduled panel hearing, shall be allowed access
to and copies of all relevant files intended to be
used in the grievance proceeding. Documents,
exhibits and lists of witnesses shall be exchanged
between the parties at least five (5) calendar days
in advance of the hearing and the parties shall be
under a continuing duty to disclose additional
documents identified later which may be used in the
respective parties' cases-in-chief.
Co
The panel may, at the beginning of the hearing, ask
for statements clarifying the issues involved.
Exhibits, when offered by the grievant or the
County, may be received in evidence by the panel,
and when so received, shall be marked and made a
part of the record.
The grievant and supervisor, or their
representatives, shall then present their claims,
evidence and witnesses who shall submit to the
questions or other examination. The panel may, at
its discretion, vary this procedure but shall afford
full and equal opportunity to all parties and
witnesses for presentation of any material or
relevant evidence.
The parties may offer evidence and shall produce
such additional evidence as the panel may deem
necessary to an understanding and determination of
the disputes. The panel shall be the judge of
relevancy and materiality of the evidence offered.
All evidence shall be taken in the presence of the
panel and of the parties.
The panel chairman shall specifically inquire of all
parties whether they have any further proofs to
offer or witnesses to be heard. Upon receiving
negative replies, the chairman shall declare the
hearing closed.
The hearing may be reopened by the panel chairman no
later than fifteen (15) working days after the
completion of the hearing. The decision shall be
made on forms furnished by the County.
The decision shall be filed in writing by the panel
chairman with the County Executive no later than fifteen (15)
working days after the completion of the hearing. The decision
shall be made on forms furnished by the County.
Copies of the decision shall be transmitted to the County
Executive, the employee, and the employee's supervisor.
The parties to the grievance, by mutual agreement, or the
panel chairman may extend any or all of the time periods
established in this procedure.
The grievant must bear any cost involved in employing
representation or in the legal preparation of his/her case.
Either party may petition the court for an order requiring
implementation of the decision of the panel.
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
{Page 9)
000:1.66
Item 5.2. Set public hearing for July 9, 1997, to amend and reordain
Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the County Code.
It was noted in the staff's report that amendments to Chapter 12 of the
County Code were adopted by the Board on May 21, 1997. Staff has determined
that provisions dealing with fire lane enforcement are inconsistent with
similar provisions located in Chapter 9 of the Code pertaining to fire
protection. The proposed amendments would clarify that no parking or standing
is allowed in fire lanes within the County. In addition, the time within
which a person may pay a citation for failing to have a valid County motor
vehicle sticker has been extended from 48 to 96 hours, consistent with the
time frames established elsewhere in the ordinance for payment of parking
violations. Staff recommends that a public hearing be set to consider
amendments to Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic Ordinance, for July 9,
1997.
By the above recorded vote, the Board set the public hearing for July 9,
1997.
Item 5.3. Authorize County Executive to execute service agreement with
Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., advancing $50,000 to purchase new
utility vehicle.
It was noted in the staff's report that several years ago, Albemarle
County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten volunteer fire and
rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at $2.0 million,
provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed firefighting
equipment and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from
their annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund
are monitored and approved by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue
Association (JCFRA).
The current amount available for loan in the revolving fund is
$197,527.13. Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., has requested, through
JCFRA, an advance of $50,000.00 to be used for the purchase of a utility
vehicle. This advance will be paid upon request after execution of this
agreement. Repayment of the loan will be over an eight-year period beginning
in FY 1997-98. JCFRA has approved this request, and staff recommends
authorizing the County Executive to execute the service agreement.
By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to
execute the following service agreement with the Crozet Volunteer Fire
Department, Inc.:
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 10th day of June, 1997, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political
subdivision, {the ~County"), and the CROZET VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT, INC., {the "Fire Department").
WHEREAS, the Fire Department agrees to continue to provide
valuable fire protection services in Albemarle County in its
delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps
located at the Emergency Communications Center (~Service Area");
and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department desires the County to
contribute Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) for the purchase of
a utility vehicle; and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department desires to enter into an
agreement consolidating its annual withholding of payments by
the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above
stated premises the County and Fire Department agree, as
follows:
1. The County previously had entered into a service
agreement with the Fire Department dated June 28, 1995,
providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
000 67
County from the County's annual appropriation to the Fire
Department, as set forth in said agreement, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. As a result of said agreement,
the outstanding indebtedness now totals Two Hundred Fifty-Seven
Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($257,700).
2. The County shall contribute to the Fire Department
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to be used for the purchase of
a utility vehicle. These funds shall be allocated from the
County's Fire Fund ("Fund") and shall be delivered upon demand
after the execution of this Agreement.
3. The Fire Department agrees that the County will
withhold Thirty-Eight Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars
and Fifty Cents ($38,462.50) from the County's annual
appropriation to the Fire Department's operating budget for
eight (8) years beginning July 1, 1997, and ending after a final
withholding on July 1, 2004, and that such withholding may be
used by the County to replenish the Fund for so long as the
County, at its discretion, continue such Fund. This withholding
consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result
of the prior service agreements with the Fire Department dated
February 22, 1985, June 11, 1986, May 11, 1990, April 12, 1995,
and June 28, 1995.
4. The Fire Department agrees that the Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($50,000) contribution shall be used only for the
purchase of the utility vehicle. The Fire Department further
agrees that it shall not convey the utility vehicle or any
interest therein to any party other than the County without the
County's prior written consent.
5. The Fire Department agrees that at such time as it no
longer provides volunteer fire department services in Albemarle
County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that
it shall convey all of its interest in the vehicle described in
paragraph 2 to the County at no additional cost to the County
upon the County's request.
6. The County and Fire Department agree that the
covenants set forth in their prior agreements dated February 22,
1985, June 11, 1986, May 11, 1990, April 12, 995, and June 28,
1995, to the extent they are not in conflict with this
Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent
additional appropriations by the County to the Fire Department,
at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to
support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the
Fire Department.
Item 5.4. Notice that the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation
District has been named Virginia's Conservation Education District of the Year
for 1997 by the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts,
was received for information.
Item 5.5. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for May 13 and June 3,
1997, were received for information.
Item 5.6. A copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's operating
budget for fiscal year beginning July 1, 1997, was received for information.
Item 5.7. Copy of letter dated June 4, 1997, from Ms. Amelia G.
McCulley, Zoning Administrator and Director of Building Code and Zoning
Services, to Mr. James E. Swingler, Mr. Steven Swingler and Ms. Mary Hudson
Fulghum, re: Use of Tax Map 128A, Parcel 3 - Determination of Violation (V97-
75), was received for information. It was noted in the letter that apparently
this property is being used by the community as a recreational facility. The
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
000 68
property also contained a sign advertising a flea market. Both of these uses
have been found to be in violation of the County's zoning regulations. In
order for the uses to comply with the Zoning Ordinance, special permit
approval must be received from the Board of Supervisors. Until and unless
this is approved by the Board, the uses are to cease and desist.
Item 5.8. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Board of Directors meeting of April 28, 1997, was received for information.
Item 5.9. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle County Service Authority
Board of Directors meeting of April 30, 1997, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-97-1. Still Meadows (Signs #63, 64, 68 & 69).
Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 142 acs from RI to PRD w/max of
160 lots. Located at end of Northfields Rd. Access proposed to Northfields
Rd and Carrsbrook Dr. TM46, P21 & TM45B2, P2 (part) & 4 (part). Rio Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1997.)
Mr. Benish noted that a letter dated June 11, 1997, had been received
from Mr. Scott A. Williams, Manager, Crescent Development Group, L.L.C.,
requesting that this rezoning request be deferred to allow the applicant the
opportunity to make some minor changes to its plan, and to revise its
proffers. He asked that this request be placed on the agenda for the next
available Board meeting.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to defer
ZMA-97-1 until September 10, 1997. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMAi96-24. in&S, L.L.C. (South Pointe). (Signs
#75, #76, #77 & #78). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 43 acs
from R-2 & EC to R-15 & EC. 5%476, Ps54, 54A, 55B & 55D. Properties on in sd
of Rt 631 (Fifth St Ext) approx 0.2 mi SW of 1-64. (Ps54, 54A & 55B are
recommended for Transitional Use in Neighborhood 5.) Scottsville Dist.
(Deferred from May 21, 1997.)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.
He said the request is to rezone approximately 28 acres of a 43-acre site
consisting of four parcels from R-2 to R-15 Residential. The property is
located in the southwest corner of the intersection of 1-64 and Fifth Street.
Mr. Benish said the Board heard this request on May 21, 1997, and
deferred action to allow staff the opportunity to provide a comparison of
relative impacts created by various densities consistent with the Transitional
designation in the Land Use Plan. Staff provided the Board with a memorandum
dated June 13, 1997, based on 25 acres of rezoned land. He noted that a
Transitional designation calls for Urban Density Residential development which
is a minimum of 6.01 dwelling units per acre up to 34 dwelling units per acre.
Up to 15 dwelling units per acre would be supported by the R-10 and R-15
Residential Districts. To exceed 15 dwelling units per acre, a Planned
Development District, such as a PRD or PUD, would be required. The Board
could approve this request at a density less than that requested, R-10, and
still be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, such an approval
would not allow for acceptance of the applicant's proffer without the
applicant's agreement. This would mean that the applicant would not be
obligated to submit a site plan for the entire rezoned area (all four parcels)
at one time. This would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan intent
for an overall plan of development for Transitional Areas.
Mr. Benish said all figures for traffic generation shown in the report
are approximate and are based on assumptions made in the traffic study
submitted by the applicant. It should be noted that some of the figures for
the 15 dwelling units per acre potential development are different than those
contained in the original report due to additional information received (The
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
original study for R-15 zoning of this site assumed a development potential of
400 units. Additional information indicates that a more likely development
potential is 375 units.).
Mr. Benish said the staff has now prepared a new memorandum, dated
June 18, 1997, as a supplement to the memorandum of June 13, 1997. Where the
June 13 memorandum calculated the impacts of various densities on 25 acres of
rezoned land, the applicant now states that the acreage involved is
approximately 28 acres. The applicant has provided a detailed map showing the
boundaries of the area to be rezoned. However, the area to be rezoned is a
portion of a larger property, and no survey has been conducted to determine
the exact acreage (Staff estimates that a total of up to 30 acres may be
included within the boundaries of the area proposed for rezoning.).
Mr. Benish said staff has provided the potential traffic impact figures
based on the upper end estimate of total acreage. The original information
for R-15 zoning of this site assumed a development potential of 400 units.
This supplemental information indicates that a development potential of up to
450 units is possible. The traffic distribution numbers provided in the
attachments to the June 13, 1997, memorandum have not been revised as this
would require additional review time by staff. The ratios of the distribution
pattern is unchanged by density or total development numbers. The fiscal
impact numbers have not been updated as this is a more complex calculation
which would require additional review time.
Mr. Benish said the traffic study submitted by the applicant does not
consider the provision of public transit to this site. Public transit could
be provided to the site which could reduce the overall impacts. This would
require a contract between the County and the City for Charlottesville Transit
Service (CTS) service. At this time, staff is unable to determine the cost of
providing public transit to this site. He then invited questions from the
Board.
Ms. Humphris said the public hearing was closed at the last meeting.
She asked if the Board members had further questions for staff.
Mr. Marshall said he did not have a question, but the Board had received
a petition containing the signatures of approximately 192 local residents who
oppose this rezoning. This was accomplished just this last week. There was
an earlier petition which contained even more names. Mr. Marshall said he is
still opposed to this rezoning because of the impact it would have on the
neighborhood, the schools and roads. He understands that in a Transitional
area the Board has a legal obligation, according to the County Attorney, to
provide 6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre. He would like to recommend that
the property be rezoned to the low end of that scale, or 6.01 dwelling units
per acre. He bases this on the impact of the development to the neighborhood.
He asked the County Attorney for a response to this recommendation.
Mr. Davis stated that the County's responsibility is to allow the
landowner a reasonable use of his property. One of the primary factors the
courts now look at is the relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and how
consistent the zoning is with the Plan. This property is designated as a
Transitional area in the Comprehensive Plan. Transitional areas are allowed
to develop at urban densities. Urban densities can be satisfied from an R-6
zoning designation up through R-15. The issue before the Board is whether
there is a basis for this Board to determine that an R-6, or R-10, or R-15 is
a reasonable use of the property. The standard a court would hold the Board
to is whether or not that determination is fairly debatable among reasonable
people. Based on factors such as impacts on roads, impacts on adjacent
property, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, R-6 meets a lot of
those criteria. It is up to the Board to make that determination.
Mr. Marshall noted that a lot of people appeared at the last meeting to
oppose this rezoning request. He asked those who would support the
recommendation he just made to stand, at which point 20 people stood.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
approve ZMA-96-24 to rezone to an R-6 designation in lieu of the application's
request for R-15.
Ms. Thomas said the Comprehensive Plan calls for a density that allows
for a walkable community and which would prompt the use of public
transportation. The rule of thumb is that six dwelling units per acre does
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13
000170
not do that. At least 12 dwelling units per acre are needed to have a truly
walkable community. She supports the proposal as originally brought to the
Board and although she was not prepared for the larger number given tonight,
she thinks that higher density meets what the Board has said it wants in the
way of urban development. She has thought a lot about how it impacts the
adjoining neighborhood, and the neighborhoods in the City, and the
interchanges. She thinks that one way to keep the growth from impacting on
the City is to create an outer ring road south of the City, and also putting
developments close to interchanges at 1-64 so it will foster the use of 1-64.
She thinks the Board was correct when it turned down a truck stop in this
area; it does not want truck traffic going in that direction. She thinks the
Board has taken good care of this neighborhood in past decisions, and she
thinks this level of density for rental would create a nice neighborhood. All
of the things the Board has said it wants to do instead of sprawling all over
the countryside, all of those things are in the proposal before the Board
without reducing the density to 6.01 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Martin agreed with Ms. Thomas and suggested a compromise of 10 units
per acre.
Ms. Humphris also agreed with both Ms. Thomas and Mr. Martin. She
stated that the Board has a Plan which they think is workable to prevent
sprawl by adding density to the urban areas where there is the infrastructure
to serve the density. It is always going to be unfortunate that it has an
impact on the people already in the area. The land is available and it is
developable. If the Board is really going to do what it thinks is correct,
this seems to be the right thing to do the way the Board has planned to manage
growth in Albemarle County.
At this point, Ms. Humphris asked the Clerk to call the roll on Mr.
Marshall's motion to change the density to R-6 from R-15. The motion failed
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin.
Mr. Marshall said he would try another motion. He then offered motion
to approve ZMA-96-24 to rezone to an R-10 designation in lieu of the
applications request for R-15 designation. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Martin.
Mr. Bowerman said he needed to have a clearer distinction between R-10
and R-15. He thinks the R-6 designation as proposed by Mr. Marshall was
certainly at the low range of the viable options, but he does not have a good
sense of what the density should be for that property. He knows that as the
density on the property is increased, so are the impacts. He would like to
see the applicant express a willingness to address some off-site things such
as the traffic signal. He thinks that would be a better development if there
were a signal at both intersections at the beginning. To the extent that the
applicant could expedite that, he would have appreciated seeing that as part
of this request. He is aware the property is right next to the interstate
highway, and there is probably no place in the community that has a better
traffic infrastructure, but he does not have a clear idea of what the ideal
designation should be. Topographically, he could do either R-10 or R-15.
Mr. Benish replied that R-10 and R-15 are similar, with a little more
flexibility for secondary uses in R-15. The conventional urban density is 10
dwelling units per acre, but up to 15 dwelling units per acre could be
achieved through the use of the bonus provisions in the ordinance. Those
provisions provide for increased densities provided certain issues are
addressed. Bonuses can be achieved up to 20 percent for dedication of land,
public improvements and provision of moderate-cost housing. Even the
rezoning to R-10 would allow the applicant to achieve an R-15 density through
the use of these bonus provisions.
Mr. Bowerman said there would have to be a determination made by the
Planning Commission that the bonus provisions offered by the applicant at the
time the Commission heard this request were significant and meaningful and
dealt with the issues that some Board members have a desire to see
accomplished.
oooxT .
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Ms. Humphris asked the process for getting this accomplished. Mr.
Benish said a density bonus was given in Raintree for wooded areas, and in
Wynridge, the County received a one-half dedication for Greenbrier Drive. Mr.
Bowerman said the bonuses were used at Garden Court for significant
landscaping. The one bonus never used is that for moderate-cost housing. Mr.
Martin said that in Glenmore, for every house sold there was a contribution
made to the County school system to be used for Stone Robinson or a new school
in the area. He asked if that was a proffer or a bonus. Mr. Benish said that
was a proffer made by the applicant.
Mr. Perkins asked the densities of apartment complexes in the County.
Mr. Benish said Westgate Apartments has 15 dwelling units per acre, Turtle
Creek is close to 15 dwelling units per acre, River Run is at seven dwelling
units per acre and Lakeside Apartments is at 15 dwelling units per acre. He
did not think there were any apartment complexes at less than 12 dwelling
units an acre unless the property includes a significant amount of
undevelopable land, such as critical slopes.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that there were a large number of vacancies in
other apartment complexes and asked if there was anything in the ordinance
about ~a need to build." Ms. Thomas said that is at the discretion of the
developer and his mortgagor.
Ms. Humphris said the Board seems to be ~between a rock and a hard
place." It has the goal which she would like to achieve which is to achieve a
relatively high density in this particular urban area, but there is the
possibility that if a lower density is allowed, it could actually be a higher
density through bonuses. The Board does not know if the developer would be
interested in any of those bonus provisions. Mr. Benish said neither staff or
the applicant knows if any bonuses can be achieved on this particular piece of
property, or at what level. It takes a specific type of site analysis.
Mr. Perkins asked if the bonuses would make it a more appealing
development in the eyes of staff. Mr. Benish said it is difficult to respond
without actually looking at the request in that vein. He thinks the applicant
has made an effort to put together a good development on this property. He
does not know how much better a bonus process would be in terms of this site
development.
Ms. Humphris asked if there was a proffer with this application. Mr.
Benish said there was the proffer to have a unified site plan filed for all
parcels, but only if the property is rezoned to R-15.
Ms. Thomas stated that the walkable community and increased use of
public transportation are things she feels strongly about. That is something
the Board could lose by rezoning to only R-10. Mr. Marshall responded that R-
15 could also turn into R-20.
Mr. Davis noted that the density bonus provisions have not been used
very often. At the time of subdivision or site plan submission, the applicant
has to submit a detailed plan setting forth whether they wish to qualify for
any of the density bonuses. That determination is then made at subdivision or
site plan approval by the Planning Commission. For some of these standards,
the term is "may" and for some the term is "shall". There is some flexibility
in determining what the density bonus will be, and that is determined by the
Planning Commission. Some of the bonuses would not apply to the property in
question. Improvements to roads or the addition of moderate-cost housing
units might apply. The impact of it would probably never exceed impacts that
bother the Commission, so the Board would have to trust the Commission to make
the right decision.
Ms. Thomas said issues of internal circulation and fitting the different
phases together in a cohesive whole do not appear in the factors that lead to
density points and might, in fact, get lost in the process. Mr. Davis said
the only zoning designation which would ensure that there is one site plan
that unifies these four tracts of land would be for the Board to accept the R-
15 request with the proffer. He said that is important to staff in their
analysis of the R-15 zoning.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the proffer for a cohesive development under one
plan is any part of a density increase. Mr. Davis replied "no". That would
not fall under a bonus provision.
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Ms. Humphris said there is a motion on the floor to approve this
petition with an R-10 designation instead of the R-15 requested. If that is
done, there is no proffer, and there would be no way to insure that there
would be only one unified site plan. Mr. Davis said it is possible it could
be developed incrementally, and there could be four different developments on
the four parcels.
Mr. Bowerman said one thing this Board is looking for is cooperation
between the development community, this Board and the public to have the best
possible developments in the Urban Areas. It seems there are a lot of
benefits that would accrue by using some of the bonus increases to accomplish
some of the things the Infill Committee will be looking at rather than just a
blanket designation of R-10 or R-15, where there is no plan before the Board.
He does not believe that R-10 is that bad because the opportunity does exist
for additional density, and the opportunity also exists for the existing
community, and the community that will developed there, to receive benefits
also.
Mr. Marshall stated that the acreage is about 28 acres, not the whole 43
acres. He would have preferred R-6 as having the least impact on the
community, but R-10 will have less of an impact than R-15. He believes the
Board could defend rezoning to R-10 and it would also be good for the
developer.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Board could limit the zoning to R-15 with no
bonus provisions. Mr. Davis said the applicant has the right to request use
of the bonus provisions, but the Planning Commission does not have to grant
them.
Ms. Humphris asked if the Board decided to approve R-10 without the
proffer, would there be any way to insure a second access to the property
(this is Something the Planning Commission said the applicant must Provide)?
Mr. Benish said a second access is a requirement of the ordinance, However,
in the past, that has sometimes been as entrance on a divided roadway. Mr.
Davis responded that conceivably, under R-10, each of the four tracts could be
developed separately.
Ms. Thomas said she does not feel strongly about this question, but will
support the R-15 in order to get the assurance of the internal situation.
Mr. Marshall said he would not support a motion for R-15 zoning.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Davis if he had anything further to add before
the Board voted on the motion. Mr. Davis said he had been looking at the
bonus factors, and there is definitely a trade-off by giving up the proffer.
The development could look very similar under R-10 or R-15. If the bonus
provisions were utilized, and the developer'chose to try and mold his
development plan to get bonus factors in each of the areas in which they are
allowed, the density could get close to R-15 and probably provide a very
reasonable use of the property. But, the R-15 zoning application with the
unified development plan would assure that the staff would have the ability to
view a development which was unified, and under site plan procedures, there
would be a very good development plan. The end result could look much the
same, but the R-15 development might be a more orderly development from a
staff perspective.
Ms. Humphris said since the developer had not mentioned any interest in
bonus provisions, the Board's discussion of that is probably moot. She stated
that she would "stick with" the original proposal because she would feel more
competent with the outcome. She then requested that the roll be called on the
motion to rezone to R-10 instead of the applicant's request.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-05. Wingspread Farm Estates (Signs #51, 52 &
53). Public Hearing on a request to allow construct of bridge in floodway in
conjunct w/ proposed Wingspread Subd. Znd RA. Bridge would cross Hardware
Riv near Lots 9 &10 of proposed subd. Located on W sd of Rt 29 N near inter
w/Heards Mtn Rd (Rt 633). TM98, Pl5A. Scottsville & Samuel Miller Dists.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1997.)
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's
Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.
He said the applicant proposes to construct a public subdivision street
crossing of the South Fork of the Hardware River in a location west of Route
29 South which is shown on a preliminary plat entitled "Wingspread Farm
Estates". The plan shows a proposal to subdivide 704.95 acres into 31 lots.
A new road to serve a majority of the lots in the subdivision would have to
cross the Hardware River which traverses the subdivision.
Mr. Benish said staff reviewed the request for conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommended approval subject
to seven conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 13, 1997,
by a vote of 5:1 recommended approval of SP-97-05 subject to the seven
conditions of the staff.
Ms. Thomas said from reading the Planning Commission's minutes, she had
noted that Mr. Tice wanted to make sure the Resource Protection Areas
designation shows the contiguous wetlands. She asked if that will happen, or
should it be added as a condition. Mr. Benish replied that it was not
necessary to add it as a condition.
Ms. Humphris said what she noted from the Planning Commission minutes,
was their concern over the possibility of setting a precedent by allowing this
crossing when an alternative is available and a RPD has been requested.
Benish said that, in this case, the RPD requires a special use because the
proposed development exceeds the allowable number of lots.
With no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Fred Nissle, from the Cox Company, noted that there has been strong
opposition to a RPD in this area from adjoining landowners, The site does not
lend itself to an RPD format because of the limited size of the area to the
Route 29 side of the Hardware River. They have provided emergency access so
the actual size of the bridge can be downsized from a one hundred year storm
to something less. They have worked with the County's Water Resources
Manager. He then offered to answer questions.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said there is some connection between the last petition
approved and this petition. It has to do with sprawl out in the countryside
taking up a working farm from the economy. She understands the economy of
farms and what is happening to them. She appreciates all of the questions the
Planning Commission asked. She then offered motion to approve SP-97-05
subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Water Resources Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact
Assessment and inclusion of mitigation measures for
critical sections immediately upstream and downstream of
the stream crossing in the Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan;
2 o
Engineering Department approval of the final crossing
plans and details. These plans must clearly show the
before and after construction of one hundred year flood
elevations and boundaries;
3 o
Engineering Department approval of structural plans,
details and computations;
Engineering Department approval of hydrologic and
hydraulic computations for the crossing. These
computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections
30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Flood
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night. Meeting)
(Page 17) ~
000:1.74
elevations at the upstream property line must not
increase;
Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with
Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting
wetlands and watercourses. The applicant is encouraged to
contact the Federal and State agencies in the early stages
of the design process;
Verification that the access easement which exists on the
property, as shown crossing Lots 12 and 13, can be used
for emergency access from the subdivision to Route 29; and
Provision of gate across the emergency accessway which
discourages shortcuts through the adjoining properties,
but provides unimpeded emergency access during flooding or
other emergency conditions.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-97-15. Western Ridge Business Park (Signs #73 &
74). Public Hearing on a request to establish day care on 1.5 acs of 10.51 ac
site znd LI. Located on S side of Rt 240, Three Notch'd Rd, approx 1.5 mi W
of Rt 240/250 inter at Mechum's Rvr. TM56, Part of Ps88, 89, 90 & 90A. White
Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1997.)
Mr. Bowerman said he has an ongoing personal interest in a contract of
sale for fitness equipment to the applicant of this special use permit. He
excused himself from the discussion, and left the room at 8:15 p.m.
Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's
Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.
He said the site is located between the C&O Railroad tracks and Route 240 on
the east side of Park Ridge Drive (access to Western Ridge currently under
construction on the south side of the railroad). All of the land between
Route 240 and the railroad is zoned LI.
Staff considered the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan to be of
great significance. The intent of the language appears to be to limit
commercial development to "downtown" Crozet. Approval of this request would
introduce a commercial use outside of the downtown area. However, the need
for day care in Crozet has been identified and this use would provide a
support service to the large industrial area of Crozet along Route 240, as
well as developing residential areas on Route 240. In the opinion of staff,
the need to provide day care in Crozet, and the allowance of the ordinance for
supporting commercial uses, where appropriate, in a particular case, make this
proposal acceptable. The site is adequate to accommodate the proposed use.
Staff recommended approval of SP-07-15 subject to three conditions. The
Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 27, 1997, by a vote of 3:2,
recommended approval of SP-97-15 subject to the conditions recommended by
staff.
With no questions for staff, Ms. Humphris opened the meeting to the
public for comments.
Ms. Catherine Womack, attorney representing the applicant, said the day
care center would be substantially similar to the one in Mill Creek. It would
be for children from infant to four years of age. It would serve
approximately 120 children. The Comprehensive Plan directs limitation of
commercial uses to downtown, and she wished to point out that a day care
center would actually encourage commercial uses downtown, as Route 240 is a
natural route to the downtown area. Another point that staff brought up was
that this could potentially conflict with future possible industrial
development on nearby sites. Right across the road is the rest of the Western
Ridge Business Park, the Martha Jefferson Clinic, the railroad tracks and the
Western Ridge Subdivision. Other factors discussed by the Planning Commission
were the proximity of the site to the railroad, and noise and safety factors.
If the day care center is in either the downtown area or on Route 240, there
will be railroad tracks. This would be a licensed day care center. There are
currently no day care centers in Crozet.
Ms. Thomas asked why the 1.5 acres closest to the railroad was selected,
rather than the 1.5 acres closest to the road. Ms. Womack replied that it was
based on the price of the property.
0O0±"?5
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Ms. Thomas stated that, from a planning perspective, she hated to set up
a day care center in a less than desirable location. It would seem to be far
more preferable to put it in the acreage away from the railroad. While you
could hear the sound anywhere in Crozet, being right on top of the railroad is
going to be worse than being several acres away. Ms. Womack replied that her
property adjoins the railroad track, and she is never awakened by the train,
nor does she think there is a big difference between the noise levels in the
two parcels.
Mr. Martin stated that he did not think the Board had any control over a
business location; it is more of a problem for Bright Beginnings rather than
the Board. The Board should not be telling businesses where they can locate
because there is a better location that is a bit more expensive. Ms. Thomas
replied that, because it was a special use permit request, she felt it was the
Board's business to determine if this is a safe place for children. This
holds hostage all the families who need child care in the area, since this is
the only place. Ms. Womack responded that the state would investigate the
location for safety and the day care center would have to comply.
Mr. Martin replied that the state surely had a better idea of the proper
standards for day care safety. If the families will be held hostage after
having one available, what are they using now.
Mr. Marshall noted that the state was pretty strict as far as day care
centers go.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Humphris closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Perkins did not think the railroad was an issue since there exists
much housing and other things near the railroad tracks. If it was not an
issue before, he does not think it is an issue now.
Mr. Martin said that, as a father of four young kids, more affordable
day care is needed in the area. If this is the spot that Bright Beginnings
can afford and it offers more day care to the community, the Board should
support the permit.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
SP-97-15 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It
shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to
transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the
original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify
the zoning administrator of any license expiration,
suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such
event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-
compliance with the conditions of this special use permit;
2 o
Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the
Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure
to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection
shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the conditions
of this special use permit; and
These conditions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare,
Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire
Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 8:44 p.m.)
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Fred Pal/ne, representing Mr. S. W. Heischman, has
asked if the Board would allow him to address it to offer an alternative to
the action it took earlier on ZMA-96-24, N&S L.L.C. (South Pointe). The
reason he would need to be heard tonight, if the Board agrees, is that the
Board's Rules of Procedure say any action taken on a zoning request is final
at the meeting at which the vote is taken, unless there is a motion to
reconsider. The Board could allow him to address it, hear the proposal, and
then the Board could either let its decision stand, or take different action.
He recommended that the Board let Mr. Payne speak.
Mr. Pay-ne said the applicant, Mr. Heischman, was taken by surprise at
the conversation concerning bonuses. He said in this case, the bonuses are
~losers". They have absolutely no intention of applying for any bonuses. Mr.
Heischman is prepared to proffer that the maximum density under R-15 zoning
would be limited to not more than 15 dwelling units per acre. He discussed
this briefly with Mr. Davis, and he thinks the mechanism for this would be if
the Board rescinded its action taken tonight, continue the matter through
another public hearing to allow them the opportunity to amend the proffer that
has been filed to add an additional condition to the effect that there would
be no density beyond 15 units per acre if it were approved. He offered to
respond to any comments from the Board.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board had to take action tonight. Ms. Thomas
said the Board did not have to take any action on the request, but it would
have to rescind its vote. Mr. Davis said if the Board does not rescind, the
approval stands as final.
Mr. Martin said if further changes could come out of a dialogue with the
developer, he would vote to rescind and defer, but he did not see any need to
rescind if this were the only change proposed.
Mr. Marshall said he would not feel comfortable doing this because the
public had already left the meeting.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the issue is whether those members who voted
for the 10 dwelling units per acre did so because they were afraid that R-15
did not necessarily just mean 15 dwelling units per acre. If so, this would
be an attractive reason to rescind and do what has been proposed. If that was
not a major motive, then there is nothing to find attractive in the proposal
Mr. Pa]me just made.
Mr. Bowerman agreed, and said he also agrees with Mr. Marshall about the
public. If the opportunity exists to look at other aspects of the rezoning
that it does not put him in jeopardy in terms of suggestions he might make.
Because the Board cannot require, the applicant can only offer, in that spirit
there are some things he would like to talk about.
Mr. Martin said that is his feeling also. He agrees with Ms. Thomas
that that was not his reservation.
Mr. Bowerman said if the applicant had looked at the bonus provisions
and seen a way to get a density of 13 or 14 or 15 dwelling units in exchange
for some other amenity that would be a benefit to the community, he
anticipates he could have done that. Mr. Payne said he has not done a lot of
detailed study on this. The bonus for landscaping has been obsolete since the
landscaping provisions were placed in the Site Plan Ordinance. The only bonus
which makes any sense, in this case, is for low-income housing. With only 15
dwelling units an acre there is no room for a commitment to low income housing
because the project would not work below 15 units an acre at market rates. In
the 17 years since the bonus provisions were added to the ordinance, he has
never seen them used because no one has ever been able to make them work.
Economically, they cannot be made to work in this case. After that, there is
nothing left because there is no ability for dedications.
Ms. Thomas asked about the possibility of affordable housing. She has
always been intrigued with the idea of having one unit in an apartment
building used for affordable housing. She said this idea has been used in
Fairfax County. Mr. Payne said that kind of setup would not be adequate to
satisfy the bonus provisions; it would have to be something more substantial.
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
000177
Mr. Martin asked why that could not be discussed. Considering the
density on the small amount of acreage involved, it seems logical that there
could be some affordable housing included without destroying the project. Mr.
Payne said if this is R-10 and they use bonuses, they have to get to the
maximum before they get to the level where the project makes any economical
sense at all.
Mr. Martin said he understands the Board can only make requests of the
applicant, and the applicant can make offers. Mr. Payne said he will not say
the applicant is not willing to discuss anything the staff wants to discuss.
He just wanted the Board to know what he believes the realities are.
Economically, this is a bare-bones project. The density of it can't be
significantly reduced, or it is not feasible.
Ms. Thomas said the project description was for up to 400 units, which
is not a density of 15 dwelling units per acre with the new amount of acreage.
Mr. Payne said the acreage itself is not critical. The issue is density. Mr.
Tatum recalculated the acreage and now says it is 28. Thirty acres does not
take into account that some of the acreage on the outer perimeters is owned by
the Commonwealth. It is not owned by the applicant. The real issue is not
absolute numbers, but density.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Marshall had said a lot about the public which was
here earlier in the meeting. He cannot see putting this back on the table
unless there is some substantial reason for the Board to change its mind after
the public has left the meeting.
Mr. Davis said, from a legal standpoint, if the Board rescinds its
motion on this request, the staff could hold discussions with the developer
and put together a proffer package dealing with these concerns. The Board
could hold another public hearing on the application and discuss it again.
Ms. Humphris said she was obviously on the losing side, but she is
hearing that the Board members say quite clearly that a proffer about the
bonus units would not be enough to change their minds, and she is not hearing
the applicant offer anything else.
Mr. Bowerman said that if the request was put back on the table with a
new proffer package, he could support putting it back on the table. Mr. Pal/ne
said if the staff were to say that stop-lights at 1-64 are needed, it would
not happen for cost reasons. If there are other things, they could certainly
be considered.
Mr. Martin asked if the Board could simply not do anything tonight, and
suspend its Rules later. Mr. Davis replied that on a zoning matter, the Board
makes its final decision tonight and it is not subject to reconsideration at a
later meeting. The applicant would have to reapply to rezone the property,
and he would probably be precluded from doing that for a year.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Pal/ne was ruling out any sort of pro rata
share of things like traffic signals based on.the traffic flow the development
would create. Mr. Payne responded that he did not have the authority to rule
out anything at this time. He does feel confident in saying that the
applicant could not afford to put in a stop light.
Mr. Martin said he is not willing to make any motion on this matter,
somebody else would have to do it.
Ms. Humphris said she believes everybody has said all there is to say.
She asked if anybody wanted to make a motion to reconsider the previous
matter. There was no motion made.
Mr. Perkins stated he had received a request from Mr. Hunter Craig
asking that the Board schedule a Comprehensive Plan Amendment out of the
normal public hearing schedule. He talked with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Cilimberg
about this request last week, and was advised that Mr. Craig should write a
letter making the request, and also file an application. He does not know if
that has been done, but he will put this in the form of a motion at this time.
Mr. Martin gave second to the motion.
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2 1)
Mr. Bowerman said that since Mr. Craig is making the request, he will
abstain from hearing the request, but he does intend to hear the amendment
because it involves a much larger issue than just that of the applicant.
Ms. Humphris said the next filing deadline for Comprehensive Plan
amendments is September 2. She asked why there is a hurry.
Mr. Martin said the only reason he made the second was that Mr. Craig
had been instructed by staff to do things a certain way and after doing so, he
came to this Board and was turned down.
Ms. Humphris objected to the request saying that several citizen groups
are interested in this request and they would probably expect this amendment
to be heard according to the regular hearing schedule.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
Ms. Thomas said at a meeting recently, she had wondered if there were a
way to get AMTRAK to add another car going through Virginia, so that people in
Charlottesville and elsewhere would have a better chance of using the train.
She has just been informed that as of two weeks ago a Virginia Rail Express
car has been added to the Crescent in Atlanta. The price has also been cut
almost in half. The car has 99 seats, but they are only going to sell 50
seats at first. There are now 50 more tickets available which are supposed to
be available for the short hauls into Washington, D.C. and back again. It has
not been advertised yet, but she had permission to mention it today.
Mr. Bowerman said the Chamber of Commerce has requested that the
Sustainability Council appoint a member they have suggested. That individual
who is with the Horizon Institute lives in the County. He could not remember
this person's name. In order to recommend someone to the Planning District,
Mr. Bowerman said he has to obtain this Board's approval first.
Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
At 9:16 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, 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,
probable litigation relating to a law enforcement incident, probable
litigation regarding claims for attorney fees and probable litigation
regarding a denial of a jurisdictional (service) area. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Certify Executive Session. At 10:54 p.m., the
Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman,
seconded by Mr. Perkins, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the
best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully
exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session
were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date ~*~ '9~
Initials LO
June 18, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
000 i 79
Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to add Mr. Derek Jones as a member of the Sustainability Council.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Ms~ Thomas asked if anyone wanted to reconsider Gottesman decision on
sewer service. Nobody wanted to.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. At 10:55 p.m., with no further business
to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman