1996-02-21February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
000 0 [
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on February 21, 1996, 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, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Chief of
Planning Ronald S. Keeler.
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. No one came forward.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.6 and to accept the
remaining items as information on the Consent Agenda. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman
None.
Item No. 5.1. SP-95-43 - Claudius Crozet Park, Inc., and resolution to
modify certain requirements of Section 5.1.16(a) of the Zoning Ordinance
(deferred from February 14, 1995).
The Board held a public hearing on SP-95-43 on February 14, 1996. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit with six
conditions. Recommended modification of the setback requirements of Section
5.1.16(a) of the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate an adjustment of the property
line that runs through the proposed pool to relocate the property line around
the pool. The Board requested staff to provide alternative language for the
proposed condition #5 to increase the allowable maximum decibels at the
nearest residential property line. The Board also requested language allowing
the modification.
In consultation with the Zoning Administrator it is recommended that the
decibel level be raised to 60 dB, except for the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m. during which time the maximum decibel reading is recommended to be 55 dB.
The County Attorney has developed a resolution which permits reduction of
setback for pool facilities based on that determined to be necessary during
site plan review.
Board approval of SP-95-43 with conditions #1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, as
recommended by the Planning Commission and an amended condition #5, which
reads: "The sound from any radio recording device, public address system or
other speaker shall be limited to 60 dB measured at the nearest agricultural
or residential property line, except for the period of 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m.
during which the aforementioned sound shall be limited to 55 dB." Board
approval of the attached resolution allowing modification of the 75 foot
setback requirement set forth in Section 5.1.16(a) of the Zoning Ordinance is
requested.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved SP-95-43 by adopting the
following resolution allowing modification of the 75 foot setback requirement
set forth in Section 5.1.16(a) of the Zoning Ordinance and subject to six
conditions:
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) -
(Page 2)
RESOLUTION TO WAIVE CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS OF § 5.1.16(a) OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE
CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK, INC. SITE PLAN
O00XO,
WHEREAS, Claudius Crozet Park, Inc. proposes a site plan in
accordance with SP-95-43 for a pool and other facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that a modification
of the supplementary regulation set forth in § 5.1.16(a) of the
Zoning Ordinance which requires a 75 foot setback from the pool
facilities to the nearest property line can be granted and still
satisfy the purposes of the supplementary regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Albemarle
County Supervisors hereby modifies the 75 foot setback requirement
set forth in § 5.1.16(a) of the Zoning Ordinance for pool facili-
ties proposed for Claudius Crozet Park to allow the setback to be
reduced to the nearest property line to the extent approved by the
Director of Planning during site plan review.
Conditions of approval:
The use of the property shall be limited to the new pool
complex, new parking and new walking trails, in addition to
the uses which presently exist;
Overnight parking shall be permitted only if adequate sani-
tation facilities are provided to the satisfaction of the
Health Department;
No site plan shall be approved until adequate parking is
provided on the plan;
4 o
Fencing adjacent to the pool shall provide screening from
adjacent residential areas;
5o
The sound from any radio recording device, public address
system or other speaker shall be limited to sixty (60)
decibels measured at the nearest agricultural or residential
property line, except for the period of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m. during which the aforementioned sound shall be limited
to fifty-five (55) decibels;
6 o
Improvements to the entrance in accord with the recommenda-
tions of VDOT shall be indicated on the site plan.
Item No. 5.2. Adopt resolution to take Brandermill Drive and
Brandermill Place in Forest Lakes South Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
At the request of the Enginnering Department, the Board adopted the
following resolution, by the above shown vote:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular
meeting on the 21st day of February, 1996, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South Subdivision described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 15, 1996, fully incorporated
herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion has advised the Board that the streets meet the
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads
in Forest Lakes South Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-
5(A) dated February 15, 1996, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant
to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require-
ments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Brandermill Drive from Station 0+00, right edge of pavement of
Ashwood Blvd., 295.30 lineal feet to Station 2+95.30, left edge of
pavement of Brandermill Place, as recorded 7/22/93 in Deed Book
1327, pages 509-518, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County, showing a 50 foot right-of-way, for'a length
0.06 mile.
2)
Brandermill Place from Station -0+45, cul-de-sac edge of pavement,
690 lineal feet, to Station 6+45 cul-de-sac edge of pavement, as
recorded 7/22/93 in Deed Book 1327, pages 509-518, in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, showing a 50
foot right-of-way, for a length of 0.13 mile. Additional plats
recorded 1/10/94 in Deed Book 1375, page 34, and 1/31/94 in Deed
Book 1379, page 635.
Total - 0.18 mile
Item No. 5.3. Adopt resolution to take Quail Run in North Fork Business
Park into the State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the Engineering Department, the Board adopted the
following resolution, by the above shown vote:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in regular meeting on the 21st day of February, 1996, adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in North Fork Business Park described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 15, 1996, fully
incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the road in the North Fork Business Park as described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 15, 1996, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
000104
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements
for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1)
Quail Run from Station 10+09, right edge of pavement of
State Route 606, 1491 lineal feet to Station 25+00, edge
of pavement of Quail Run, as shown on plat recorded
3/29/79 in Deed Book 667, page 492 in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, showing
a variable right-of-way width, for a total length 0.28
mile. Additional plats recorded 2/24/89 in Deed Book
1036, page 437; recorded 11/2/94 in Deed Book 1439, page
60; recorded 6/16/95 in Deed Book 1474, page 119;
recorded 2/5/96 in Deed Book 1517, page 710.
Total 0.28 mile.
Agenda Item No. 5.4a. Appropriation: Education Grants (Form #95043),
$25,506.69.
At its meeting on November 13, 1995, the School Board approved the
attached appropriation requests.
Re-appropriation of the G.E. Extra Curricular and Science Grant. The
G.E. Extra Curricular and Science Grant had a fund balance of $17,501.55
at the end of the 1994-95 fiscal year. The funds will be used to defray
the cost of the Middle School Extra Curricular Science Program. This
program brings teachers, parents, students, and G.E. engineers together
to pursue an integrated science experiment and project. The program
takes place in the late winter and early spring.
Re-appropriation of the Early Childhood Grant for Brownsville Elementary
School. The Early Childhood Grant had a fund balance of $1,522.84 at
the end of the 1994-95 fiscal year. The Early Childhood program
provides for the development and implementation of both a fully articu-
lated K-3 instructional program and three support components which
appear vital for effective early childhood education. The funds will
be used to provide instructional materials.
Re-appropriation of the Sign Language/Speech Minigrant. On January 9,
1995 the Board approved a Sign Language/Speech Minigrant from the State
Department of Education for $1,908.00. This grant was not fully
expended in the 1994-95 fiscal year and has a grant balance of
$1,482.30. The remaining funds will be used to increase school-based
interpreting skills of our interpreters through course work provided by
community colleges and Emersion Week at the Virginia School for the Deaf
and Blind.
The appropriation of the Regional Literacy Coordinating Committee
Stipend in the amount of $5,000.00. The mission of the Literacy
Committee is to assist in the creation of a more literate region and to
facilitate the development, implementation and maintenance of the
Virginia Adult Learning System in each locality within the region.
Susan Erno, Albemarle County's Regional Adult Education Specialist, has
been appointed as lead agent for the Regional Literacy Coordinating
Committee. The Lead Agent will convene and chair all meetings of the
committee, facilitate the establishment goals, objectives, and strate-
gies relative to identified local needs.
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #95043 in the amount of
$25,506.69.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
NUMBER: 95043
FLIND: GRAi~T
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR G. E. EXTRACURRICULAR & SCIENCE
GRANT, EARLY CHILDHOOD GPJkNT SIGN LANGUAGE
GRANT AND REGIONAL LITERACY COMMITTEE GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1320661311601300 G.E. GRANT INST/REC SUPPLIES $14,501.55
1320661311580000 G.E. GRANT MISC. EXPENSES 3,000.00
1311260202601300 EARLY CHILDHOOD INST/REC SUPPLIES
1,522.84
1310463366580500 SIGN LANGUAGE STAFF DEVELOPMENT
1,482.30
1311563326160200
1311563326210000
1311563326600000
REG. LITERACY STIPEND 3,000.00
REG. LITERACY FICA 230.00
REG. LITERACY MAT'L & SUPPLIES 1,770.00
TOTAL $25,506.69
REVENIJE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2320651000510100
2311251000510100
2310424000240276
2310451000510100
2311524000240241
G.E. GRANT FUND BALANCE
EARLY CHILDHOOD FUND BALANCE
SIGN LANGUAGE GRANT REVENUE
SIGN LANGUAGE F/B
REG. LITERACY GRANT REVENUE
TOTAL
$17,501 55
1,522 84
1,908 00
(425 70)
5,000.00
$25,506 69
Item No. 5.4b. Appropriation: Registrar (Form #95057), $17,820.
Due to the decision that a Republican Primary will be held on June 11,
1996 requiring a special election, the County Registrar has requested addi-
tional funding in the amount of $17,820. The majority of this expense
($14,765) is related to the payment of election officials and printing of
ballots.
Staff recommends approval of the additional funding in the amount of
$17,820 as detailed on Appropriation #95057.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
NI3MBER: 95057
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FLrNDING FOR REGISTRAR FOR REPUBLICAN
PRIMARY.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100013020120000
1100013020130000
1100013020210000
1100013020312510
1100013020350000
1100013020360000
1100013020390000
1100013020520100
1100013020520300
1100013020540200
OVERTIME WAGES
PARTTIME WAGES
FICA
ELECTION OFFICIALS
PRINTING & BINDING
ADVERTIZING
PURCHASED SERVICES
POSTAL
TELEPHONE
LEASE/RENT
$520 00
525 00
80 00
10,620 00
250 00
100 00
4,145 00
100 00
1,100 00
140.00
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
000 06
1100013020550100
1100013020600100
1100013020601700
TRAVEL-MILEAGE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
COMPY SUPPLIES
TOTAL
140.00
50.00
50.00
$17,820.00
REVEAVJE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100 FI/ND BALANCE $17,820o00
TOTAL $17,820.00
Agenda Item No. 5.4c. Education Grants (Form #95059), $4,900.
At its meeting on January 22, 1996, the School Board approved the
following appropriation requests:
e
Appropriation of a VEA Restructuring Grant for Scottsville Elementary
School in the amount of $1,000. In the fall of 1994, Scottsville began
restructuring the Student Behavior Plan by developing an External Time
Out Plan. The object of the plan is to provide an orderly, safe and
distraction-free environment where student learning and teacher produc-
tivity are valued. This grant enables Scottsville to improve the
External Time Out Plan this school year by installing an effective 2-way
communication system in the school in the forms of telephones. They are
needed to maximize the continuing efforts to provide the least amount of
distraction in the learning environment.
Appropriation of Teacher Incentive Grants in the amount of $3,900.00.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts has awarded Teacher Incentive
Grants in the amount of $300 each to eight teachers at Stony Point, four
teachers at Woodbrook and one teacher at Broadus Wood Elementary
Schools. The Teacher Incentive Grant Program has been established to
help strengthen the quality of education in and through the arts in
elementary and secondary schools, to explore new opportunities for
creativity in the classroom, and to encourage innovative projects which
integrate the arts into non-arts curricula.
Staff recommends approval of the requests as detailed on appropriation
#95059 in the amount of $4,900.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the followin~ Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
NUMBER: 95059
FUND: GRA/~TS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TEACHER INCENTIVE GPJ~NTS FOR VARIOUS SCHOOLS
AND VEA RESTRUCTURING AWARD
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1311860201601300 BROADUS WOOD-EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIES $300.00
1311960211601300 STONY POINT EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIES 2,400.00
1312060212601300 WOODBROOK-EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,200.00
1312160209580000 VEA-MISC. MATERIALS 1,000.00
TOTAL $4,900.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2311824000240291 BROADUS WOOD-96 TIG $300.00
2311924000240287 STONY POINT-96 TIG 2,400.00
2312024000240288 WOODBROOK-96 TIG 1,200.00
2312124000240286 SCOTTSVILLE-96 TIG 1,000.00
TOTAL $4,900.00
Item No. 5.6. Adopt Resolution of Intent to rezone properties associ-
ated with the Peyton Drive Regional Stormwater Detention Basin.
The Peyton Drive Detention Basin (DIP 93-002) is a County drainage
improvement project that will create a regional stormwater detention basin
000 07
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
within an existing large ravine. The construction cost was funded through the
Capital Improvements Program several years ago. It will provide regional
stormwater management for existing and future development, as well as relief
to downstream properties from flooding and erosion. The adjacent property
owners are conveying the land for the basin at no charge to the County. The
land is being conveyed in lieu of onsite detention and to satisfy the pro rata
share contribution requirement for regional basins. Plats and deeds that
convey this property to the County of Albemarle, have been approved and are
ready for signature.
The Basin parcel was created by combining parcels X, Y & Z subdivided
from the three adjacent parcels (see attached plat). Adjacent Parcel 3A is
fully developed and zoned R15 - Residential. Parcels 5 & 6A are undeveloped
and are both zoned C1 - Commercial. As a result, the Basin parcel divides
zoning districts. Rezoning the Basin parcel to C1 Commercial will provide'a
uniform zoning of this property and remove the residential zone setback
requirement for the narrow, undeveloped commercial property adjacent to
Greenbrier Drive (see attached plat, Parcel 6A) . Such a setback requirement,
intended to buffer adjacent residential areas from commercial development,
would not be necessary since the Basin parcel will provide the buffer.
As a result of this subdivision, the small Parcel 5 Residue (zoned C1 -
Commercial) will be combined with the larger Parcel 4 (zoned R15 - Residen-
tial). Rezoning the Parcel 5 Residue, to R15 Residential, will eliminate
the zoning district divisions within the new combined Parcel 4.
This entire area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for Community
Service, within which the referenced zoning (R-15 and C-I) allows for accept-
able uses. The zoning boundaries, as they exist, will provide no public
benefit with the creation of the new Basin parcel. Instead, they will hinder
logical development of the adjacent undeveloped parcels. Rather than waiting
for individual requests, as each adjacent parcel is developed, it is justifi-
able that the County undertake this rezoning as one procedure.
At the request of staff, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Intent, by the above shown vote:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, for the purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, does hereby state its
intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map to change the zoning
district designation for certain parcels of land adjacent to the
southern side of Commonwealth Drive, Peyton Drive, and Greenbrier
Drive. These changes are necessary due to the subdivision for the
Peyton Drive Regional Stormwater Detention Basin which divided
parcels by zoning districts. The subdivision divided a residential
zoning district, thereby creating a parcel of R15 zoning that was
added to two parcels zoned C1, Commercial. The subdivision also
divided a commercial district, thereby creating a parcel of C1
zoning that was added to a parcel zoned R15, Residential. This
amendment will rezone those parcels so that the effected parcels
will not be split by zoning districts.
Parts of Parcels 03-3A, 03-4, 03-5, and 03-6A on Tax Map 61W will be
considered as follows:
1. TMP 61W-03-4:
Residue from Parcel 5 of 14075 sq. ft.
(shown on a B!.~Aubrey Huffman plat, dated
20 February 1995), zoned C1, shall be added
to Parcel 4, zoned R15. The area is pro-
posed to be rezoned to R15. [TMP61W-03-5
to TMP61W-03-4]
2. TMP61W-03-5:
Parcel X of 15666 sq. ft., zoned R15, shall
be added to Parcel Y of 12083 sq. ft. and
Parcel Z of 9984 sq. ft., both zoned C1, to
create a new Parcel 5 (shown on a B. Aubrey
Huffman plat, 20 February 1995). This area
is proposed to be rezoned to Cl. [TMP61W-
03-3A to 5]
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on a request to grant an easement to
CFW Communications Company for the construction, installation and maintenance
of an underground fiber optic network system to be located on County-owned
property located at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on February 14, 1996.)
Mr. Tucker explained that this is a public hearing relating to a request
from CFW Network Inc., for an easement to run two fiber optic lines across the
County Office Building property. He explained that in exchange for this
easement, CFW will provide a connection to the City of Charlottesville via
multi-mode network. The staff is recommending that the Board grant the
easement.
There were no questions from Board members, so Mrs. Humphris opened the
public hearing. She asked if the applicant would like to speak to this
matter.
The applicant did not wish to speak.
No one else came forward, so Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Thomas moved approval of the request to grant an easement to CFW
Communications company for the construction, installation and maintenance of
an underground fiber optic network system. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-95-14. Dennis Rooker/Ivy Creek, Inc., Etal.
Public Hearing on a request to rezone 215.0 ac from PRD to RA. This is Ivy
Creek Subdivision. TM59A1,P's 1-33 & B (open space). Site located in Rural
Area 1 is not in a growth area. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on February 5 and February 12, 1996.)
Mr. Keeler discussed ZMA-95-14 which is a petition to rezone 215 acres
from a Planned Residential Development designation to the Rural Areas designa-
tion. He said this request was before the Planning Commission for some length
of time, and the issue related to terms of access from this property and other
properties into Farmington. The applicant has submitted three proffers, and
one was revised earlier today, but it has not been signed. He believes the
revised proffer is acceptable to the Farmington residents. He noted that the
Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of five to one with one
abstention. He said the language of approval introduced the understanding
that in an earlier rezoning it was understood by the Commission that access
would not be permitted onto Brook Road from this property for subdivision
development purposes.
Mrs. Thomas inquired as to the status of the proffer which was received
today. Mr. Davis answered that an amendment was received today clarifying an
ambiguity in Proffer Number Three. He said the proffers before the Board make
two references to subdivision -- one in Line Four and one in Line Five. He
added that it was the staff's impression that these references related to the
Ivy Creek Subdivision. However, the first subdivision reference was intended
to relate to Ivy Creek, but the second one was intended to refer to any
subdivision of property. In order to clear up the ambiguity, the applicant
replaced the first subdivision reference with the term Ivy Creek Property. He
mentioned that because there are a number of people who need to sign these
proffers, the applicant was unable to obtain all of the signatures. Mr. Davis
advised that the public hearing be held, but he suggested that any vote be
deferred on this matter until there is a signed amendment to the proffers. He
explained that this could be handled either as a separate item on the next
agenda or as part of the Consent Agenda, whichever is the desire of this
Board.
There were no further questions from Board members, so Mrs. Humphris
opened the public hearing on ZMA-95-14.
Mr. Dennis Rooker, representing the applicant, stated that the Ivy Creek
property was purchased in 1978. In 1980 the applicant down zoned this
property from R1, with a permitted 184 lots, to PRD zoning for 33 lots. This
o0o o9
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
advised that the public hearing be held, but he suggested that any vote be
deferred on this matter until there is a signed amendment to the proffers.
explained that this could be handled either as a separate item on the next
agenda or as part of the Consent Agenda, whichever is the desire of this
Board.
He
There were no further questions from Board members, so Mrs. Humphris
opened the public hearing on ZMA-95-14.
Mr. Dennis Rooker, representing the applicant, stated that the Ivy Creek
property was purchased in 1978. In 1980 the applicant down zoned this
property from Ri, with a permitted 184 lots, to PRD zoning for 33 lots. This
is a further down zoning of the property from 33 lots to a maximum of 14 lots.
The applicant is very interested in preserving the rural character of the
property, and the proposed rezoning would bring the property into consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property for rural zoning.
He said the rezoned property will be consistent with the zoning of adjacent
parcels which are zoned for rural designation, and the rezoning is consistent
with the County's stated policy of protecting and preserving its rural
property. He noted that the rezoning is consistent with the County's goal of
protecting the watershed, and all of this property lies within the watershed
area. He said it borders on Ivy Creek which is a major tributary of the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir. He stated that rezoning will reduce traffic on
Broomley Road compared to the traffic which would have been expected under
prior zoning. He added that surrounding properties including Flordon and
Farmington will benefit from the preservation of the rural character of the
property. There is no question this down zoning makes sense, it is beneficial
to the County, it is beneficial to the surrounding property owners, and it
should be granted. He pointed out that the proposed rezoning was approved by
the Planning Commission, although a lot of time was spent at the Commission
hearings discussing and taking comments on an issue concerning a private
driveway on an adjoining parcel of property known as Broomley Farm.
He then referred to the considerable amount of material relating to this
matter which has been included in the Board members' packets. He added that
it seems the unnecessary time of debating this issue can be avoided which is
somewhat complex. He commented that Farmington property owners had stated in
a letter to this Board that they support the resolution passed by the Commis-
sion along with the existing proffers on the property. The applicant is
willing to accept the resolution passed by the Commission, as well as stand
behind the proffers which have been made. He next requested that the Supervi-
sors approve the resolution since both the Farmington property owners and the
applicant find it acceptable.
Mr. Fred Payne, representing the Farmington Property Owners Association,
said he has been asked to identify the fact that there are a large number of
Farmington residents present at this meeting. Mrs. Humphris asked the
Farmington residents to raise their hands so the Board members could acknowl-
edge their presence.
Mr. Payne went on to say the Commission has spent a great deal of time
and effort on this matter, and the residents have indicated in a letter that
they are satisfied with the Commission's action. One of the issues was the
clarification of legislative history, and he thinks this was taken care of in
the resolution. If this Board's action approves identical wording or makes it
substantially the same, it will be satisfactory. He also mentioned that the
residents are aware of the last minute change with the proffer. He noted that
the County Attorney faxed this information to him this afternoon, he has
reviewed it, and there are no problems with the revision. He agrees with Mr.
Rooker that this revision makes a salutary clarification, and he has no
problem with it. In the event the Board chooses to endorse the Commission's
recommendation, the residents have no objection to this being done with the
Consent Agenda at a later date.
At 7:20 p.m., Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing, since no one else
wished to speak concerning ZMA-95-14.
Mrs. Thomas stated that even though this matter will be handled by way
of the Consent Agenda on March 6, she would like to make some comments now, so
the situation will be understood. She remarked that everyone knows Ivy Creek
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night M~eting)
(Page 10)
O001 O
though, in this case, everyone agrees that there is no legal access. She
would like for the Board's action on the Consent Agenda to be essentially as
the Commission recommended. She had planned to make a motion for approval
tonight. However, since the matter won't be acted on at this meeting, she
wondered if she should read what she was going to say, so it can be put on the
Consent Agenda.
Mr. Davis answered affirmatively.
Mrs. Thomas then read what she would have said had she been making the
motion to approve ZMA-95-14 at this meeting. The approval would be subject to
the three proffers as stated. She noted that it was the Board's assumption in
the 1994 rezoning action, which is ZMA-94-10, that the new private drive would
be gated in order to prevent unauthorized access from Ivy Creek Subdivision.
She feels this Zoning Map Amendment is a good thing as long as a statement is
included about the Board's assumption regarding the 1994 decision which
allowed the driveway to be built. The rezoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, it considerably reduces the density in the watershed and
brings the property into conformance with existing rural areas zoning. She
appreciates Mr. Worrell's responsible stewardship in consistent down zoning of
this property.
Mr. Davis advised that Mrs. Thomas' remarks would be conformed into a
resolution for the Consent Agenda.
Mrs. Humphris wondered if further action needed to be taken at tonight's
meeting. Mr. Davis replied that further action is not needed as long as the
Supervisors are comfortable with placing this item on the Consent Agenda.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if there was any discussion from Board members as far
as placing this item on the next meeting's Consent Agenda. No one responded.
Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Rooker, Mr. Payne and all of the residents who
came from Farmington.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-95-19. Mill Creek Industrial Land Trust.
Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 23.6 acs from LI to PUD (this
land is proposed to be added to the existing Mill Creek PUD & designated for
industrial & commercial use). Property on N sd of Southern Parkway approx 500
ft W of Rt 742 (Avon St). Site is recommended for Industrial Service in
Neighborhood 4 by the Comprehensive Plan. TM76Ml,P'S 11,12,13,14,15,17,18&20.
Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 5 and
February 14, 1996.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report relating to a proposal pertaining
to the Mill Creek Planned Unit Development to rezone approximately 23.6 acres
from Light Industrial use to a PUD designation. He described the zoning
designations and noted that one parcel of 2.08 acres is proposed for commer-
cial/service use. He also noted that a site plan for a day care center is
under review. He said the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
petition, together with a modification, and he explained that individual
commercial/service uses shall be limited in size to avoid the impression of
general commercial development. Therefore, the floor area is limited to 5,000
square feet for an individual use. The applicant has provided justification
for a gross floor area of 6,016 square feet, and the staff agrees with the
applicant's justification. It is staff's opinion that this modification would
not result in the impression of general commercial development. He pointed
out that the revised conditions are shown on Pages Three and Four of the staff
report, and he called attention to Condition Number Eight which indicates that
the gross floor area of the day care facility is not to exceed 6,100 feet. He
said, though, he would like to modify this condition to make it clearer that
the condition is referring to the gross interior floor area.
Mrs. Thomas inquired as to what would happen if the day care center
fails, or the owner decides to do something else with it. She asked how
limited are the owner and County officials to the day care center. Mr. Keeler
replied that the day care center owner would enjoy by right uses in a C1 or a
CO zone. He explained that a commercial office zone is very limited, and the
by right uses in the C1 district are primarily services and retail types of
uses. He noted that anything by special use permit would come to this Board.
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing relating to ZMA-95-19, since
there were no more questions for Mr. Keeler.
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Andrea Craig referred to a remark by Mr. Keeler that increasing the
interior floor space to 6,100 feet would not give the impression of general
commercial development. She brought a drawing of the building to show that it
blends in well with the Mill Creek neighborhood. She mentioned that in the
last ten years there have been 1,300 to 1,400 new residential units, so a
need has been generated for a day care facility on that side of town. She
lives in Mill Creek, she is the mother of a two and one-half year old, and she
knows how hard it is to find good quality day care. She pointed out that the
majority of the children will be coming to this proposed day care center from
homes within a couple of miles radius, and they will then be going on to Cale
Elementary School. She said it will be very nice to go to day care from an
infant state and carry those friendships on to Cale Elementary School. She
mentioned how traumatic it is on the first day of school when the children
don't know each other, and there are no familiar faces. She stated that it
always seems there are adults or business people coming before this Board
asking for amendments for rezoning or modifications for their own use. She
added that this will serve the children and it is nice, for a change, to be
serving them. She referred to the unanimous vote by the Commission, and
indicated her desire that this Board will feel the same way.
No one else wished to speak at the public hearing, so Mrs. Humphris
closed the public hearing.
At this time, Mr. Marshall offered a motion to approve ZMA-95-19 , Mill
Creek Industrial Land Trust, with the eight conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission, as well as the modification of Number Eight to clarify
that the condition is referring to gross interior floor area. He went on to
say no one has called him to oppose this request, and several people are
really excited about having a place to leave their children. He thinks this
is a wonderful use for the property.
Mr. Davis suggested that Mr. Marshall also include in his motion the
granting of the modification. Mr. Marshall responded that he thought he had
already taken care of this in his motion. Mr. Davis explained that for
clarification, Mr. Marshall should indicate that the motion also includes the
necessary modification, because it requires a separate action. Mrs. Humphris
emphasized that this modification is already included in Mr. Marshall's
motion.
Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was then called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Residential, commercial/service and industrial areas with
their attendant open space areas, including pedestrian
trails, shall be located in general accord with the Applica
tion Plan.
Ail roads, with the exception of the potential collector
road shall be built to Virginia Department of Transportation
standards and placed in the Secondary System at the time of
development of the residential areas utilizing those roads.
The alignment of the potential collector road shall be in
general accord with the Application Plan. The collector
road shall be built in accordance with an agreement approved
by the County Attorney and by the Board of Supervisors which
is generally in accord with the attached draft agreement
dated May 7, 1986 (read by George H. Gilliam and changes as
agreed to by the applicant), presented to the Board on that
date. There shall be no residential entrances onto the
collector road, with the exception of public road connec-
tion. The possibility that this collector road will be
constructed (the extension of the Southern Parkway) within
the reserved area shall be clearly disclosed in the subdivi-
sion covenants and restrictions and on the subdivision plat
for all lots adjacent to the collector road in the Mill
Creek West portion of this PUD. In the event that this
000 l .2
February 21, 1996 (Regular Nigh% Meeting)
(Page 12)
collector road is constructed, the developer or its succes-
sors or assigns shall be responsible for the removal of the
portion of the Grist Mill Drive median and turn island and
the "Mill Creek West" sign proposed within the collector
road right-of-way.
The maximum number of dwelling units approved under this PUD
is 435 dwelling units.
5o
For the portion of this PUD identified as "Mill Creek West,"
lots that include portions of the critical slopes (25 per-
cent or greater slope) associated with the Biscuit Run
stream valley shall provide an easement to Albemarle County
and the developer or it successors that prohibits distur-
bance of the natural grade in the portions of the lots on
such slopes. Any maintenance responsibilities resulting
from disturbance to these slopes shall be incurred by the
developer or its successors and not by Albemarle County.
For the portion of the PUD identified as "Mill Creek West,"
minimum yards shall be as follows:
Front: 25 feet for lots with frontage on the road shown as
"Grist Mill Drive" on the Application Plan; 20 feet for
other lots, except that the front yard may be reduced to 10
feet for attached garages for a maximum lineal distance of
28 feet provided that there shall be no openings except for
garage doors in any exterior wall on the enclosed structure
parallel to the street between 20 feet and 10 feet from the
front line.
Side: 7.5 feet.
Rear: 20 feet, except in cases in which the rear lot abuts
common open space, then the rear yard may be reduced to 10
feet.
Special use permit approval is required for establishment of
the stream crossing over Biscuit Run indicated on the Appli-
cation Plan.
Gross interior floor area of day care facility not to exceed
6,100 square feet.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-95-04. University of Virginia Real Estate
Foundation. Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 300 ac from RA to
PD-IP. Property located S of the North Fork Rivanna River between Rts 29 &
606. TM32,P4B,6,6A&19. Site is recommended for Industrial Service in the
Community of Hollymead by the Comprehensive Plan. Rivanna Dist. Request
includes: a) SP-95-40 - Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical; b) SP-95-41
- Supporting Commercial uses; and c) SP-95-42 - Hotel, motel, inn. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on February 5 and February 12, 1996.)
Mr. Keeler noted that ZMA-95-04 is a petition by the University of
Virginia Real Estate Foundation to rezone 525 acres to bring the entire
property under Planned Development and Industrial Park Designation. The
southern 225 acres are currently within the Park but in order to bring it
under a unified application, the applicant has put the entire 525 acres in
front of this Board. He noted that proffers will apply to the entire develop-
ment. He reminded Board members that this matter was discussed at the
February 7, 1996 work session, and at this meeting it was indicated that
there would be some changes to the language of the proffers before the public
hearing tonight. This has occurred and the County Attorney and the Planning
staff have reviewed the changes. The Commission on December 19, 1995, with a
vote of five to two, recommended approval of the rezoning subject to a number
of actions. He briefly went through those actions.
He then noted two changes to the application plan. One change is to
Note 12 which speaks to the expiration of the Special Use Permit. The
language has been changed to be consistent with the modification recommended
by the Planning Commission. Secondly, Note 14 has been added stating that all
development sites will be accessed from the internal road network, and no
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
direct access to external roads shall be permitted from any development site.
This is consistent with the desires of the area residents because they were
concerned that one of the development sites was proposed to have direct access
to Route 606, and this note on the plan will foreclose that opportunity. He
also mentioned that the Board members have been provided with information to
bring the text in line with the revised proffers. He went on to say the
Commission has recommended four modifications, and he described these modifi-
cations. The Commission recommended approval of the three categories of
special use permits, with one category pertaining to medical and pharmaceuti-
cal laboratories; one category for supporting commercial uses; and the third
for a hotel, motel or inn. He next pointed out that there is a request for an
amendment to the jurisdictional areas to include the northern portion of this
property into the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area for
public water and sewer, and he noted that this is shown as a separate item on
the agenda. Should the Board decide to approve the request, this amendment
will also require Board's action. He then put up three displays showing
possible locations for the various uses.
Mr. Keeler said he was trying to be as brief as possible by summarizing
the Commission's action on this matter. He mentioned that there have been
some changes in the language, and he specifically spoke about a proffer
dealing with cash contributions for the improvements to Routes 29 and 649.
This has been clarified because the applicants have provided an estimate of
their share of the traffic at full build out compared to background traffic in
the year 2015. This was done in the fall, and it has been reviewed by the
VDoT staff. There is a letter from VDoT included in the attachments basically
indicating VDoT's concurrence with the proposed costs. This is not a substan-
tive change, but it is instead, a matter of clarification.
Mr. Martin recalled a letter stating that the Fire Station could
possibly be on property that was bought off site. Mr. Keeler answered that
the applicant has this option. He went on to say that the fire station will
either be located on Parcel D or off site.
Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing on ZMA-95-04, since there were
no further questions for Mr. Keeler.
Mr. Tim Rose, Chief Operating Engineer of the University of Virginia
Real Estate Foundation, stated that he is pleased to be present to talk about
such an important project for the University of Virginia. He reminded the
Board members that the Foundation members have been working on this project
for approximately two years with the County staff, as well as neighbors living
close to the proposed project and many other people within the community. He
said because of the open communication the Foundation feels this is a much
more thoughtful project today than when it was first started. He reported
that the Foundation members have worked diligently with the County Planning
staff and County Attorneys to address issues relating to the proffers and to
the application, and all of the issues raised by Mr. Keeler, Mr. Davis and Mr.
Cilimberg have been resolved satisfactorily. He referred to the Planning
staff's report documents that the application complies with the amendments of
the Comprehensive Plan. The criteria has been met for this application, and
he urged the Board to vote in favor of it tonight. He then introduced Mr.
Leonard Sandridge, from the University of Virginia. Mr. Sandridge would talk
about why this is such an important project for the University.
Mr. Leonard Sandridge, Executive Vice President of the University of
Virginia, stated that over the last two years discussions of this project have
been held a number of times, including conversations with this Board. He
noted that University representatives have tried very hard to listen to the
concerns which have been expressed, and everything has been done to respond to
those concerns in a way consistent with what the Planning staff thought was
appropriate. Although everything has not been addressed that everyone wanted,
he believes the Supervisors will find that the Foundation has gone further
with this application than any other developer has gone in this community for
a similar project. Among the provisions and commitments made by the Founda-
tion, it has been agreed that the development of the entirety of this project
will be limited to 3,000,000 square feet, which is far below the potential
development of the total site. He pointed out that agreement has also been
reached involving a minimum of 200 acres to be maintained as undeveloped land,
and the large usage water customers will be limited to 125,000 gallons per day
without a special use permit. He said distinct traffic improvements have been
agreed upon tied to specific development densities, and there is a plan to
implement a master stormwater management system, an open space system plan,
February 21, 1996 (Regular Nigh% Meeting)
(Page 14)
000114
and a preservation plan for the historic areas on the site. The Foundation
members have agreed to conform to a land use matrix limiting the allowed uses
which can be developed on each site. A fire station site for the County has
been agreed upon, as well as continuing to provide training for hazardous
materials handling to the County as part of the proffers. The application,
plan and proffers reflect honest give and take on this project with all people
who have been involved. He went on to say the North Fork business project is
something which is much more than just a land use or a real estate decision.
He said it is a decision that is essential in order to ensure the quality of
education, as well as research and programs at the University in order to
prepare for the future.
He explained that the vision for this Park is to create an environment
for true partnerships involving the community, the private sector and the
University. The Park will enable the University to maintain and enhance its
standing as an academic institution, and it will allow opportunities to be
created for research and development involving the private sector. He said it
provides internship opportunities for the students, and today it seems
necessary for all students to have an opportunity for such relationships, and
up to 70 percent choose to do so. He stated that it will create opportunities
for spousal employment which has become a very significant problem for the
University of Virginia in a community of this size, and it will create job
opportunities for residents of the community and graduates of the University.
He went on to say that this Board's approval of this request is essentially a
decision to preserve the strength of the University. University representa-
tives realize the decision to approve a 3,000,000 square foot development is
important to this community and this Board. It is also important to keep in
mind that this request is only for an incremental 500,000 more square feet
than what can already be developed on the currently zoned southern portion of
225 acres. The 3,000,000 square feet request is far less than the site would
potentially accommodate. He commented that development under this proposed
rezoning application provides the community with assurances as to the quality
of the development on the entire site, and not just the part being rezoned.'
For example, it would provide for the flexibility to locate buildings and
other infrastructure so it reduces the impact on the site's most environmen-
tally sensitive portions and the historically sensitive areas. He remarked
that it also allows for development farther from residences and other neigh-
borhoods. Denial of this application means that there will have to be much
more intense development than the University representatives think is in the
best interest of the County or the Park on the southern portion of this site.
He mentioned that the North Fork development is likely to grow very
slowly, and it is not likely this project will build out in less than 20 to 30
years. North Fork will be developed by the University which is an entity with
a stake in this community today, as well as over the long term. The Univer-
sity's interest is to continue to be involved in the project for many years to
come, because the academic programs need the relationship and research
enterprise that can be associated with the private sector. Throughout the
past two years everything has been done to have an open door policy to listen
to what people have to say, and to try to work through their concerns. He
thinks this is a better application as a result of listening to recommenda-
tions received through the planning process, as well as by citizens who have
brought out issues, than it was when it was first submitted. He thinks the
process over the past two years has worked very, very well. He hopes Board
members will believe that University representatives have made an extra effort
to do this right and to commit that the Park will be operated in a way that is
good for this community and the University. It will be an opportunity for
both entities to be proud over the years of what they have done together, and
he noted that the primary goal has been to balance the very goals of this
community with the goals of the University. He thinks this has been achieved,
and he hopes the Supervisors will agree and will be in a position to respond
favorably to this application.
He noted that there are people who are present who will be able to
answer technical questions as well as speak to any specific problematic
issues. He appreciates the time and effort the County staff, this Board and
the Planning Commission have put into this matter over the last two years. It
has been a good experience working together.
Mr. Brian Carlson, a Regional Vice President with State Farm Insurance
Companies, Stated that he is present at this meeting as a past Chairman of the
Chamber of Commerce. He then complimented the County officials relating to a
personal experience. He stated that one of the few times in the seven plus
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
years he has lived here, he called the County regarding his property taxes.
He said the employee answered the phone pleasantly and called him back
promptly with the information he requested. The County employees are doing a
good job. He next gave a brief history of State Farm's experience in this
area. He informed Board members that in June, 1952 the Eastern Office of
State Farm was opened at Barracks Road, and the Daily Progress headlines
indicated that this was good news for everyone in the community. It was also
good news for State Farm. State Farm was located then in what is now
Carruthers Hall, and from 1952 to 1962, the 250 employees grew to be 611. In
the years since, State Farm has grown with the community, and in 1982 there
were 637 employees. By 1992 there were 985 employees, and by the end of this
year, because of a consolidation with the office in Frederick, Maryland, 15
people will be moved here. He emphasized, though, that approximately 40
positions will be created to be hired from the area. By the end of 1996 there
should be 1,100 employees in the State Farm office on Pantops. The Pantops
building opened in 1978 with the ground breaking, and the facility is now at
360,000 square feet with nine acres under roof.
He thinks State Farm has been a good corporate citizen, and its repre-
sentatives have enjoyed being in the County since 1952. He added that some of
the things large employers do today are important, and he spoke from the
standpoint of North Fork and what is occurring there. Three years ago there
was a ground breaking for State Farm's additional 140,000 square feet, and one
of the first things State Farm representatives did was to go to Monticello and
speak with Dan Jordan regarding State Farm's roof. He explained that from the
west porch of Monticello the roof of State Farm can be seen. Additional
monies were spent to put half of the roof in brownstone and half in green
stone so one color would blend in with the summer and one would blend in with
the winter. A lot of large employers think about these things in such a
manner. He mentioned that State Farm currently has 30 vans coming to work
each day, and each van carries approximately 12 employees, which saves on
traffic and emissions. State Farm actually buys the vans, and the employees
contribute a small sum of money for transportation. State Farm has 50 Junior
Achievement volunteers who work with students in the schools, and there are 12
volunteers with Book Buddies. State Farm now has a program where each
employee gets one day off a year in addition to their vacation if they go into
the schools to work with teachers, etc., whether or not they have children.
State Farm has 26 volunteers with United Way, and he pointed out that large
employers will have a financial impact as well. He called attention to the
fact that the local payroll last year was over $44,000,000. He said $285,000
was spent for hotel and restaurant services, $360,000 was spent in local
taxes, and $2,000,000 worth of cars were bought locally which are used
throughout two states. In addition, he mentioned State Farm's financial
contributions. Three years ago State Farm gave Piedmont Virginia Community
College $30,000 to help with its capital campaign, and each year Piedmont is
given an additional $5,000. He stated that MACAA is the recipient of $7,500
from State Farm; Jefferson Area Board for Aging gets $10,000; $45,000 has been
given to the Downtown Mall for a stage; and Martha Jefferson Hospital received
$100,000 for its new addition. A large employer such as State Farm, because
of its affiliation with the University of Virginia, has executive training for
all of the 28 offices throughout the United States and Canada, and recently
the Darden School was selected for this training. Throughout the next few
years all of the top management of State Farm will come to Charlottesville for
training which will also bring tens of thousands of dollars to the community.
He sees North Fork as a first class business community, as well as a place
where other good neighbors such as State Farm may be attracted. The County's
resources need to be retained, but appropriate businesses also need to be
attracted to this area. He encouraged the Board members to vote for this
proposal. Someone 40 years from now may have started their operation in 1997
and could be the type of employer State Farm has been. He thanked the
Supervisors for their time and wished them luck.
Ms. Kathryn Hobbs, President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle County
League of Women Voters read a statement indicating that the League's comments
were being limited to one substantive issue which is water usage and sewage
disposal. She said this issue does not seem to be adequately addressed. (See
statement from the Charlottesville/Albemarle County League of Women Voters to
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, received February 21, 1996.)
Mr. John Jackson, a local State Farm Insurance agent and the current
Chairman of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, stated that he
has lived in the area for over 20 years. He announced that the Chamber's
Board of Directors has empowered him, as well as other leadership, to speak
000 6
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
supporting the rezoning of the North Fork Research Park. He then addressed
the job component and the opportunities of the North Fork Research Park. He
hopes the elected officials of Albemarle County will agree to foster an
economical environment which will offer good paying, well benefited jobs to
County citizens. He emphasized that the business mix which will be attracted
to the Park will offer this, because there will be small and medium size
business occupants who can afford attractive facilities, as well as a talented
work force. Studies show that these occupants will employ between 50 and 200
employees with top wages and benefits and that most of the work force will be
hired locally. Already there are concrete cases to support these studies such
as MicroAire Surgical Instruments and Motion Control. He added that they are
the first two occupants, and they are precisely this type of relocation. Both
are well financed, both will have attractive facilities and both pay and
benefit their employees well. Both are starting out very small with very
little relocated work force, and they will grow after they arrive. He
mentioned that the Chamber's theme this year is, nOn line to meet change."
He went on to say change can be good when it provides good jobs and good
benefits and if it can help alleviate underemployment in our area. Unless
local officials are very careful, employment options for Charlottesville
citizens will continue to come predominantly from lower paying retail and
service sectors. This Research Park will help balance this trend and help
protect the County from the expected attrition of other large employers. He
remarked that Murray Manufacturing Company, which is leaving the area, may not
be the only large employer that will need to be replaced in the future. He
thanked the Supervisors for their support of the Albemarle business and the
Albemarle worker and encouraged them to vote in favor of the rezoning amend-
ment.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council
(PEC), stated that he appreciates the time the Supervisors have spent with
individual members of the community. He is pleased to report that the
Piedmont Environmental Council agrees with the Chamber of Commerce on this
project and the comments just made by Mr. Jackson. PEC very strongly supports
economic growth in Albemarle County, and thinks the policies adopted by this
Board speak of diversity, as well as a phasing of development to which the
community can adjust and absorb. This is exactly the type of development that
is being offered by the Research Park. The University is certainly the
pivotal support of this community and he believes Mr. Sandridge, as well as
others, intend to do what they say. However, PEC's support has a caveat.
Rather than the unlimited ability to develop as much of 3,000,000 square feet
which is a very substantial amount of zoning in this community, a balance
needs to be obtained, which shows that beyond a certain size there is a second
look for the Board of Supervisors.
PEC has done an analysis of the proposal and has specifically looked at
several of the parcels. PEC's initial analysis indicates that on just one of
the parcels, given the Zoning proposal accepted as it has been proposed and
consistent with the County's requirements on steep slope development, setbacks
and parking requirements, the kind of development that could proceed once this
zoning is granted without further discretionary review by this Board or any
other County agency is that nearly 3,000,000 square feet under roof on one
site could be realized employing up to 2,000 or more people. PEC does not
think this will likely happen and does not believe it is the intent of the
University representatives that this will happen, but once the zoning has been
approved, whether or not this type of thing can happen is no longer a matter
which can be addressed by this Board. The point of PEC's proposal is for a
Zoning Text Amendment designed to allow a reasonable amount of development up
to a certain limit be adopted as a part of the County officials' process in
reviewing this issue. PEC has not gotten a response to its proposal, but
Council members still believe this offers a reasonable compromise.
He has met with Mr. Rose and understands quite clearly from him that
this limitation, while it is not inconsistent with the University representa-
tives' expectations for the Research Park, is unacceptable to them, and they
feel they need no limitations other than the ones they have proposed of
3,000,000 square feet. He noted that there would be no limitations on the
rate or speed with which this 3,000,000 square feet cap could be reached. Mr.
Lindstrom said he understands from their perspective the importance of this
because they want flexibility to be able to market the project. However, he
suggested that there is a conflict between what they are saying they expect
and desire and the flexibility they are requesting when they reject any
possible limit on the development which can occur in terms of the speed in
O00 fl.?
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
which the 3,000,000 square feet can be realized. He mentioned that to impose
a limit of the nature that he has suggested simply allows the County officials
a second look, although he is not by any means saying the Supervisors may not
agree to the proposal. He is simply saying that they would have the discre-
tion of considering companies beyond a certain square footage. He understands
the concern if such a limitation is imposed, because he heard one of the
Supervisors say the University representatives would probably remove them-
selves from the project. He encouraged the Supervisors, though, to take a
careful look at this issue. The University representatives have said to many
of the Supervisors, as they have said to him, that this limit is unacceptable.
The University has zoned 220 acres, and with some intensive development,
2,500,000 square feet could be realized on this acreage. PEC's analysis in
looking at the development of these parcels has indicated that while it is
theoretically possible, it would require very expensive development. He said
this would not have to happen, if the whole parcel is developed, because the
more desirable parcels for development are on the north end of this project.
He remarked, though, that a more grave concern for some of the Supervi-
sors is that if the University representatives decide not to pursue this
project further, the proffers which have been made would be lost. He recalled
many hours reading every version of the proffers which have been available to
him. He has not read the ones for tonight's meeting, because they were not
made available to the public until the last minute. The proffers, in his
estimation, add very little to the public benefits. If the University decides
that a limit on the size of facility that would be allowed by right is
unacceptable and backs off from this proposal and drops the proffers, he
believes the County officials would be able to realize reasonably significant
percentages of what has been offered in the proffers. He is not saying the
proffers are not expensive, because they will cost the University a substan-
tial amount of money. He is saying that he believes site planning and
subdivision process without the proffers would give the County officials the
authority to require those improvements anyway, because they have the author-
ity to require reasonable improvements to offset the impact of development.
This is something that has been done in this County for decades. He commented
that he has a great deal of respect for the people who have spoken to this
Board on behalf of the University. He believes they say what they mean, and
they are sincere. He has had the privilege of being a member of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, and he has heard people say things that he
sincerely believes they meant at the time. He has though, always recognized
that the community's ability to be sure cannot rest upon private assurances of
what will happen, because circumstances can change, priorities can change,
administration can change and ownership can change on a parcel. If for some
reason the University's obligation changes, or the General Assembly imposes
different responsibilities or a different perspective, or if the administra-
tion changes, or if a part or all of this parcel is sold, which is completely
legal and authorized by these proffers, then the Supervisors may be dealing
with somebody whose interests and obligations to this community are entirely
different. If the Supervisors approve this proposal, they will have turned
over to whoever it may be, whenever they may own this parcel, the future of
3,000,000 square feet of industrial commercial capacity in this community. He
added that the rate, speed and the manner in which it will develop will no
longer be a matter to which the Supervisors can speak because they will have
basically given up their opportunity to speak for the public. This is
particularly crucial on this type of proposal because proffered rezonings by
state law may not be rezoned without the consent of the landowner unless it
can be shown that there has been substantial change of circumstances affecting
public health, safety and welfare. This isn't the kind of rezoning where the
Supervisors can decide five or ten years later in the comprehensive rethinking
of the County's plan that it was a mistake. He reiterated that the Supervi-
sors will not get another look at this situation, if they do what is proposed.
He stated that PEC members are asking that the Supervisors allow a reasonable
development pattern up to 3,000,000 square feet but in manageable slices to
which this community can adjust and absorb. He said PEC suggests employment
facilities between 100 and 200 people, and urges upon the Board of Supervisors
the need to protect the character and quality of the community. He said that
what he is saying is reiterated over and over again in the Comprehensive Plan,
as well as the Economic Development Policy, and it is consistent with the
Chamber's recommendation and Mr. Sandridge's comments. There is a very slim
chance that some large employer will come into this project, but if the
Supervisors approve this project, it will be a chance that the Supervisors
have succeeded in allowing to happen. PEC is simply asking the County
officials to eliminate this possibility and to have the opportunity to take a
second look.
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
000 8
Mr. Martin stated that he considers Mr. Lindstrom an expert on these
types of issues, but some of his comments did not seem to go together. He
recalled Mr. Lindstrom saying that on 235 already zoned acres, a facility of
2,500,000 square feet could be put there, and the County officials would have
substantial control without the proffers. However, by increasing the square
footage by 500,000 and accepting the proffers, they are losing their control.
He asked why, if they have so much power over 2,500,000 square feet, would an
increase of 500,000 square feet plus proffers give them no authority.
Mr. Lindstrom answered that under current law and ordinance if the
property is not rezoned, he believes the Supervisors can obtain essentially
what the applicant has proffered, and the County will not be in a substan-
tially worse position with respect to things the proffers cover. The proffers
do not cover any phasing of this property. These things are usually evaluated
in terms of risk, but the risk in asking for a limit on what can be done by
right is very little on the downside. The community will not face a project
that will have any greater impact on it if the property is not rezoned than it
will if it is rezoned. He then mentioned one exception. If there is an
opportunity, because of the fact that this proffer applies to the entire
tract, to establish some reasonable limit as far as what can be done by right,
then this is a significant advantage to the County. He suggested that this
type of limit be structured. If County officials are concerned that by doing
so, it will drive the University representatives back to the original zoning,
it would not be a significant risk. There is upside potential for the benefit
of the community and little downside potential because the County ordinances
give the Supervisors the authority to get what they want through the proffers.
If this limit is set, the danger of pursuing it would be that the applicant
would drop this particular approach to the project. He reiterated that this
is not a significant danger because he thinks the same public offsets can be
received through the site plan and subdivision process that can be received
through these proffers. There is a significant advantage to the developer to
develop according to this proposal because to realize that amount of potential
on the southern portion of the property would make development quite costly.
In addition to this rezoning request, there are three special permits. He has
heard developers say over and over again that if a certain thing is done, then
the developer will have to do something else. It is always important to take
this remark seriously, but it is also important to consider where the County
will be if something else is done. He thinks there are significant induce-
ments to the developer to proceed with this project, but he urged the Supervi-
sors to suggest a limit as to what can be done by right that is reasonable and
allows the applicants to develop the type of multi-use, diverse, medium to
small industry pattern they have described. It gives the Board of Supervisors
a second chance with very big projects. He reiterated that he does not think
the downside risks of this are very great.
Mr. Jack Marshall, a resident of the White Hall District, was concerned
that the Supervisors not lose perspective in discussion of the Park. He is
tempted to spend his time at this meeting asking the Supervisors to focus on
the 500 acres of the Park, itself, demanding that it be as green and as
environmentally sound as an industrial park can be. He hopes the Supervisors
will consider the bigger picture which is what effect the Industrial Park will
have on the 740 square miles of Albemarle County surrounding it. This
Industrial Park will forever change the face of the County because it is the
single most mammoth development project ever to be proposed here. The last
Comprehensive Plan estimated that in 1990, there were a little over 2,000,000
square feet of buildings devoted to industrial use in the entire County. He
pointed out that the new UREF Industrial Park has the potential by buildout
for approximately 3,000,000 square feet of buildings devoted to industrial,
commercial and office use. The new site provides the opportunity for County
industry to more than double. The new industries will directly or indirectly
lure to the County lots of new families, and he estimated that it would be
between 15,000 to 25,000 more people. If people believe that these new jobs
created by the Industrial Park will be filled by local folks, then they are
deluding themselves. These new families will come from outside the County,
and they will not unreasonably expect good schools for their children,
adequate landfills for their garbage, clean water for their baths, etc.
Unless Albemarle County is somehow different from every other American
community, the tax revenue obtained from new residents will not pay for the
cost of the additional services they will demand. He predicted that taxes
will increase, and the quality of life will probably go down. Continuing a
trend evident for some years now, some o the residential growth will occur in
the neighboring counties which will also inherit the costs of the new ser-
vices.
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
000 9
He mentioned a trend for Albemarle County residents over the last few
decades to become older, richer and whiter. The odds are pretty good that
high tech industrial growth, regardless of the quality and corporate citizen-
ship of the individual companies, will fuel this trend. The anticipated
influx of new families will increase the speculative value of land and thus of
real estate taxes, making it even harder for people who are not rich to find
an affordable place to live. He asked the Supervisors to keep in mind the
growth he just described in addition to the normal growth if there were no
UREF Park. The current growth without the new Park is approximately two
percent each year. This means the population will double in 35 years, even in
the absence of the UREF Industrial Park. There is no reason to believe that
unless the strategy for growth is changed significantly this recent historical
pattern of growth will stop in the near future. He said with or without the
Park, the Charlottesville/Albemarle area will still be attractive to retirees,
professionals who can work from their home office, and people setting up new
businesses in this regional commercial center. Industries in the new indus-
trial Park will add to this growth. It will speed up the County's doubling
population time from the current 35 years to 25 to 30 years meaning that in
this amount of time schools will have to be doubled, as well as roads and
whatever else is demanded by the people. He recalled that for years the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area was a one horse community and the horse was the
University, which ambled along at a moderate pace accelerating slowly.
In the last 30 years this community has gotten more complicated as other
industries moved in, and as the roll expanded to the commercial center of the
region, it is not a one horse community any longer. At least a pair of horses
is pulling the growth and the area is moving faster. The North Fork Business
Park adds at least another trace of horses to the wagon, and will accelerate
growth to the point where it may be impossible to manage it effectively. He
said a lot of people are afraid that before long they will be able to do
nothing except hold on. It is more important than ever to keep the reins in
hand so some control can be given to the pace and direction of this community.
One way this can be done is for the Supervisors to review the individual users
within the Industrial Park. At least users over a certain size should be
examined as they petition to move in and they should be required to obtain a
special use permit if they contribute to the long range good of this commu-
nity. He would also like for the Board of Supervisors to parcel out the
number of industrial square feet that can be built each year, which is another
way to pace and control growth based on available water, traffic congestion
and waste disposal facilities, etc. Through these mechanisms and others, as
well as using public hearings where everyone can voice their views, people
will be able to see what they are getting into step by step. He believes this
approach will permit the community to exercise some control of the future
growth rather than allowing future growth to control this community.
Mr. John Sacuto, a member of the Steering Committee for Lake Acres,
stated that he pays taxes, owns a home, buys decals for his car and a license
for his dog. Recently he and his neighbors have been working in close
cooperation with representatives of the University Foundation, and a series of
proffers have been developed. He emphasized that he was taken aback when one
of the speakers implied that the public was not going to benefit by these
proffers. He never passed physics with any great success, but he remembers
breaking down an element, which would take a lot of dissolving and diluting,
but it would finally come down to a grain of salt. He stated that, relating
to this issue, he and his neighbors are the grains of salt. The area's
acreage borders old Route 66, and it is directly across from the University's
525 acres, which is now being used as a picturesque country pasture for Mr.
Crickenberger's cows, seven nests of raptors, two families of pileated
woodpeckers and numerous birds. He and the other neighbors like this arrange-
ment a lot. This proposal goes back about seven years, and he moved here
about eight and one-half years ago. At point in time, he resented even the
name of the University of Virginia. Over a period of time, though, with the
leadership that has been representative of members of the Foundation, as well
as Mr. Sandridge and others, the residents have had a dialogue and he felt as
though they were treated as members of the public. The residents indicated
their dislike of the project and noted that it would have an effect on them.
He said they told Foundation representatives that they wanted to keep their
country lane and the University representatives met with the residents
unselfishly. He stated that the residents felt good about it. In the
beginning the last thing he wanted was an industrial park across from his
property, but the residents were satisfied that a respected University such as
the University of Virginia, does not plan for failure. He said they plan for
success, but he wondered what price would have to be paid for it. The
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
000 20
leadership of this Foundation and the University at the present time have
impressed the residents with the fact that they have listened to the commu-
nity. If he was asked to speak truthfully about the project, he would say he
really doesn't want it, but if the project is presented as something the
University will be developing, then that is fine. There are a couple of
things bothering him. If he had a choice he would not disturb the habitat of
two pileated woodpeckers to provide a job for a professor's wife moving in
from Texas. At a meeting on this project a couple of years ago a couple of
the developers said there were Darden School graduates working as fry cooks
for McDonald's. His answer is that they had better check the curriculum at
Darden School. As far as jobs are concerned, it is fine, because consider-
ation is being given to 20 to 30 years in the future. He trusts the Univer-
sity representatives, and he thinks they are acting in good faith. When other
developers come to this Board, he hopes the Supervisors and Planning Commis-
sion will review those proposals with as much scrutiny and deliberation as
they are doing with the University. He has seen signs being installed
offering property for sale since the information has been in the newspaper
about the University applying for this Industrial Park permit.
Ms. Lisa Harmon, current President of the Earlysville Area Residents
League (EARL), stated that there are a number of attractive aspects of this
project. Few people would argue that bringing more jobs and higher quality
jobs into the area is a good thing, and the concept of a planned development
is also a plus for the project, as is the preservation of open space.
However, she mentioned that the magnitude of this project at completion is
such that transportation issues, quality and availability of water, questions
of refuse disposal, possible acceleration of residential growth and the
resulting impact on County schools and services are all areas of concern for
her community. It is realized that if the construction of the Industrial Park
actually occurs gradually over the next 20 to 30 years as UREF has projected,
some of these areas could be of less concern as proper planning can occur.
She stated, though, if UREF representatives were to find buyers or tenants for
all of its lots and the financial resources were available, the project could
be completed within a much shorter time span.
She then highlighted a few areas of the EARL survey conducted in 1994
which speaks to some of the residents' priorities and feelings about their
community. She noted that 83 percent of Earlysville residents ranked the
small town environment and preserving rural landscape and natural beauty as
their first or second priority. This was among six categories which also
included commercial development, housing affordability, diversity of residen-
tial dwelling and quality of the road system. She stated that 75 percent of
EARL members wanted to see growth slow and controlled. When asked about what
types of industrial or commercial businesses residents would like to see in
the Earlysville area, the EARL members gave the following ratings: Assembly -
three percent strongly support, 45 percent strongly oppose; Manufacturing -
one percent strongly supports, 60 percent strongly oppose; distribution - five
percent strongly support, 48 percent strongly oppose; office space - 15
percent strongly support, 21 percent strongly oppose; research and develop-
ment, 13 percent strongly support, 38 percent strongly oppose; and hotels
three percent strongly support, 56 percent strongly oppose. As far as
services provided by the County, the EARL residents listed their top priority
as area schools with 48 percent listing that in the number one spot. She also
pointed out that an area of the survey to note is that 60 percent of the
residents listed walking paths as a top recreational priority and need.
Unfortunately, the walking and hiking paths for the proposed development are
no longer to be open to the public.
She next stated that in the County survey and in an amendment to the
actual materials presented by UREF in Appendix L, Page One, Item Number Three
it states that County residents place importance on job opportunity and
economic growth but not at the expense of the protection and preservation of
water quality, natural resources, farmland, historic areas and open space. In
the Spring of 1994, the Albemarle County Planning Needs Survey rating of long
term community planning goals such as bringing more jobs to the area had an
average rating of 2.4 percent, with one being not so important, two being
somewhat important and three being very important. She added that protecting
water quality scored an average of 2.86 percent; preserving natural resources
and open space had an average of 2.73 percent; preserving farmland's average
was 2.68; and preserving historic buildings had an average of 2.53 percent.
As an individual citizen, she commented that UREF's North Fork property is
said to be uniquely suited for the type of development envisioned because it
is under single control. This was being stated while the Planning staff was
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
000±2
indicating that there was already a significant amount of industrial land
designated in the County. She said because UREF's property was to be under
single control, it was uniquely suited for this consideration. UREF officials
presented this project originally in terms of tenants who would lease prop-
erty, but the first two lots were sold, and now there are three entities
sharing this control. Some of the original concessions and considerations
that UREF representatives seemed prepared to make at the beginning of this
process are not included in the current proffers. The interdependence between
the County and the University still exists as it did in February, so she
wondered if the difference is related to the influencing factors in the
changes to the proffers. One can only hope this is not a foreshadowing of
what is to come.
Mr. Charles Trachta, Vice President of the Woodbrook Homeowners Associa-
tion, thanked the Board of Supervisors for having this public hearing. He
said the Supervisors have to listen to people who are upset and concerned
about proposals, and many times they are made the target of the people's
frustration. He is sure there are times the Supervisors feel their work is
not appreciated, but this is not true. Most people in this County appreciate
their efforts, but sometimes they let their frustrations get the better of
them. The people coming before this body do so with good intentions. He
commented that they are not trying to ruin a deal or upset negotiations but,
instead, they are trying to be heard. Many times the public appears here or
before the Commission for the first time supporting or opposing an issue which
has been in the news for some time. The fault usually lies with the individ-
ual for not paying enough attention, but other times it is for more valid
reasons. He is proud so many people come to speak at these public hearings,
but if a way could be found to keep the level of frustration down, it would be
a lot better.
Mr. Trachta went on to say members of his community board have discussed
the UREF proposal, and find it hard not to support it. His board understands
the concerns for the neighborhoods around the Park, but he believes the
complex being proposed will be good for the County because it will bring high
tech and white collar job opportunities to Albemarle County. This proposal is
not bad even for most employees relocating here when their companies open
their doors, because housing is currently available and more is being planned.
Presently the County is enjoying very low unemployment and cannot support
these companies and their needs today, but employment opportunities which
these companies will present, will be available for the County's children. It
is hoped these children will have a chance to remain in the vicinity when they
are grown and will have an opportunity to work in a field not related to the
fast food industry. The complex of 3,000,000 square feet on 485 acres will be
more attractive and environmentally sound than one of 2,500,000 square feet on
228 acres. He realizes the additional acreage, which the Foundation owns,
will be eventually used. By accepting this proposal now, it may be guaranteed
that the density of the complex will be something with which the community can
live. He then mentioned a concern that 125,000 gallons of water a day would
be allowed to the different companies. The County has a very limited water
supply, and if planned developments both at Hollymead and around Route 29
South move forward, it will put a much greater demand on this limited re-
source. The Foundation representatives could ease the concern by changing the
proffer and further limiting the water use from 125,000 to a lower figure,
although the clause which allows individual tenants to petition this Board for
additional usage should remain in effect.
Ms. Jody Webber remarked that she is currently an Earlysville resident
but she was also born there and grew up there. She and her husband are
alarmed at the general surge of little restricted growth in the rural areas
and specifically by the projected growth due to the North Fork Industrial
Park. They have seen first hand what lack of control, overdevelopment and
unrestrained growth will do to an area. For almost ten years they lived just
outside of Princeton, New Jersey and what used to be a charming college town
surrounded by farms has rapidly turned into solid suburban sprawl over the
last few years. Now there is control, but it is too late, and the result is
that there are no farms left and no scenic views. However, she emphasized
that there are overcrowded schools where children work in the halls for lack
of space, the roads are so crowded that her five mile commute sometimes took
45 minutes, and there are skyrocketing property taxes. Over a seven year
period her taxes on a three bedroom one and one-half bath house went from
$2,350 a year to $6,119 a year. She said corporate headquarters such as Dow
Jones, Squibb, Carter Wallace, Educational Testing Service and others were
built in their 100 to 200 acre parks and devoured the farmland and acted as
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
magnets drawin9 people from all over to relocate near Princeton. Much of
this land was developed by the real estate development arm of Princeton, New
Jersey, and the economic, environmental and visual damage to the existin9
community was enormous and irreversible. The increased noise pollution due to
the heavy use of corporate jets and helicopters left the residents with no
refuge, not even in their own homes. She then strongly urged the County
officials to fully use their tools to control 9rowth and to research ways to
develop new ones when the present tools prove ineffective. She says this in
spite of the fact that she can personally be financially affected by County
policies which rein in future development. She pointed out that she and her
husband own 30 acres of land in Albemarle County, and her parents own 155
acres, but she feels that treatin9 land as real estate is only one way to
value property. She recognizes that continued rampant 9rowth will destroy the
very quality of life which makes Albemarle County a special place to live, and
this is the quality of life which she wishes to preserve and leave as a legacy
to her children.
Ms. Karen Strickland, a resident of Albemarle County, distributed some
pictures of Tyson's Corner, Virginia. She followed the UREF proposal from the
Comprehensive Plan level but had refrained from speakin9 out because her
family's incomes come from the University of Virginia. She was waitin9 to see
what others would say, but few others have spoken. She wondered if this means
that everybody else is in favor of this project, or they don't care, or they
don't realize just what all of this will mean. She referred to the community
survey where new jobs were strongly encouraged by 78 percent of the respon-
dents, but she emphasized that new jobs don't come without costs. Somewhere
the educational process has failed in makin9 people understand that 9rowth has
costs. Taxes will have to 9o up to meet the demands of new people comin9 in,
and water quality will deteriorate, as it already has. She then referred to
the pictures of Tyson's Corner she distributed and explained that one was
taken in 1963 and the other was taken 26 years later in 1989. It is a
dramatic difference, and if anyone has been there recently, he or she will
recognize that the difference has been even more dramatic durin9 the last
number of years. She commented that this can happen here. She su99ested if
the Supervisors 9et frustrated tonight by the outpourin9 of sentiment, and if
they wonder where all of these people were before tonight, they should look to
the County's process. She asked where are the bi9 signs on the UREF property,
because, as far as she knows, the UREF property has no rezonin9 sign visible
from Routes 29, 649 or 606. She wondered where are the newsletters to
community 9roups explainin9 what has been planned and what it means, and where
are the bi9 notices in the newspaper. In today's newspaper she had a letter
to the editor and the date of the public hearin9 was deleted. She specifi-
cally put the public hearin9 date in her letter so people would know this is
the chance to come and talk. She also mentioned that in the Daily Progress
editorial there was no mention of the fact that this was the last time for the
public to have a chance to make comments. She inquired if this is to ensure
that people don't have a chance to speak out while there is still a chance to
do so. She then su99ested the Supervisors read an editorial in the Daily
Progress, and they will see the simplistic thinkin9 to which people are bein9
exposed. Everythin9 sounds fine on the surface, but facts are misleadin9.
She then stated, in rebuttal to the editorial, that development brings
commercial industrial development closer to the residences, contrary to the
information published that residents will be further away from the industrial
commercial area. She also mentioned that the newspaper listed 12,500 9allons
of water as requirin9 a special use permit, which is a bi9 difference from the
actual 125,000 9allons. She asked which County officials are 9oin9 to be
involved in this matter, what citizen input will there be and which accountin9
oversight will be used in determinin9 when the supply overreaches the demand.
She remarked that then the article indicates that there should be trust
because UVa will be the landlord. Good plannin9 should not depend on trustin9
the developer. She stated that 9ood plannin9 should evolve from a thought,
fact filled process. She referred to the fact that the first two lots have
already been sold. She said as public sentiment against the University arises
because of what is happenin9 to the quality of life in the area, the Univer-
sity representatives might sell the whole project and the zonin9 will 9o with
the land. She wondered what chance will the citizens then have to help mold
their community. She emphasized that the Supervisors should not 9ire away the
citizen's opportunity to help create the community they want to continue to be
able to enjoy. If the Supervisors cannot deny the whole rezonin9 request, at
least they should require a special permit process, so as the area continues
to 9row and change, and future citizens will have a chance to be involved in
the design of their community and control of their quality of life.
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
000 23
Mr. Pat Reilly, a representative of Motion Control Industries, spoke on
behalf of the rezoning effort. His company is a medium size manufacturing
company which makes heavy duty brake linings for tractor trailers. He stated
that Motion Control's high volume manufacturing plant is located in
Spotsylvania County. His company has been located there for 14 years, it is a
very nice operation, and it is the most productive brake lining plant in the
world. Motion Control's officials find themselves in a position where in
order to stay competitive and grow and to keep the tradition of the company,
which has been around since the 1930s, they have to take a look at research
and development opportunities and expand those to a point where they can be
more competitive. It is for this reason North Fork Business Park is being
considered. The key issue of why his company is coming to Albemarle County
with this part of the business is the relationship his company representatives
have found with the University of Virginia. Originally the plan was to
consider Spotsylvania County and Indiana, but research was done and the
University's resources were considered, as well as the opportunities the
University could give his company. He noted, too, that the University
representatives' vision for the future aligned with that of his company
representatives. The facility is a technical center with approximately 25,000
square feet; with 15,000 square feet dedicated to testing, 5,000 square feet
dedicated to labs and office space for research and another 5,000 square feet
for future administration to relocate to this center. He cannot say enough
about University representatives and what they have done for his company. It
was a scary thing for his company officials to make this venture. He referred
to the fact that the word trust has been mentioned here tonight several times,
and he said it has been a slow process to develop a relationship, but it has
been based on getting to know each other. The University representatives took
time to understand his company's business, and they opened the doors for them
to understand their vision. It has basically been an enlightening experience.
The University has an image and a tradition, and it is typically a customer
oriented type of organization. It is a first class outfit which is the type
of place his company wants to be and the kind of University with which they
want to deal. He next noted that the University is going to offer his company
the opportunity to work with the faculty and students. He mentioned the
internship program where he hopes there will be a good source of new engi-
neers to add to the testing facility. He also hopes to have approximately 50
people working in the facility within the next three years, and the majority
of those will be hired locally. There will be engineering and technical
people employed, as well as blue collar people who aren't degree people but
have technical skills which will adapt to the testing facility. He said
administrative people will be hired also, so he thinks his company has a lot
to offer right from the start. He then mentioned that University representa-
tives would not be considering his company if it was not the kind of company
which would be good for the community. The Foundation representatives did a
good job making sure his company was the right one with the right people to
fit into North Fork, and they did everything they could to ensure they would
be good neighbors. He emphasized that Motion Control is a very community
oriented company. He suggested that people could call Spotsylvania County and
ask what Motion Control has done for that area. They will find that his
company is a pace setter group for the United Way. His small company employs
approximately 90 people, and it actually has the highest average employee
contribution of any company in the Rappahannock region. Company employees are
involved in leadership positions with the Chamber of Commerce, and there are
partnerships with elementary, middle and high schools. There are employees
working with local organizations such as the Kiwanis Club and his company has
taken part in two capital campaigns with the YMCA which is trying to expand
and build a gymnasium for the community. He also mentioned that Motion
Control sponsors scholarships at Mary Washington College. Motion Control is
this type of company, and he believes this is the type of company which will
be coming into North Fork as it is developed. This is basically because of
the integrity of the University officials and the job they have done in making
sure they are getting the right people. He welcomed any questions people
might have and indicated people could call him in Spotslvania County any time.
Mr. Marshall asked what Mr. Reilly considers an entry level job at
Motion Control. Mr. Reilly responded that an annual income for an entry level
technician operating in the testing area would probably be a base salary of
approximately $20,000 to $30,000. These particular jobs have overtime which
will increase the employees income. For entry level administration people,
his Human Resource Department will work with the Chamber of Commerce and the
community to do a good wage and benefit review. He went on to say it is hoped
his company will be in the top ten percent of incomes and benefits in the
area. He said it might be different here, but typically this is how things
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
000 24
are done with this company. In Spotsylvania County his company has a very
good network with the Personnel Association, and through that as well as the
Chamber of Commerce, a good survey is done so the people are paid the right
wages and benefits.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she had a phone call from the President of
MicroAire, who said he couldn't be here tonight because he had to be in
Atlanta at a trade show. He wanted to make sure, though, that the Supervisors
knew what a good relationship MicroAire has with the University. In response
to Mrs. Humphris' question about his labor force, he responded that his
company brought one-third of its people with them. They tried to hire the
remainder here but had to hire them throughout Virginia, because there were
not enough technical people available to fill the jobs. She said he was
pleased his company was located here, and he complimented the University
highly as far as the interrelationships his company representatives have with
University representatives.
Mr. Jim Ballheim, speaking on behalf of the Southwest Mountain Coali-
tion, said his group is interested in preserving the countryside which is what
everybody enjoys and values so much. He referred to Mr. Reilly's comments,
and he said nobody would have any opposition to seeing ten such companies in
this project. It was especially interesting to hear Mr. Carlson's remarks
about State Farm employing approximately 200 people in 1952 and 40 years later
its employees number 1,100. This is good for Albemarle County, but the
Coalition is concerned about having a company as large as State Farm arriving
in the area right now. He then asked the Supervisors to limit the magnitude
of this project, and not open the door to big outsiders, which will result in
a surge of migration and bring more pressure on development in the rural
areas. Members of the Coalition feel the Supervisors should impose a limit on
the size allowed by right, although he is unsure of how to go about setting
this limit. However, it probably could be done by limiting the square footage
of projects so people will have to come back to this Board for approval of
larger projects. He said UREF representatives need the freedom to bring in
small and medium size companies, but the current plan is not going to limit
growth. The Supervisors can allow growth to happen gradually and hopefully be
managed. He is not questioning the integrity of University officials, and if
the University was always going to be involved in this venture, then maybe
everybody would be at ease. UREF should be viewed as any business coming in
with a request. A plan is being presented, and he thinks University officials
really want the project to be beneficial to the community, and they want to
take the community's needs into consideration. However, they ultimately have
a responsibility to the State and they have to provide a return on an invest-
ment. If there is the opportunity to make a profit by bringing in a large
business or selling the entire project, he does not believe the Supervisors
will really feel confident that the University will have a sense of responsi-
bility greater to the community than to the State. The Coalition members
would feel more confident, and they believe the rest of the people in the
County who elected the Supervisors to represent them would feel more confi-
dent, if the Board of Supervisors would hold onto the responsibility of
determining what is best for the community. He feels this is the responsibil-
ity of the current Board as well as future Boards. The Coalition is not
asking the Supervisors to reject anything now, but to consider individually
anything large enough to have a profound effect on the County. If UREF or
some future owner of this project comes to this Board in two years with a
proposal involving a large company, a decision can be made based on its merits
at the time, if this responsibility is retained. If the responsibility is
given away tonight, the property owners will not even ask this Board.
He also reminded the Board members that all of them have been involved
in a lot of meetings the last couple of years to come up with an Economic
Development Policy for the County, and all of them voted unanimously for this
policy. (Mr. Marshall disagreed.) Mr. Ballheim said he did not believe that
Mr. Marshall was present when the vote was taken. Mr. Ballheim went on to
read several parts of the Economic Development Policy which he believes are
pertinent to this issue. He then summed up his remarks by asking the Supervi-
sors to keep the control they have now, and he emphasized that it is also
their responsibility to maintain this control for the future.
Ms. Kathy Bryant, a resident of Chris Greene Lake Road, stated that she
was a part of the steering committee for Lake Acres. She said there is a
Neighborhood Issues Agreement with UREF concerning things such as a buffer,
repaying the dirt road and low lighting, etc., but now it is time to address
the bigger issues, because the residents in her neighborhood did not try to
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
000 25
address the County-wide issues. She then voiced concern about the referrals
she had heard the last few months regarding the growing urban area in
Hollymead and Piney Mountain. She bought her home in 1988, this was a rural
area, and the urban area was Woodbrook and south. Now the talk is about an
urban area centered around Forest Lakes, the Airport, and Route 29 up to and
beyond GE Fanuc. She asked if the Supervisors want to create a Charlottes-
ville North in this part of the County, because that is what this project will
involve. She agreed with Mr. Sacuto that signs were put up advertising
commercial property along Airport Road, Route 606 and Route 29 two weeks after
the Planning Commission considered this proposal. This is going to snowball
very quickly. She recalled that when the Board of Supervisors changed the
Comprehensive Plan in December, 1994 for UREF, the public protested. Her
husband and several other Lake Acre residents were present as well as other
residents in the County protesting this change, and they were told then that
the big issues of schools, fire protection, water availability, sewage and
roads would be considered at the rezoning. This is the time to consider these
issues. Many other people feel strongly about this matter, and there were
several people who would have liked to speak tonight, but they all have
spouses who work at the University and were afraid of retribution. She said,
though, they agree with many of the things she is saying. The Supervisors are
running the County's business, and hard facts are needed to evaluate this
proposal. This development was supposed to be applied to the County Fiscal
Impact Model, but the committee decided not to use the model for this develop-
ment, because it was so large and it would be the first time using the impact
model. Using a lot of research techniques, etc., she has developed some costs
and factors the Supervisors need to consider. The Board of Supervisors
represents all of the citizens of Albemarle County, and this involves planning
for the future as well as any impacts on the quality of life the citizens will
face. This is not a high unemployment area, and the economy does not need to
be kick started. Maybe the first two or three businesses in the Park will be
able to hire locally, but their representatives have already said they have
had to look throughout Virginia to get the employees they need, She pointed
out that when 3,000,000 square feet are considered, the estimates have ranged
from 6,700 to 12,000 new employees. UREF's estimate of 6,700 employees is the
lowest, and this does not take into account any multiplication factor for
families with aunts and uncles and grandparents.
She then addressed housing and asked where these people will live,
because most of them would want to live close to where they work. She called
attention to the fact that the growth area south of town was just expanded,
but the Hollymead/Piney Mountain growth area was not. She asked why should
there be an industrial park in this part of the County which will create a
huge demand for housing. She mentioned the school redistricting public
hearing held this past Monday night, where the parents there all said the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors had to get ahead of the
school problem and the school budget crisis. This has got to be planned
before hand, and she asked that there not be a redistricting issue every few
years. Her children were redistricted out of Hollymead last year, because it
was overcrowded. Her neighborhood was one of the oldest in the area, and most
of the older neighborhoods were pulled out of the district. The current
school budget crisis reflects all the growth which has been approved during
the past six years, and this factor has to be part of the Supervisors'
equation. She said 6,700 new households using accounting multiplier factors
amounts to 1,700 new elementary school students, or if they are in three
bedroom separate homes, it will be 2,700 elementary students. She mentioned
that middle school students add another 675 to 925 students. She referred to
the new school proposed for the northern part of the County which is scheduled
to be open in the year 2000, and she wondered where the other 1,700 students
will go. She said it will require approximately three new County schools
somewhere in the northern part of the County. She noted that Hollymead,
Broadus Wood and Stony Point Elementary Schools are almost at their maximums,
which is an important factor to the current residents of the County. She
recalled some of the Supervisors saying there will be no new taxes. She asked
how these schools will be built and paid for if taxes are not increased. She
referred to Ms. Webber's comments about her taxes increasing to $6,100. Ms.
Bryant said her relatives in New York pay approximately that much, and retired
people can't afford that, or if a spouse dies, the one who is left can't
afford it. She wondered how such a thing can be done to Albemarle County
residents.
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
She next mentioned that water availability has been addressed by several
people tonight. She explained that all of the Lake Acres residents have
wells, but when 3,000,000 square feet is paved, as well as the roads and
parking lots, how will the water perk down to the underground streams, and she
wondered how the wells will be protected. She is concerned about this, as
well as water availability for the Industrial Park. UREF officials have
agreed to a cap of 125,000 gallons of water per day for each building, but
considering 20 building sites, it amounts to 2,500,000 gallons, and this uses
up almost all of the capacity before any other growth in the County is
considered. She went on to say Chris Greene Lake will be used and Buck
Mountain Reservoir will be built sometime in the future, but these are costs
that the Supervisors, as the citizens' representatives, will have to factor
in. The Planning staff has stated specifically that individual heavy water
users have not been excluded completely from this Industrial Park, and she
called attention to the fact that there are some heavy water users in Category
I. She urged the Supervisors to be very careful in protecting the County's
water supply, she next mentioned the discussion a few months ago about sewage
and a new treatment plant. These are costs for the County, it will be
expensive, and the taxpayers will again have to bear these costs. She noted
that fire protection is not adequate for this proposal, and the Earlysville
volunteers will not be able to respond within five minutes, which is the
recommendation of the Communities Facilities Plan. The worst case scenario
would be an explosion in a medical or pharmaceutical laboratory. She noted
that the volunteers will not bring the hazardous material truck, which is on
Ridge Street, until City personnel arrive on the scene and request the truck,
which could be another 30 minutes. She posed such questions as the type of
explosion, what type of materials might be housed in the laboratory, as well
as what might be released to the air, and she reiterated that adequate fire
protection is needed for this development. UREF has proffered five acres for
a fire station, but it is supposed to conform to the design guidelines. She
asked if the County officials know what the design guidelines will be, and
will UREF help build this building. She added that at this point, the
Foundation representatives have not proffered this nor have they proffered to
donate money toward an aerial truck. She emphasized that these are multiple
story buildings, especially the hotel, and the aerial truck is City equipment.
She said this is another cost and another factor.
She then referred to the road improvements where the vehicle trips at
build out have been estimated to be 27,500. She noted that UREF has prof-
fered for road improvements, but the next phase of development can be started
if the roads provide service level D or better. She does not think Service
Level D is very comfortable, and those people who are used to living in the
country and being able to move along at a good pace will find it frustrating.
She said it will feel like Washington, D.C. The development has to be phased
to the road improvements, and the Supervisors must keep these controls and not
let the next phase begin before the road improvements are in place. She
recalled the VDOT representatives' concerns listed in two different memos that
the phasing developments may precede the actual road improvement, and they do
not want to have bad intersections before road improvements are made. VI)OT
recommends Phase II not proceed until Airport Road is widened and the Airport
Road and Route 29 intersection is corrected. The Airport Road is a narrow,
winding, curvy road and there are many accidents in front of the Airport. She
mentioned that there are some children who are afraid to ride the school bus
because the school bus was almost in an accident on that road last week. She
suggested that this development be improved in phases and road improvements
must be in place before the next phase is started, which is only fair to the
citizens of the County. She referred to the hotel/conference center, and she
mentioned that the Sheraton Inn is located just a few miles down the road with
its conference center, as well as the Boar's Head Inn and the Omni Hotel. At
this point to give the rights to build a conference center maybe 10 or 12
years in the future does not seem fair to the County. The by right develop-
ment has been expounded on very eloquently by many of the preceding speakers,
and she asked if this Board will give away 20 years of development and control
over this project tonight or next week. She wondered if it is even legal for
the County Supervisors to do so, because this project is huge, and it should
be reviewed and improved in phases.
She next referred to the fact that the County citizens had been told
that the property would be owned by UREF, but two of the parcels have been
sold, and now there are more tenants who have more buildings, and different
people are involved. She remarked that time after time the citizens have
tried to present their vision to the Supervisors of what they would like for
this County to be, and it is not Tyson's Corner or Richmond. The citizens
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
want a small size Charlottesville with slow growth and rural beauty close in
and not just by the mountains on the fringes. She has been away for four
years, she just moved back, and she was positively shocked at the difference
in the County. This County needs to maintain the leverage over the UREF
Industrial Park and the Supervisors need to maintain their control and
oversight. It has been said no developer has ever gone to such proffers and
ranges to meet everyone's desires, but no developer has ever asked for
3,000,000 square feet before. She asked the Supervisors to consider this when
they are thinking about all of the people they represent and the majority of
their constituents. These are County-wide concerns and not just concerns of
the neighbors next door to the project.
(Mr. Martin left at 9:16 p.m.)
The Board recessed at 9:19 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Martin
returned at this time.
Mrs. Humphris asked how many more people wanted to speak to the UREF
proposal. She noted that the Board members have already heard a lot of
information tonight, and she suggested that speakers summarize their remarks,
if someone has already said some of the things they intended to say. She
emphasized, though, that the Supervisors want to hear everything everybody has
to say.
Ms. Karen Dame said she has a statement prepared by her husband DeForest
Mellon who is at home with fever and chills and could not be here tonight. If
he had been here tonight, she is sure he would want to emphasize before
speaking that there is no question of value for corporations which are good
citizens or for a high quality university in this community. He would not see
the decision being made as choosing for or against those things which presum-
ably everybody would choose to have. He is a biologist and has a passion and
deep understanding of nature, and it is this concern that draws his attention
to the rural areas in the County where the by right development potential
there seems to show continued development all the time. His concern is that
there is no rural area left. She then read his statement. (See statement
from DeForest Mellon delivered to the Board of Supervisors on February 21,
1996.)
Next, Ms. Dame spoke as the President of the Citizens for Albemarle, and
she noted that the feelings of her group echo many of the comments the
Supervisors have already heard tonight. Her organization members want to
emphasize that they have no question of the corporate citizenship of those who
would relocate. The issues are the problems with population growth, environ-
ment, taxes and quality of life. Her organization's request is that all
possible controls be retained through the Board of Supervisors for the future
development of this project.
Mr. Robert Kroner, an attorney and resident of Albemarle County, stated
that he is at this meeting in the capacity as immediate past Vice Chairman of
the Economic Development Division of the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of
Commerce strongly supports the type of planned development project undertaken
by UREF at its North Fork Park. Over the past several years, the Chamber has
sought to capitalize on appropriate economic development opportunities within
its trade area. The mission of the Chamber is very simple because it is
dedicated to promoting business and enhancing the quality of life in this
community. The Chamber members believe the proposed development at North Fork
dovetails extremely well with both facets of the mission statement. This is a
project which presents to the citizens of this community new economic opportu-
nities with particular emphasis on clean, high tech businesses. The MicroAire
Company at North Fork is a good case in point, and in addition to providing
high quality jobs to the citizens and offering the prospect of increased local
hiring, it has provided opportunities for local merchants and service provid-
ers. He expects the Motion Control Company will do the same for the local
employment opportunities for the County's citizens. These are exactly the
type of employers needed in this County to provide jobs with decent salaries
and benefits and work in partnership with the University and local businesses.
Such companies also create business opportunities for area merchants and
service providers and enhance the local tax base. These are employers who
enhance the overall quality of life for the residents without placing exces-
sive demands on existing infrastructure. The Chamber is pleased with the
efforts UREF representatives have taken to listen to and address the concerns
of its neighbors near the Park. The Chamber believes it is a thoroughly and
thoughtfully planned project, and it is consistent with the needs and desires
000fl.25
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
of the people in the community. He emphasized that the Chamber welcomes this
project to this community, and he encouraged the Supervisors to support and
approve the project.
He then mentioned that Brian Carlson had to leave but he had a response
to Mr. Lindstrom's earlier remarks. Mr. Kroner went on to report that from
the time State Farm came to Charlottesville in 1952 until 1956 there was a
total of seven additions on its property. Mr. Carlson indicated that as State
Farm officials look around the country for additional homes for their busi-
ness, they would not consider a community which would impose a rezoning
requirement each time they expanded. Mr. Carlson noted that State Farm
officials, if they were looking for a location for a 200 person business,
would not consider Albemarle County, if they knew they would have to go
through a rezoning every time they wanted to expand or enlarge the facility.
Mr. Larry Taylor, a resident of Chris Greene Lake Road, urged the Board
members not to relinquish control of this Industrial Park. Although this type
of zoning may have caused State Farm not to come here 30 years ago, if such
business representatives are so afraid of this type of development and the
proffers they would have to go through with zoning, then maybe Albemarle
County does not need them.
At 9:39 p.m., since there was no one else to speak, Mrs. Humphris closed
the public hearing.
Mrs. Thomas disclosed that her husband is employed at the University of
Virginia. However, she has signed a disclosure statement which indicates that
she is able to participate in this transaction fairly, objectively and in the
public interest.
Mrs. Thomas then stated that she thinks one reason Mr. Carlson wanted to
talk to the Supervisors about State Farm is that some people attending the
last meeting went away saying Sally Thomas personally opposes State Farm. She
appreciates very much the County's good corporate citizens. She added that if
she mentioned State Farm by name it was because it is so well known and it was
easier for people to visualize its size when she was making the point that it
is currently a size which could fit into the largest of the lots at North
Fork. She next referred to Mr. Carlson's statement about State Farm starting
in the area with 250 employees. She said this is exactly how companies should
come to Albemarle County, and they can then grow by hiring locally as opposed
to bringing in a large number of employees.
Mr. Marshall thanked Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Rose for spending the
afternoon talking with him about this issue before the public hearing tonight.
He said he would also like to make comments about some of the statements the
public made and how he perceives things to be. He referred to the statement
one of the speakers said about Albemarle County getting older, richer and
whiter. One man in this County is worth $4,000,000,000, and if the net worth
is divided out for every man, woman and child in this County, it would be
$57,143. He went on to say this means the average family of four in this
County is worth a quarter of a million dollars, but he doubts this is true,
because wealth is not distributed equally in this County. There are a lot of
poor people here, as well as some very wealthy people. He is not employed by
the University, but a lot of his family members are employed there. He was
born in the middle of the Depression, but this community did not feel the
Depression as many other communities around this country did during the 1930s,
because of the University of Virginia. The University of Virginia has
literally been the lifeblood of this community all of his lifetime. His
father is 85 years old, and he will say the same thing has also been true
throughout his lifetime.
The area has grown because of the University, and Mr. Lindstrom is right
in saying if the General Assembly says the University is going to grow, then
it is going to grow. He does not think the issue is whether or not the
University is going to grow, because he thinks it is going to do so. He also
thinks the community is going to grow, but this is not an issue for this
Board. He said the issue relates to how this growth can be controlled. He
referred to the Comprehensive Plan which indicates that growth should be
brought to the urban ring so the rural areas can be preserved. In the past
recent history most of the people have built in the urban ring and protected
the rural areas. He mentioned a statement by a speaker tonight who said the
people had been promised there wouldn't be any more development north of
Charlottesville. He does not know any Supervisor on this Board who promised
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
000 29
such a thing. He certainly did not, and he does not know of any past supervi-
sor who has done so. A realtor might have said this when he or she sold
someone some property. As far as the County adopting the expansion south,
this has not been done, although one person said it had been done. He would
question the sanity of such a decision by the former Planning Commission,
when there are no utilities south, and millions were spent to put all the
utilities north of town where the growth is intended to go. He is faced with
only one question in his mind which is whether or not he trusts the University
to be caretakers of this property. He does not think there is a person in
this room who will not agree that this community needs economic growth so
everybody can live in a community that is healthy.
Speaking as a businessman, the only way to live in a capitalistic
society is to keep business healthy, wealthy and wise, because capitalism does
not function in any other way. The environment and growth can be protected
with the zoning laws in place, but he would rather have the University as
stewards of this property than some individual property owner who is going to
line his pockets with money without any concern for this community. He
emphasized that he thinks the University is the best steward of the property,
and he intends to support the proposal.
Mrs. Thomas commented that the zoning decision goes with the land, and
there is no guarantee this land will always be owned by the University of
Virginia. It is this Board's very serious duty to make sure the zoning
decisions that go with the land are not going to be decisions that the
community will look back on in the future and wonder why they were made. She
does not want to have to defend a possibly poor decision by replying that at
the time the decision was made the property was owned by the University. She
does not think this will carry much weight if, for whatever reasons, this is a
decision that this Board later wishes it had not made. She also remarked that
the University will not have the same group of people involved forever. She
has remarked to others at the University that she would trust her life to
Leonard Sandridge, and he used to be her boss. This does not mean he will
always be there nor the present Rector nor the Board of Visitors. She would
hate to have this project come down to a trust of the University of Virginia,
because it is not truly the question in front of this Board. The question is
whether the Supervisors understand the situation well enough, whether the
information is as full and complete as it could be, and whether the staff's
work is as complete as it could be. She also noted that the Supervisors did
not even see the proffers received today until just before this meeting. All
this needs to be taken into consideration as to whether or not the Board of
Supervisors will make its decision today. She reiterated that the issue is
not whether or not the Supervisors trust the University of Virginia because it
is not just that.
Mr. Marshall remarked that when Mr. Lindstrom was in his office today,
he said approximately the same thing he said tonight. He agreed with Mr.
Lindstrom's comments, and he asked Mr. Rose if he would be willing to put a
limit on this particular piece of property as far as the number of people who
would be employed or brought in. He stated that Mr. Rose replied negatively
and informed Mr. Marshall that the University representatives have already
gone as far as they feel they can go and still make the project a viable
concern for the University. Mr. Marshall remarked that the University people
do not back off, so he feels the decision has to be whether he trusts the
University in bringing the type of growth described here tonight and involving
the citizens in the type of business that will be here or the project will not
be done. If the University does not do this project, he weighs this as a
bigger loss to the community. He referred to Mr. Lindstrom's comments about
there being a small chance a big industry might be brought into the County to
employ 2,000 or 3,000 people. Mr. Marshall said he also feels there is a
small chance this will happen, but he can't sacrifice those jobs which are
needed in the community. People are quoting unemployment as being 2.4 percent
in the County. He emphasized that nobody can tell him about unemployment, and
nobody can tell him about the people who aren't on Virginia Employment
Commission's records, because they can only draw unemployment for two years.
He said a lot of people in this community have been unemployed for longer than
two years and are now a part of those statistics. Statistics cannot be the
only thing considered, because the whole picture has to be considered. This
percentage also does not address the people who are underemployed. He knows
this is true, because he has hired some of these people at much less money
than they were making somewhere else.
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
000 0
He referred to his question to Mr. Reilly about the entry level salary
of employees at the Motion Control Company, and Mr. Marshall pointed out that
the entry level salary for Albemarle County is considerably below that. The
entry level salary for Motion Control employees is a lot of money, and this
project will also enable the University to maintain its status in this nation
as being a top University because it can bring a Pulitzer Prize or Nobel Prize
winner here and his or her spouse will have an opportunity to be gainfully
employed. This may influence this person's decision to come to this commu-
nity, and in doing so, it influences the standard that the University has. He
has to trust the University. All of his life he has had to trust the Univer-
sity because it has brought economic well being to the citizens of this
County, and he thinks the Supervisors' responsibility is not just to keep the
County beautiful which he is trying to do, but also to make it a decent place
where all the citizens can live. He emphasized that he does not want to see
Albemarle County just become a retirement community. He wants to see young
people here, and he wants his children and grandchildren to be employed. He
wants young people to have the opportunities he had. More people are being
born everyday, but there isn't any more land available, and every place that
is desirable in this country is faced with the same problems as Albemarle
County. These problems have to be solved in the best way possible. He would
rather see the University as steward of this Industrial Park than to have
private developers be stewards of it, because he thinks the County is safer
with the University. He has to trust someone to keep the quality of life for
all of the County citizens and not just a privileged few.
Mrs. Thomas stated that she appreciates everything Mr. Marshall has
said, but she repeated that the zoning decision goes with the land. She added
that Mr. Marshall's trust of the University of Virginia is not the issue. Mr.
Marshall said he thought the University had a buy back clause on the pieces of
property which have been sold. If MicroAire is moved to another location, he
thought the University would have first refusal to buy this property back.
Mrs. Thomas concurred that this is true. Mrs. Humphris noted that University
officials might choose not to exercise this buy back right. Mr. Marshall
asked if Mrs. Humphris thinks the University would not buy back the property.
Mrs. Humphris replied that she has no idea, and she inquired if Mr. Marshall
is sure the University officials would exercise this right. Mr. Marshall
stated that as a businessman, buying back the property would certainly be a
high priority for him if he wanted to develop the remainder of the Park, and
wanted to maintain the economic benefits from that Park for the University.
The whole idea for the Park is to bring economic benefit to the University.
Mr. Perkins remarked that this Board has to look at some way to compro-
mise. The University representatives have submitted proffers and have
promised certain things they think are going to happen such as the build out
time, but a lot of other people are desiring to limit the buildout. He thinks
the University people need to be given a chance to consider these suggestions
to see if there are things they can incorporate in their proffers. Zoning
laws are in place because County officials have found out in the past that
everybody can't be trusted. It is not that he does not trust the University
representatives, but the people who are there today won't be there possibly
next year nor ten nor 20 years from now. He said a 20 year build out amounts
to 150,000 square feet a year that can be built, so he would want to incorpo-
rate such a limit, as well as consideration of other issues. He thinks this
Board needs the opportunity to consider the things which have been said
tonight, and the University also needs a chance to consider the citizens'
comments. This Board, as well as University officials, need time to evaluate
these issues. He said he does not know the right questions to ask at this
time.
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that this Board has gotten an enormous amount
of information tonight. When Mr. Keeler made his presentation tonight, she
thought she had studied the book and analyzed the proffers. She had made
notes, but she had a hard time following Mr. Keeler's comments. It was not
Mr. Keeler's fault, but it was just too much information to consider. As soon
as she saw the latest group of proffers she realized she could not read any
more proffers tonight and deal with them at this meeting. It didn't matter if
there were only a few words changed, it was still a part of the whole make-up
of the project, and she couldn't deal with any more. She agreed with Mr.
Perkins~ idea that time is needed to consider these things. This Board is
always having people ask them how they allowed Route 29 North to get to be the
way it iso Route 29 got to be the way it is because the people who zoned in
that area did not have any idea what the future of Albemarle County was going
to be, and there was no idea Albemarle County was going to grow and be such a
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
popular place for people to come. However, now everybody knows that people
want to come here, and there is absolutely no excuse for not planning for it
in the very best way possible. Before this Board takes another step in
another direction, she suggests that the Supervisors consider what they have
in front of them, ask staff for some help and see what all of this really
means.
She referred to Mr. Marshall's comments about the possibility of the
University pulling out of the deal, but she said it has been her experience in
life that when somebody tells her something can't be done, what they really
are saying usually is they don't want to do it. The Supervisors need to find
out the difference between what really can be done and what someone might not
want to do because it is not easy or convenient. It would be easy for her to
agree to something that was for the benefit of the University of Virginia.
She is a product of the University and played hide and seek in the Rotunda
when she was a child. She played touch football on Lambeth Field and roller
skated on grassy sidewalks around Monroe Hall. She is a graduate of the
University, her husband has three degrees from there, and he spent his entire
professional life working there. She has all of these connections with the
University, but her job is to serve all the people of this community and
consider the big picture and not any individual particular interest. She
reiterated that this Board needs to slow down and consider all of the informa-
tion.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to focus on what this Board will be
doing if Mr. Perkins' suggestion is taken. For the last 20 plus years there
have been 240 acres of property in this area zoned for industrial use. The
County has site plan and subdivision requirements on the 240 acres which could
have been applied any time within the last 20 years, if there had been any
infrastructure there. During the 17 years he has been associated with the
County a lot of commercial land has been rezoned to retail and commercial
office use, but there has hardly been any industrial rezoning done. Since
UREF developed the concept some years ago of looking at the other 240 acres as
part of this development and not making a major increase in the square footage
which could be developed on this site, fundamentally, he thought it was a good
idea. The property was close to the Airport, and this made sense, and the
University had the resources to put in some infrastructure which no other
developer had been willing to do. This is why there has hardly been any
industrial development of any kind in the County except for service type of
employment, which is one of the things the Supervisors hear'a lot about. He
went on to say during the last four weeks he has spoken to a lot of people in
this audience both for the proposal, as well as being opposed to it, and he
has a lot of friends in the audience on both sides of this issue. He finds
himself going back and forth in his thinking as he talks to people, and as
people made their presentations tonight he went through the same process.
There were many things said tonight with which he wholeheartedly agrees.
He believes the woodpeckers should have a habitat and that Albemarle County
should be preserved. He mentioned the speaker who talked about the growth
issue, although Mr. Bowerman thinks the figure is closer to one and one-half
percent a year. This would mean that in 100 years, the County population
would be four times the size it is today. This would be 300,000 people so any
decision will have an impact on this growth, but there are some things already
in place. One of the things already in place is the 240 acres of industrially
zoned land, and he does not think the Board can go back to the way the
property was in the beginning. He would like to see the property stay green,
but he does not think this is going to happen. He commented that the reality
of the situation is that this Board is faced with a request to add 240 acres
to the proposal to have a less dense development which is more economical in
terms of not moving around as much dirt. There are things that accrue to the
applicant, and he doesn't think the Foundation representatives are making some
of the proffers out of the goodness of their hearts so much as what has been
forced on them by discussions with staff and members of the public. He thinks
it has all been with good intentions to try to make this Industrial Park,
which he thinks will be a reality, as compatible as it can be to the commu-
nity. He believes if the proffers offered by the applicant are considered,
the Board will find that, if these proffers are applied to what can be
required today on the 240 acres, there probably won't be that much difference.
He said people don't give up a lot, unless they have to do so. He just wants
to keep track of where this Board is starting from in this process and what it
will be trying to accomplish over the next three weeks, because this issue
could be back before the Supervisors the second meeting in March.
000 32
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Marshall asked what will change in three weeks. Mr. Bowerman
responded that he does not think a lot will change during this time, but Mrs.
Humphris, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Perkins have all raised the issue of waiting.
Mrs. Thomas said she has suggestions as far as what the staff can be
asked to do within the next three weeks. Several people have raised the issue
of what these proffers are actually offering. For example, the proffers refer
to the maps, but when the maps are considered, they are conceptual and do not
promise anything. She, as a layman, becomes concerned about what exactly the
proffer is indicating if it refers to a map that is just conceptual. She
emphasized that she is not implying there is anything wrong, but she would
like a bit more analysis by the County staff as to what the County will get
from these proffers. She then requested a proffer by proffer assessment of
exactly what the County can enforce based upon a review of both the text of
the proffers and the maps attached to the proffers. She would like to compare
that with what can actually be required under the subdivision and site plan
review powers currently available. It has been suggested tonight that the
County is not getting very much from these proffers, and as a member of a
Board of Supervisors which has probably not in 25 years been faced with such
an important rezoning, she would like a more precise explanation of the
proffers. She also requested the County Attorney to consider how a cap on the
size of a facility by right might be developed and implemented. It may well
be that the Supervisors will decide it is not a proposal which can be devel-
oped, but it might be. She suspects if University officials are told that any
facility which is going to hire 500,000 people is going to have to come back
to this Board for approval, they would agree because they won't be doing such
a thing, anyway. However, if the University officials were told that any
facility hiring 100 employees has to come back to this Board for approval,
then they would not agree, because it would be killing the project. Mrs.
Thomas stated that somewhere between these figures, there should be a number
on which agreement can be reached, because as long as the University is in
charge of this property, it will not be bringing in huge employers. She said
it is because the University may not always be the owners of the property that
she would like to get codified exactly what can be agreed upon along these
lines.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if the Planning staff and Mr. Davis would be able
to act on Mrs. Thomas' suggestions, if that is this Board's desire. Mrs.
Humphris reviewed Mrs. Thomas' suggestions by saying that the proffers need to
be assessed by reviewing the text and the maps and comparing them to the
County's site plan review and ordinances.
Mr. Tucker answered that current regulations can be examined and
compared with the proffers fairly easily. However, Mr. Tucker explained that
Mr. Davis' concern is whether a regulation relating to a cap can be imple-
mented, and if so, how can it be drafted. Mr. Tucker said a reasonable time
limit for getting this work done would also have to be considered.
Mrs. Humphris clarified the question asked to Mr. Davis by saying he has
been asked to find out if a cap on the project can be imposed or implemented.
She said she is unsure if any of the suggestions relating to caps should be
used.
Mr. Marshall wondered about the type of cap to which Mrs. Humphris is
referring. Mrs. Humphris replied that she is unsure, and that is what Mr.
Davis will be researching. She said a comparison of the proffers to the site
plan and Subdivision Ordinance also needs to be done, and Mr. Tucker has
indicated that the staff can handle this without too much difficulty. She
inquired if this is the will of the Board.
Mr. Martin said he does not have a problem with this suggestion, because
he does not think it will hurt anything to wait and take a closer look at the
situation. The reason he questioned Mr. Lindstrom is because some people are
saying the proffers mean nothing, and others are implying that they mean a
lot. He would like to know if they mean a lot or are they insignificant. Two
things have concerned him more than anything else ever since he has been a
member of this Board. One is the educational system, with which the Supervi-
sors will be dealing° There will be some hard choices to make, including
finding some additional revenue. One of the reasons he ran for a position on
the Board of Supervisors is that he was tired of seeing Albemarle County being
chewed up with commercial growth, which is his other concern. He does not
have anything against commercial growth. He believes in small businesses, and
he thinks it is good when they prosper. It always bothered him when he saw
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
000: 33
another grocery store, fast food place or restaurant being built, but nowhere
to be seen was there a place offering decent types of jobs. He remarked that
with the average home costing $130,000 to $140,000 and the average income
being one of the lowest in the State of Virginia, this imbalance is something
the Supervisors have to address. If the Supervisors don't address this issue,
they are letting down the citizens, and the ones being let down the most, are
those who have lived here all of their lives. Their children want to continue
to live here. The people moving here in droves may not be hurt because they
have already earned their salaries, and now they are retiring. Or, others may
be moving here because they already have high paying jobs in Washington, D.C.,
and they are commuting. He thinks a diverse economy is owed to the people who
have lived here all of their lives, whose families live here and who have
children who want to grow up and live here. He thinks this project will
provide those types of jobs and this type of diversity. He does not think
there is a single person who would like for a huge company to come to this
County where everybody becomes dependent upon the company, or the company
would bring in a lot of other people. It is fine if there is a way to
guarantee that a huge company will not come here. He is concerned, though,
that in trying to guarantee this, the University officials might pull out of
the project, and he is not going to let this happen. In some ways he sees
the University as a car dealership which gave too much in the beginning.
Usually negotiations start at a certain point, and everyone knows they will
pay more, and they eventually negotiate an agreement. Maybe he is wrong, and
the proffers mean nothing, as it has been suggested. If the University
officials have already given all of their concessions, he does not want County
officials to be in a situation now where they might want one more compromise
from the University. He is concerned that this compromise might make the
University pull out of the deal. He emphasized that he is not going to demand
a compromise because he thinks this Park is bringing in the kind of thing
desperately needed in Albemarle County. He acknowledged, though, that he is
concerned about the issue of growth.
Mr. Perkins noted that the point he was trying to make is that the
University representatives need time to consider what they have said they
think they will do, such as how long the build out will take on this project,
and not just what they have Proffered. They also need to examine what other
people have said to see if some of these things can be incorporated in their
proposal. They could then come back to this Board with these things in the
form of a proffer. He added that if it is going to be a 20 or 30 year build
out then the square feet per year can be figured, and if the square footage is
not all used in one year, it can be carried over to the next. He said numbers
of employees also need to be considered. If the University representatives
leave this meeting tonight with or without a vote, they will not be forced to
do anything. If they think they have four votes in their favor, then they
won't do anything. However, if they go away thinking they need to renegotiate
or they need to look at their position a little differently, then maybe they
can develop a new proffer. If the staff can work on some of these issues,
too, then it would be helpful.
Mr. Davis referred to the question posed to him earlier as far as the
options toward achieving a cap as they have been described tonight. He said
the staff has considered this issue, and he has identified only two ways to
address it. First, as Mr. Perkins pointed out, if the applicant feels there
are additional proffers which need to be made to address the concerns of this
Board to make this application acceptable to the County, University represen-
tatives can certainly proffer cap language to address their anticipated build
out and the type of development they want to accomplish. This can be done
rather quickly as a proffer amendment prior to this Board voting on the
matter. The second alternative would be more difficult to accomplish in a
short period of time. He explained that the application could be deferred and
a Zoning Text Amendment initiated which would apply to the zoning category and
would impose across the board limitations on the size of development by right.
He suggested the most efficient way to do this would be by square footage of
development, rather than on the number of employees, which~ is more difficult
to figure in a site plan process. This process would probably take a couple
of months at a minimum to accomplish, and it would also require staff to study
intensely the level of square footage to determine a reasonable basis that
could be defended if it was challenged. He is uncertain, though, what the
Planning staff's study would have to entail in order to be comfortable in
recommending the amount of square footage.
Mrs. Humphris repeated that Mr. Davis is saying UREF could supply new
proffers which would provide a cap, or the Supervisors could defer the
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
000±a4
application in order to consider a Zoning Text Amendment, which could allow
them to impose limitations. Mr. Davis concurred that Mrs. Humphris' statement
is correct.
Mr. Marshall commented that he had already asked this question of Mr.
Rose, and the answer he got was that UREF has already given all the proffers
it can afford to give and has reached a point where the whole project becomes
a question of diminishing returns. He said the question is whether the
applicants want to spend additional money to do the things this Board is
asking, or do they just want to develop the parcel they already have. He
stated that the answer he got was that they will drop the project.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she thinks some of the Board members are
saying that they want a closer look at the proffers to see actually what they
say and do, because it has been very difficult to decipher them for many
reasons. These reasons relate to changes, as well as the unreadable text on
the map and different problems. Some of the Supervisors don't feel comfort-
able when they don't understand what the proffers mean or what they will do
which is the reason for the possible request by this Board for an analysis.
She then suggested that this discussion be brought to a close.
Mr. Keeler said he had one more comment regarding the proffers. There
are a lot of things in the proffers which the County can require, and they
primarily will be found under the road improvement schedule. The first
traffic study was submitted a year ago in December, and he has lost track of
how many meetings staff has had with VDOT. He has been trying to figure how
many sets of proffers there have been during this period, but he believes
there were sets of proffers received in February, April, September November, a
couple of times in December, January and presently. The proffers have been
amended in regard to staff comments, and a lot of them have had to do with
developing a schedule of road improvements. The VDOT staff needed some
comfort level that the roads weren't going to be overtaxed by the development,
and at the same time the developer had some comfort level that all of a sudden
new development would not come to a complete halt because one of VDOT's
projects is behind schedule, etc. Several pages of the proffers deal with
transportation issues, and most of these can be required. The phasing of road
improvements is the phasing of the new development plan. There are other
proffers listed, though, that the staff does not think can be required, and
this information will be reported to the Supervisors.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Keeler is indicating that a limited time frame
is involved. Mr. Keeler responded, ~no." He went on to say the development
of the park is attached to certain road improvements. Mr. Marshall said he
understands this, but he is wondering if there is a time frame. Mr. Tucker
said the time limit will not start until approval of the application occurs
and development begins. He stated that Mr. Keeler is simply explaining how
the road improvements really work.
Mrs. Humphris added that she read in the information that all of the
traffic data is based on the existence of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr.
Keeler replied affirmatively. He said in the beginning I/REF was instructed to
include the Meadow Creek Parkway in its analysis. Mr. Cilimberg said every-
thing that has been done in the traffic modeling has included Meadow Creek,
and it has also been included in the CATS study. He went on to say some of
the design around the Land Use Plan recommendation involves Meadow Creek
Parkway.
Mrs. Humphris said this is something which definitely has to be kept in
mind in light of the current situation. It would be wonderful if UREF would
support VDOT in getting primary funding for the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Next, Mrs. Humphris asked if Mrs. Thomas would like to restate her
suggestion. Mrs. Thomas wondered if the Board had reached a consensus. She
said she and Mr. Perkins both had ideas, but she believes Mr. Tucker has been
taking notes relating to these suggestions. Mr. Tucker agreed that he thinks
the staff understands what the Board wants to accomplish.
Mrs. Humphris clarified that this Board would like a proffer assessment
and a comparison to the text of the maps. She said an understanding is also
needed regarding a cap or a Zoning Text Amendment. She asked if this is a
consensus of the Board. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this analysis should be
done in a very timely manner. Mr. Marshall agreed that if it is going to be
done~ it should be done quickly. Mrs. Humphris wondered if the information
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
000:I. 5
could come back to this Board in two weeks. Mr. Tucker responded that the
staff will try to provide this information to the Supervisors by March 6,
1996. This is the first meeting in March, and it will be the earliest time
that the staff can have something ready for the Board. The completeness of
the information will depend on whether the Supervisors prefer the proffers
versus a Zoning Text Amendment. The staff can give the Supervisors some data,
although the specifics may not be spelled out in terms of a recommended Zoning
Text Amendment.
Mrs. Humphris inquired if this information will be in the Supervisors'
packets on the Friday before the Board meeting. Mr. Tucker answered that the
staff will try to have the requested information by that time. Mr. Bowerman
asked if the public hearing will be reopened, or will the matter remain before
this Board. Mrs. Humphris replied that because there will be new information,
it may be desirable to hold another public hearing. Mr. Perkins emphasized
that he thinks enough public hearings have been held.
Mrs. Humphris asked what is going to happen if UREF gets another
opportunity to give input. She wondered if the Board members realize that
unless there is another public hearing, the public will not have an opportu-
nity to respond to new input on certain issues. She would be more comfortable
in continuing the public hearing. It will be a day meeting, and the public
hearing time can be limited.
At this time, Mr. Marshall said he would not support having another
public hearing. He then made a motion to approve ZMA-95-04 as it stands.
The motion died, for lack of a second.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she would not insist on a public hearing, but
she feels the Supervisors need to be ultimately fair. If new material and new
information comes forward, and UREF will be making a presentation, it is only
fair to have a public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman indicated that he does not see why UREF has to make another
presentation. The Supervisors already have the input, the matter is before
them, and they know the concerns. This Board is directing the staff to
consider these areas and see whether or not the concerns heard tonight can be
satisfied.
Mrs. Humphris polled the Supervisors to see if it is the will of the
Board members not to reopen the public hearing on ZMA-95-04, and to direct the
staff to go forward with the suggestions made tonight. All Board members
concurred.
Mr. Tucker stated that a motion to defer the item is needed.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman made a motion to defer ZMA-95-04 until March
6, 1996. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
service area boundaries for public water and sewer to serve the North Fork
Business Park. Rivanna Dist.
Next, Mr. Bowerman made a motion to defer the request to amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority Service Area Boundaries for Public Water
and Sewer to Serve the North Fork Business Park until March 6, 1996. Mr.
Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman
None.
Mrs. Humphris thanked the public for its input and patience regarding
the UREF public hearing.
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
000'
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Public Defenders' Office Legislation.
Mr. Tucker summarized his memo regarding a request from Senator Emily
Couric that this Board reconsider its previous action last year relative to
the creation of a Public Defender Office for Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville. The legislation has already been approved by the House of
Delegates, and a subcommittee in the Senate will consider it this Friday. He
stated that Delegate Mitch VanYahres introduced this legislation two years in
a row, and the Supervisors took the position not to support the creation of a
Public Defender Office. Delegate VanYahres and Senator Couric have re-
introduced the legislation this year. Senator Couric just learned of this
Board's previous action, and she is asking the Supervisors to reconsider their
earlier decision.
Mr. Perkins commented that it seems as though the Supervisors had good
reason last year for not supporting this legislation.
Mr. Bowerman concurred. He said the Supervisors felt as though they
were already getting good representation from Legal Aid, etc., and members of
the attorney community felt that with the rotation of all the different
lawyers serving in this capacity, the representation was probably better.
Mrs. Thomas recalled that the Bar Association voted to support the
Public Defender Office proposal. Mr. Martin recalled that this was done after
the Supervisors' discussion of the matter.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned that she has talked to the President of the local
Bar Association, and he had things to say on both sides of the issue. He said
an investigator is important, and referred to the fact that Mr. Tucker also
mentioned an investigator. She asked Mr. Tucker to comment on this matter,
since she does not remember if an investigator was part of the proposal last
year. Mr. Tucker replied that an investigator is an addition to which Senator
Couric alerted him. Last year the proposal did not include an investigator in
the Public Defender Office, but the Bar Association felt it was a very
important issue.
Mr. Martin remarked that the judges, who are very familiar with the
lawyers, have some input as far as appointments are concerned. Usually there
is one attorney appointed for Juvenile Court and one attorney for the Circuit
Court, etc. He gave an example by saying if a person is hired who is not a
quality attorney, and he is assigned to the General District Court, then every
person coming to that court needing a public defender is going to get terrible
representation, and this is his concern. One bad attorney could destroy a
whole court system. He stated that now this situation is being balanced by
having an investigator, but his other concern relates to who will be doing the
hiring and whether or not this person is going to be capable of recognizing
competency and getting rid of incompetency when it shows. He reiterated that
if there is one bad attorney, then wherever he is assigned, he will be giving
bad representation to a lot of people.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the investigator will change this situation. Mr.
Martin said the investigator position will be balanced with the Public
Defender position, and he thinks having an investigator will be very positive.
He explained that currently under the court appointed system, unless it is a
big case, there won't be a lot of investigating being done by an appointed
attorney who is making a $100 fee.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she read again the minutes of past meetings,
and she felt the Supervisors had a really good in-depth discussion on all the
pros and cons of this issue. She realized, though, when she read Senator
Couric's letter that she had no way of knowing why this Board adopted such a
position. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the State pays the whole cost of the
Public Defender Office, and there is an investigator now, and it seems as
though everybody is going along with the idea. Last time this Board deter-
mined that the County had a rather unique situation where people in this area
who needed a Public Defender sometimes got some of the very best attorneys
there are, as opposed to what might possibly be the case if a bad lawyer is
appointed by someone in Richmond and is sent here to be the Public Defender in
this area. After she had read all of the material from the December 21, 1994
and January 4, 1995 meetings she still does not know the right answer. She
does not know if a decision should be based simply on the fact that it saves
money after the first couple of years, although it may not save money for this
particular county, but it probably will for the State. There is a high start
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
0001 7
up cost and then it diminishes, but it probably still costs more money than it
would under the other system.
Mr. Tucker remarked that it is very difficult for the Supervisors to
know everything about'this situation. He said this Board did the best it
could on the information it received last year.
Mrs. Thomas commented that last year the Supervisors' view of the issue
was requested by the Delegate who was going to submit the bill, and that was
why it was discussed. He apparently forgot about it and certainly did not
tell Senator Couric that in response to his request this Board had taken a
stand. She said Senator Couric was apparently blind sided by Peter Way's
recollection of this Board's position, which is perfectly fair of Peter Way,
but unfair of the first named Delegate not to have remembered this situation.
She then wondered if the Supervisors could take a neutral position. Mr.
Tucker concurred. His suggestion is that this Board take no position.
Mrs. Thomas stated that if the Board is neutral, no one can say
Albemarle County is opposed to the proposal, because bringing in the investi-
gator changes the balance. She recalled that the other Board members depended
a lot on Mr. Martin's judgment because none of the rest of them know how the
court system works very well, and she would hate to imply that this Board is
an expert on the matter now.
Mr. Martin commented that he would be more than willing to take a
neutral stance. He said having an investigator would be very important, but
he is uncertain whether or not it would outweigh the chance of getting an
incompetent defender. He couldn't wholeheartedly support this proposal. He
reiterated that he has no problem with taking a neutral stance, at least until
more information about the legislation is available, in particular as far as
who will be doing the hiring. It needs to be known if the hiring will be done
locally or if it will be done by a central office in Richmond.
Mr. Tucker said the staff can get this information, but he alerted the
Supervisors to the fact that this proposal is moving forward. He added that
by the time this information gets back to this Board, it will all be over.
Mr. Davis remarked that in other localities the Public Defender is hired
in Richmond. The Public Defender then runs his own office locally, and he
would be making the local hiring decisions for his assistants. Mr. Tucker
inquired if the Public Defender is hired by the Public Defenders Commission.
Mr. Davis answered affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he would like
for the Public Defender to be hired locally. Mr. Tucker responded that the
individual would be local, although he would not be hired locally. Mr. Davis
commented that the positions are advertised, so anyone can apply. Mr. Perkins
noted that this area is different because of the number of attorneys located
here. Mr. Tucker agreed that this locality has a different situation from
some of the others.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she hopes Senator Couric and Delegate
VanYahres will understand this Board's thinking about the fact that this
locality is different. Not everywhere has a law school university center with
a lot of really good young lawyers wanting to live in the area and who are
willing to take on court assigned cases.
Mr. Tucker stated that arguments can easily be made on both sides of the
issue. The neutral position is probably the best because in fairness this
should have been brought up when the County officials prepared their legisla-
tive package. The legislators were asked then about their legislation plans,
and it would have been good to have had an opportunity to discuss this
situation at that time.
Mrs. Humphris agreed with earlier comments that she does not like the
idea of someone in Richmond hiring the people who are going to deal with local
people.
Mr. Martin reported that the same thing is being done in the Bureau of
Support Enforcement. He explained that the primary attorney is actually an
employee of the Attorney General's Office, although he operates locally. Mr.
Martin reiterated that he prefers a neutral stance, and he cannot stand in
support of the proposal.
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
000 38
Mrs. Humphris inquired if this Board needs to take any action to inform
the legislators of its position. Mr. Tucker replied that he will communicate
to Senator Couric that there was a lot of discussion on both sides of the
issue, and the Supervisors felt the investigator made a difference. He noted
that he would convey this Board's neutral position by indicating that this
community is different because of the number of very qualified attorneys in
the area.
Mrs. Thomas suggested that an additional comment be passed along to the
legislators relating to the fact that the Supervisors may have an opinion on
things which don't involve local funding. She then pointed out that the
amount of money involving this request happens to be the same amount of
funding which was taken away from the County school system. Mr. Tucker
remarked that he made the point to the Senator that there are still costs to
the County because there are tax dollars involved.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: July 12, September 19(A),
October il(A) and November 29(A), 1995.
Mr. Marshall said he had read the minutes of October 11, 1995, and found
them to be correct.
Mrs. Thomas said she had read the minutes of July 12, 1995 and November
29(A}, 1995. She found only one wrong word in the whole group of minutes, and
she will pass the correction on to the Clerk. She said the minutes are
marvelous, and they are the best minutes given to this Board.
Mrs. Thomas then moved approval of the minutes of July 12, 1995, October
11, 1995 (A) and November 29, 1995 (A), with the one noted correction. Mr.
Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman
None.
(Mr. Bowerman left at 10:45 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Perkins referred to the information on site fees, etc., relating to
Christworks and Crozet Park that the County forwarded to this Board. He asked
if the other Supervisors have recommendations.
Mrs. Humphris said she has not had time to examine the material.
Mrs. Thomas suggested that an amount for the item be put in the budget,
but she thinks it should be discussed as a regular agenda item on March 6,
1996.
Mr. Davis stated that in addition to the memorandum in the Board
members' packets, a memorandum was distributed tonight from Ms. McCulley
setting forth some actual fees. She has done some investigation as to what
the actual fees should be.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 10:47 p.m.)
Mrs. Thomas referred to the letters sent to the State legislators
requesting that the State revenue relating to the County's Composite Index be
at least the amount of money received last year. She stated that despite
getting a cordial reception from the Chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee, the County is apparently getting less money rather than even being'
returned the amount that was lost. She asked that the efforts be continued.
Secondly, Mrs. Thomas mentioned that she would like to bring the
Supervisors up-to-date on the Ivy Landfill situation, since there will not be
another meeting until March.
000 9
February 21, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Martin suggested that perhaps other matters by Board members should
be listed on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting rather than at the
end.
Mrs. Thomas stated that there is a lot of grOwing anger that she does
not think should be there relating to the Ivy Landfill situation. Part of the
anger is because some of the neighbors think this Board has not heard what
they are saying, and she would like to share some of these comments with the
other Supervisors.
Mr. Martin suggested that the Ivy Landfill issue be put on the March 6,
1996 agenda. Mrs. Thomas agreed to this suggestion.
At 10:49 p.m., Mr. Bowerman offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to
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 regard-
ing specific legal matters relating to reversion and under Subsection (1) to
discuss a personnel matter relating to a County Authority. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman
None.
At 11:05 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Mr. Bowerman
made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, 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:
Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and
Mr. Bowerman
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. There being no other business, the meeting
was immediately adjourned.
Chairman
Approved by
Board
Date ~ °99
Initials ~