2002-05-15May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 15,
2002, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Mr. Charles
S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Deputy Clerk, Laurel W. Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Jake Christopher from Boy Scout Troop
#37.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Commonwealths Attorney James Camblos and Sheriff Ed Robb were present to speak. Mr.
=
Camblos said Shelby Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court, would be present, but is attending the high school
graduation of a grandson. He said something has happened which is just not fair. For the last two years,
A@
the Commonwealth of Virginia has not given any pay raises or bonuses to state employees. During that
same time, he believes Albemarle County has given merit raises of 2.0 percent and 3.8 percent to its
employees. In the last two weeks, the State gave all employees the choice between a bonus of 2.5 percent
of their annual salary or a bonus of two weeks paid leave or a choice of half of each. He said there are 39
employees of the constitutional officers in Albemarle County who got no pay increase from either the State
or the County. Those 39 people protect the general population through the Sheriffs Office, they prosecute
=
those who break the laws in Albemarle County, and they keep all the land records and other important
records in the Clerks Office. They want to be treated fairly. He and Sheriff Robb delivered a letter to Mr.
=
Tucker, and would expect to discuss this matter with staff later if the Board feels that would be appropriate.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the City does for its constitutional officers. Mr. Camblos said those people
are on the City pay plan. He said a number of counties in the State have their constitutional officers as part
of their pay plan.
Sheriff Robb said the County is actually picking up more of the cost of operating the Sheriff's Office
than the State. Mr. Tucker said that is true for operations, not for salaries.
Mr. Dorrier said the last three years have been tough years for the State because of cut backs in
funding. He does agree these people should be treated fairly. Sheriff Robb said normally whenever State
employees received a salary increase, the constitutional officers employees were included. This is the first
=
time they have been totally excluded.
Ms. Thomas said the real question is whether the localities should pick up the costs the state does
not fund. This Board has always held that this is something the State must do, and if the locality picks up
those costs, the State will not do so.
Mr. Camblos said the State Compensation Board sets minimum salaries. They are not dictating an
absolute salary. They reimburse for the minimum they set. In the past he has discussed with this Board the
fact that a number of localities supplement the salaries of constitutional officers.
Mr. Martin recommended that Mr. Camblos and Mr. Tucker talk, and bring a list of options for
discussion at the June 5 meeting.
__________
Mr. Ray McCauley read into the record a letter he presented to members of the Board earlier
today. His letter concerned the vehicle assessment and taxation imposed on his business vehicle and a
personal vehicle. He spoke briefly with Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, who explained that they
use NADA and fair market pricing. He cannot see how this could be done unless the overall vehicles body
condition, mileage or purchase price is figured in this process. He paid $2702.00 for a 1993 Ford F-150
truck with mileage showing at the time of purchase on November 17, 2001, as 141,322 miles, and the
overall condition of the truck was fair. Based on the mileage and overall body condition of the vehicle, it
would not fetch what the Department of Finance or Mr. Breeden calls its fair market price of $4030.00.
A@
Based on the documents he can provide, he asks that the amount of tax assessed for this business vehicle
be reduced.
Mr. McCauley said he is being assessed $9150.00 for a 1998 GMC Sierra with 109,000 miles and
an overall condition of good. He paid $5000.00 for the vehicle. He asks that Albemarle County reduce the
amount of the tax assessment for this personal vehicle. He does not believe this vehicle would bring
$9150.00 in the fair market. He contends that without the condition and mileage information, vehicles
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
cannot be being taxed correctly. He feels the Board should discuss this and come to a reasonable solution.
If the County would like to purchase these vehicles for the price they are assessing them at, he would be
glad to negotiate the sale. Otherwise, he asks that the tax assessments be reduced.
Ms. Thomas said she asked, and was told that the Finance Department assesses vehicles
according to the average value, which means that some people would pay more, and some people would
pay less.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the law requires that the assessment be the fair market value, not the average
value. Ms. Thomas said the County is using a printed document which gives the average value for a
particular vehicle of a certain make and year. Mr. Davis said the tax is not based on what someone paid for
a vehicle. It is based on a recognized Blue Book value which takes into account the anticipated condition
A@
of a vehicle of that year and make. If there is something extraordinary about the condition of the vehicle, the
Finance Department will look at that vehicle and make an adjustment.
Mr. Rooker asked if the procedure used to assess vehicles is statutorily permissible. Mr. Davis said
it is; any appeal of that assessment goes to the Circuit Court, not to this Board. Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr.
McCauley had been made aware of the appeal process. Mr. Tucker said he will have Mr. Breeden send
Mr. McCauley that information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve a portion of
Item 5.1, to approve Item 5.2, and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda for information.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 2001; January 16, February 6, February 20, March 6
and March 20, 2002.
Mr. Martin pulled the minutes of February 20, 2002, for discussion at the end of the meeting.
Mr. Bowerman pulled the minutes of January 16, 2002, because he had not read them.
Mr. Dorrier pulled the minutes of March 20, 2002.
Mr. Perkins pulled the minutes of February 6, 2002, pages 27 (beginning with Item #12) to the end,
and March 6, 2002, pages 1 through 16 (ending with Item #12).
Ms. Thomas pulled the minutes of October 3, 2001 (beginning with Item #11) to the end, and
February 6, 2002, Pages 1 through 27 (ending with Item #12).
Mr. Martin said he had read the minutes of March 6, 2002, Page 16 (beginning with Item #10) to the
end, and found them to be in order.
By the recorded vote set out above, part of the minutes of March 6, 2002, were approved.
__________
Item 5.2. Authorize County Executive to Execute Deed of Dedication, re: Riverbend Garden
Apartments.
It was noted in the staffs report that The Pavilion at Riverbend, LLC, is the developer of the
=
Riverbend Garden Apartments in the Pantops area of the County. SUB 02-057 is the final plat associated
with the project and it contains a note reserving a 22.717 acre parcel that will be dedicated to the County at
the County's request. The parcel to be dedicated will be a part of the County's greenway system along the
Rivanna River. The final plat is ready for approval so County staff has requested that the parcel be
dedicated now. A deed of dedication is being prepared by the County Attorney to convey in fee simple to
the County for public purposes the parcel described, subject to existing easements and other restrictions
and reservations. Riverbend will reserve a license allowing it to continue to receive rent for an existing lease
with a wireless service provider for a facility located in an existing electric tower on the property. Staff
requests that the County Executive be authorized to execute the deed of dedication thereby indicating
acceptance of the dedication of the property by the County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to execute the
deed of dedication thereby indicating acceptance of the dedication of the property by the County.
Tax Map 78, Parcels 15C-1 and 17A
This deed is exempt from the tax imposed by Virginia Code § 58.1-801 under Virginia Code § 58.1-
811(A)(3).
DEED OF DEDICATION
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
THIS DEED OF DEDICATION is made this ___ day of May, 2002 by and between THE PAVILION AT
RIVER BEND, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle County
that is described below and hereinafter referred to as the “Property;”
WHEREAS, the Grantor offers to grant, convey and dedicate the Property to the County for public use;
and
WHEREAS, the Grantee is willing to accept Grantor’s offer of dedication.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, the Grantor hereby grants, conveys,
and dedicates for public use to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, with GENERAL WARRANTY AND
ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, the following real property, to wit:
That certain real property, shown and designated as Parcel B, comprising 22.717 acres, on
the plat of Arthur F. Edwards, Land Surveyor, B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates, Ltd.,
dated February 19, 2002, which is attached hereto and recorded with this deed of
dedication (the “Plat”). Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of
Parcel B.
This conveyance is made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions, rights-of-way and easements,
if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the
chain of title to the Property conveyed hereby, insofar as the same affect the Property, which have not
expired by a time limitation contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective. This conveyance is
also subject to the right of the Grantor to continue to receive the rents under an agreement entitled “Virginia
PCS Lease Agreement,” dated March 23, 2000 for so long as that agreement has force and effect.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the offer of dedication made by this deed,
as evidenced by the signature below.
WITNESS the following signatures.
THE PAVILION AT RIVERBEND, LLC COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
_______________________________ _______________________________
Name:__________________________ Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Title:___________________________ County Executive
__________
Item 5.3. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for April 9 and April 23, 2002, was received
for information.
__________
Item 5.4. Copy of letter dated May 2, 2002, to Mehring Family Limited Partnership, from John
Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS AND PARCELS - Section 10.3.1 - Tax Map 97, Parcel 21B (Property of Mehring Family Limited
Partnership), was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, Article X,
Real estate - In General, of the Code, to establish abatement of levies on buildings that have been razed,
destroyed or damaged by fortuitous happenings. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 29 and May 6, 2002.)
Mr. Tucker said this ordinance was considered by the Board on February 20, 2002. It has since
been discovered that the ordinance was not properly advertised. Therefore, the ordinance has been
advertised for another public hearing and will need to be readopted by the Board. Virginia State Code
'
58.1-3222 enables a locality to provide, by ordinance, for the abatement of levies on buildings which are (i)
razed, or (ii) destroyed or damaged by a fortuitous happening beyond the control of the owner. County
Code 15-1001 provides for the assessment of all new buildings substantially completed or fit for use and
'
occupancy prior to November 1 in the year of completion. The assessment is prorated based on the
portion of the year the building is substantially completed or fit for occupancy. Currently, however, there is
no County ordinance providing for the abatement of levies on buildings that have been razed or destroyed
or damaged after January 1 of each year. To promote taxation equity, the ability to abate levies as provided
in Virginia Code 58.1-3222, should be enacted effective for the 2002 tax year. The financial impact to the
'
County would be minimal.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance after the public hearing is
held.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Matin to Adopt an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 15,
Taxation, Article X, Real Estate - in General, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding
Sec. 15-1003, Abatement of levies on buildings razed, destroyed or damaged by fortuitous happenings.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-15(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE X, REAL
ESTATE - IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, Article X, Real Estate - In General, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. 15-1003 Abatement of levies on buildings razed, destroyed or damaged by
fortuitous happenings.
Chapter 15. Taxation
Article X. Real Estate - In General
Sec. 15-1003 Abatement of levies on buildings razed, destroyed or damaged by
fortuitous happenings.
Levies may be abated on buildings which are (i) razed, or (ii) destroyed or
damaged by a fortuitous happening beyond the control of the owner. No such
abatement, however, shall be allowed if the destruction or damage to such building shall
decrease the value thereof by less than $500. Also, no such abatement shall be allowed
unless the destruction or damage renders the building unfit for use and occupancy for
thirty days or more during the calendar year. The tax on such razed, destroyed or
damaged building is computed according to the ratio which the portion of the year the
building was fit for use, occupancy and enjoyment bears to the entire year. Application
for such abatement shall be made by or on behalf of the owner of the building within six
months of the date on which the building was razed, destroyed or damaged.
(Ord. 02-15(1), 5-15-02)
State law reference - Va. Code 58.1-3222.
''
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the
Albemarle County Code to Article VIII, Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open
Space Real Estate, to establish a late application/reapplication process for taxation on the basis of use
assessment. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6,
2002.)
Mr. Tucker said the Virginia Code requires a new Land Use application to be filed whenever the
acreage or use of an eligible parcel changes. The state-imposed filing deadlines have sometimes resulted
in parcels being disqualified from the program due to very insignificant changes in acreage when the filing
deadlines are missed. The Virginia Code provides that an application for land use must be filed sixty days
prior to the effective tax year (November 2) except in a general reassessment year. These deadlines are
often overlooked by taxpayers resulting in their disqualification and often come to the attention of staff too
late to advise the taxpayer of the requirement. For example, if a taxpayer sells several acres on November
15, 2001, he has no way of qualifying for 2002 since the deadline for filing was November 2, 2001.
Mr. Tucker said several amendments to the State Code over the last several years now allow
localities the local option to be more flexible. The County is now allowed to adopt a local ordinance
providing a sixty-day late filing period after November 2 in non-reassessment years and after January 30 in
reassessment years. In addition, the County may allow a 30-day filing period after the mailing of any notice
of assessment. The second option should provide a remedy for most situations since Albemarle County
sends a notice to all property owners being disqualified. A fee for each of these options must be assessed.
Mr. Tucker said the proposed ordinance incorporates both of the above options. Due to the
additional staff time involved to adjust the tax bill as well as notification expense, staff is recommending a
$200 fee for both options. Staff estimates that the minimum actual cost will be $50 to $100, inclusive of
staff time and mailings, but feels that the fee should encourage taxpayers to file by the normal deadlines as
well as discourage this refiling process where there is minimal savings for the taxpayer. Staff recommends
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
adoption of the proposed ordinance after the public hearing is held.
Mr. Dorrier asked about advertising procedures for filing deadlines. Mr. Tucker said staff gets that
information out whenever a notice is mailed in order to advise people of the deadlines involved. Finance
staff will soon be working with Planning staff as changes in subdivisions or a property line occur. People will
be notified at that time since most people do not know that a simple change in a property line requires the
refiling of the application.
Mr. Dorrier said he received a telephone call from a citizen who lost her land use status after she
sold about four acres. Mr. Tucker said this ordinance change will give landowners another chance to apply
and this change will work on this years disqualifications.
=
Mr. Dorrier asked about the recommendation for a $200 fee. Mr. Tucker said that is what staff is
suggesting to encourage people to file early, but the Board can set any fee it feels is appropriate.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Hal Kolb thanked the Board for taking up this matter and proposing this ordinance. He said
most people who have land use know that if they change the actual use of the land they must refile and
have it considered again. Most people dont know that if there is any change at all, they must reapply for
=
land use. In his case, he and his adjoining neighbor wanted to change the property boundary a little to
make it more rational. It was a very small piece of land, but it took both of their parcels totally out of land
use changing the tax bill from hundreds to thousands of dollars. The notification did not get to them until
after it was too late to file. When he asked, he was told that the Finance Department had no relationship
with the Planning office. As far as the change for this years people, there are more than 100 people
=
involved in this entrapment. He thinks the proposal, with whatever fee is felt to be reasonable, would fix it
for this year.
Ms. Margaret Lonicki said she would like to urge the Supervisors to vote approval of this ordinance.
She is one of those landowners who has gone through that situation. She has 174 acres with two houses
on the property and wants to build an additional house for herself. They had to create an additional parcel
to do that because you can only have two houses on one property. She got a notification that her whole
174 acres, because she took out one acre in order to put a house on it, lost its land use. She was quite
frantic. With regard to the fee, she said the Board might make it applicable "per person" as opposed to "per
parcel". In her case, she now has two parcels which are affected.
Mr. James Bridgewater said he is a Nelson County resident, but is present to represent his sister
who owns 1055 acres on Heards Mountain. He said that to arrange the line, she sold the adjoining property
owner seven acres. Then, on April 11 she got a notice saying 1044 acres were thrown out of land use. Her
taxes will increase to $3000. He talked with an attorney who said they had 30 days in which to reapply. He
went to the assessment office to reapply and was told it was too late. Now, he hears that this will be
corrected. He just wants to be sure he is not too late. Mr. Tucker said if the ordinance is adopted tonight,
Mr. Bridgewater is not too late.
Dr. William Orr said they gave a piece of land to their children about 20 years ago when the
children were minors. He said the land was divided by-right because no one wanted to buy the whole
parcel. They have sold off about half of the acreage. He then got a tax application on the three lots asking
if he wanted to continue the land use. He was told that there was a $15 fee, but it would not take affect until
this coming December. He said they have lost the land use for this year unless something is done. He
thinks it would be nice if property owners under land use could be notified when they need to reapply. He
thinks $200 is a very steep fee, but he thinks land use is great for the County.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has to make a decision about the fee. Mr. Bowerman asked if the fee
can be lowered without readvertising. Mr. Davis said in this particular case, the fee can be lowered or
raised without readvertising.
Ms. Thomas asked if the fee could apply to each person, rather than each parcel, as was asked
earlier. Mr. Davis said no.
A@
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the fee should be lower than $200. Mr. Davis said he has a spreadsheet
for the people affected this year. Out of the 106 that are affected, 11 owners have tax differences of less
than $200.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many people are using land use tax provisions. Mr. Bruce Woodzell said
there are 5000 parcels in land use. Mr. Dorrier asked if these people are notified about the requirement to
reapply if they sell off part of their land. Mr. Woodzell said Change of Appraisal Notices are mailed on
A@
January 1 of the odd-numbered years. Last year when the reassessment notices were mailed, there was a
notice given that if there were a change in use or acreage they should contact the Assessment Office to
reapply for land use. Part of the problem occurs when people put something to record in November or
December. His deadline is November 2 so he does not contact those people.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a mailing to all 5000 of those people once a year. Mr. Woodzell said
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
no. Mr. Perkins said some counties do send a notice.
A@
Mr. Dorrier suggested staff send out educational information explaining what happens when there
is a change in use. Mr. Woodzell said when the application is first filed it contains a lot of information. They
are also given a handbill which contains information, and information is put out on the Countys website. He
=
addresses this to members of the local Bar Association, and speaks to realtor groups and surveyors. Mr.
Davis said some localities make every property owner reapply every year. Mr. Woodzell said that is
revalidation, but the Board and staff decided in the past not to go that route because the assessors are on
the property every two years and are supposed to check the property for use while they are there.
Mr. Dorrier said he would not be in favor of a yearly application. But, he would suggest that some
educational piece be sent to all 5000 people each year. Mr. Woodzell said if the ordinance is passed
tonight, his office will send a letter by certified mail tomorrow to those who are affected this year and give
them the 30 days to comply.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Mr. Dorriers idea of sending out information each year is a good idea.
=
Mr. Woodzell said the reassessment notice has a statement on it concerning land use.
Ms. Thomas said when the tax bill is mailed a copy of County News is included. This subject
A@
could be a lead story in that newspaper. Even though a lot of people who are not involved in land use
would get the notice, it would be less expensive than a separate mailing to 5000 landowners. She asked if
anyone wanted to speak about the fee.
Mr. Martin said the actual cost is only between $50 and $100. If there were a mailing to everyone,
then the $200 fee sounds reasonable. If the notice went in with the tax bill, then maybe a better figure
would be $125.
Mr. Perkins said a fee of $125 would get his attention. Mr. Dorrier said he will vote for $125 as long
as a notice gets to the people about the law and what is required. Mr. Rooker asked how Mr. Dorrier felt
about including the information with the newsletter that goes out with the tax bill each year. Mr. Dorrier said
if it can be worded in such a way so that it gets the attention of the people who need to see it, then he is
agreeable.
Ms. Thomas then entertained a motion. Mr. Rooker moved to adopt An Ordinance to Amend
Chapter 15, Taxation, Article VIII, Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space
Real Estate, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 15-802, Applications for
assessment-By property owner, and setting the fee in Sec. 15-802B at $125.00.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-15(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE VIII, SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL, HORTICULTURAL, FOREST OR OPEN
SPACE REAL ESTATE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, Article VIII, Special Assessments for Agricultural,
Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 15-802 Applications for assessment-By property owner
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE VIII. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL,
HORTICULTURAL, FOREST OR OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE
Sec. 15-802 Applications for assessment--By property owner.
A. The owner of any real estate meeting the criteria set forth in sections
15-800 and 15-804 herein and the standards adopted by the Commissioner of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Department of Forestry or the Department of
Conservation and Historic Resources, and this article, must submit an application for
taxation on the basis of a use assessment to the local assessing officer at least sixty (60)
days preceding the tax year for which such taxation is sought or within thirty (30) days of
the mailing of notices of a general reassessment, whichever is later. An individual who is
an owner of an undivided interest in a parcel may apply on behalf of himself and the
other owners of such parcel upon submitting an affidavit that such other owners are
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
minors or cannot be located.
B. Applications may be filed no later than sixty (60) days after the filing
deadline specified herein, upon the payment of a late filing fee of one hundred twenty-five
dollars ($125.00). In addition, a further extension of the filing deadline is permitted, upon
payment of an extension fee of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00), to a date no
later than thirty days after a notice of assessment is mailed. An application shall be
submitted whenever the use or acreage of such land previously approved changes. No
application fee will be required when the change in acreage occurs solely as a result of a
conveyance necessitated by government action or condemnation of a portion of any land
previously approved for taxation on the basis of use assessment. Failure to submit an
application by the specified deadline shall disqualify the entire parcel for taxation under
this article. Applications shall be submitted on forms prepared by the state tax
commissioner and supplied to the county for use of the applicants. A separate
application shall be filed for each parcel listed on the land book.
(8-23-73; 8-13-75; 4-21-76; 4-13-88; Ord. of 8-11-93; Code 1988, 8-33; Ord. 98-A(1),
'
8-5-98; Ord. 02-15(3), 5-15-02)
State law reference--Va. Code 58.1-3234.
''
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing to receive comments on the 2002 Annual Plan for the
administration of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 2002.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the executive summary which is set out in the minutes of May 1, 2002. He
said the Plan has been available in the Housing Office for a 45-day review period, as well as in the Clerks
=
Office and on the Countys website. The Housing Committee met on May 8 and approved the proposed
=
changes to the Annual Plan. Staff recommends that the Board approve of the proposed submission after
conducting the public hearing. In addition, staff requests that the Chairman be authorized to sign the
certifications.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Martin asked if it would be hard to determine the meaning of the term those who live in or work
A
in Albemarle County. Mr. Davis said it would be difficult, but it can be done.
@
Mr. Ron White, Housing Director, said his office has to do a verification of every person who is
issued a voucher, so they have their place of employment listed. The office has a listing of all street
addresses in Albemarle. They did a sampling of the waiting list which contains between 500 and 600
names. Twenty-five percent of those people live in the County; almost twice as many lived in the City of
Charlottesville.
Mr. Rooker asked the meaning of give preference to County residents if a City resident had been
A@
on the waiting list longer. Mr. White said the name of the person presently living in Albemarle County would
rise to the top of the list. Date and time would be the second preference.
Mr. Rooker asked if there are other preferences. Mr. White said there used to be many Federal
preferences such as homelessness, victims of domestic violence, involuntary displacement, natural
disaster, etc. The County did not see a great need for those preferences. Now it is up to the locality to
determine from a list the things which work best for its clients. He said that the last time they opened the
waiting list, there were people from Maryland, New Jersey, Fredericksburg, etc. coming in to make
application. Looking at the mission statement, it clearly says Albemarle County is trying to provide
assistance to those residents of the County who can least afford housing. The last time he was before the
Board, the utilization rate was discussed. Since that time, they are leased over 95 percent of units. Since
there are so few vouchers left, they would like to serve the residents of the County.
Ms. Thomas said if there were no other comments, she would entertain a motion.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker that the Board approve of the Albemarle County PHA Year 3
Plan for Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2002, with two new provisions this year--payment standards and
preferences, and also authorize the Chairman to sign the required certifications.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(The Plan is set out in full below:)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
PHA Plan Year 3 Plan
Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2002
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
BACKGROUND
The Albemarle County Office of Housing is the designated local agency for the administration of the
Housing Choice Voucher Program (hereinafter referred to as the program), formerly known as Section 8
Rental Assistance Program. The Office is a part of the executive branch of local government and not a
public housing authority. However, with respect to the program, the Office must comply with requirements
of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding activities as a Public Housing
Agency (PHA) including the development of a 5-year PHA Plan and Annual Plans.
The Office submitted its 5-Year PHA Plan and first year Annual Plan to HUD in January 2001. This
summary provides general information on the proposed Year 3 Plan.
MISSION AND GOALS
It is the mission of the Albemarle County Office of Housing to
Promote opportunities for all county citizens to secure and maintain safe, decent,
accessible, and affordable housing with emphasis given to those least able to obtain it.
In carrying out this mission, the following goals have been set:
·
Expand the supply of assisted housing by coordinating with and leveraging resources from
other public and private entities;
·
Improve the quality of assisted housing through improved voucher management and increased
client input;
·
Increase assisted housing choices by outreach to potential landlords and replacement of
project-based assistance with tenant-based vouchers;
·
Promote self-sufficiency and asset development of families through the Family Self-sufficiency
Program and comprehensive housing counseling; and
·
Ensure equal opportunity and affirmatively further fair housing by taking measures assuring
equal access regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and
disability.
ANNUAL PLAN – FY 2002-03
Based on a needs assessment conducted for the Consolidated Plan of the City of Charlottesville and the
Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium, the following needs were identified. Based on this assessment each
need was assigned a number rating its impact with 5 being “severe impact” and 1 being “no impact”.
Affordability 4.5
Supply 3.75
Location 3.5
Accessibility 2.75
Size 2.25
These impacts are indicative of the tight housing supply in and around the urban ring and the expressed
needs to live closer to jobs and services to avoid commuting costs. There is evidence, however, that many
commuters accept the trade-off of a thirty-mile commute if it means more access to affordable housing.
WAITING LIST
The Office maintains a waiting list that includes lists for all available voucher programs including project-
based assistance through the Moderate Rehabilitation Program. In an effort to lease available vouchers,
Albemarle County opened its waiting list in the fall of 2001 and again in the spring of 2002. The list
currently contains approximately 600 names with eighty-nine percent (89%) having incomes below 30% of
the area median. Sixty-seven percent (67%) were families with children and fourteen percent (14%) were
families with one or more member being elderly or having a disability.
SCREENING AND ADMISSIONS PREFERENCES
The Office requires all documentation and verification to be supplied by the client and/or source of
employment/income. In 2001, the Office began requiring the applicant to submit criminal history checks
from the local law enforcement department to comply with HUD’s requirements related to criminal
background of applicants. It is the responsibility of the landlord to conduct any credit review or other
reviews as allowed by law and regulation.
The Office does target at least 75% of new admissions to those families with incomes at or below 30% of
the area median income (extremely low income). The Office currently uses date and time of application as
the means to determine admissions. The Office may use other criteria for “Special Purpose Vouchers” as
appropriate. The special vouchers available are through the Family Unification Program with emphasis on
keeping families together in cases where lack of housing may result in children separated from parent(s).
The Office coordinates this program with the Department of Social Services.
During the first two years of the current 5-year plan, the County of Albemarle has not used any of the
leasing preferences available. These preferences include working families, veterans, residents who live
and/or work in the County, those enrolled in or previously enrolled in educational, training, or upward
mobility programs, persons involuntary displaced, victims of domestic violence, residents of substandard
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
housing, and the homeless. Given the tight housing market and common theme of lack of affordability by
all segments of the low- and moderate-income population, the Office provided assistance on a first-come,
first-served basis. As our lease-up rate continues to increase and our mission is to serve county residents,
this Annual Plan proposes to give preference to those who live and/or work in Albemarle County. This
change, if adopted, must be approved by HUD prior to implementation.
Upon issuance of a voucher, clients are provided a 60-day period in which to locate an affordable and
acceptable housing unit. If, within this time, the client is not successful a 30-day extension may be
requested in writing. The request must also include documentation of the client’s efforts in searching for
housing. In an effort to increase the utilization rate of the vouchers, the Office has begun to approve
extensions only in cases that a successful lease is imminent. Generally, not more than two 30-day
extensions will be granted. Although the Office would like to see all voucher holders find housing, it is
important to maintain as many vouchers under lease as possible. Delays in negotiating leases may affect
funding in subsequent years.
Although not specifically required as a part of the Annual Plan, the Office of Housing proposes to require all
those persons not living in the County at time of application who eventually receive a voucher to lease in the
County or City of Charlottesville for the first twelve months. Thereafter, the voucher holder will have the
right to “port out” to any jurisdiction. This requirement could be waived to allow a reasonable
accommodation for disabled persons.
NOTE: This is provided for in the program regulations but has not been a policy of the County. By
not requiring this, staff has faced an increased workload with applicants from many other areas of
the state as well as applicants from Maryland and New Jersey. Once these applicants receive a
voucher, they immediately port-out to the jurisdiction they came from. We currently have one
voucher holder in New York with monthly assistance totaling almost $1400.
RENT CALCULATIONS/RENT REASONABLENESS
The payment standard for rents is 100% of the fair market rent (FMR) for all but 1-bedroom units for which
the Office uses 110% of the FMR. The Office of Housing will continue to monitor the rental market as it
relates to needed increases in the payment standard for two- and three-bedroom units. Fair market rent is
based on rental costs for units of various bedroom sizes within the area. In addition to using FMR, the
Office keeps a database of rental units in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Comparable units are located
in the database for a rent reasonableness calculation. The lessor of the FMR or rent reasonableness
calculation becomes the contract rent. NOTE: FMR is gross rent inclusive of utilities. To determine net
rental any tenant-paid utilities must be subtracted from the FMR. Rent reasonableness calculations will
take into account the amenities offered to and utilities paid by the tenant.
Tenants are required to pay 30% of their adjusted gross income towards housing expenses when the rent is
within the adopted payment standards for the program. Tenants may chose to rent a property with a higher
rent, however, assistance will be provided based on the approved payment standard. In no case, will the
Office approve an initial lease in which the gross rent (housing and utilities exceed 40% of the household
income).
Minimum Rent – Currently the Office has a policy for each tenant to pay a minimum of $25 toward rent
and/or utility costs. This may be waived in hardship cases.
Recalculation of Subsidy – The Office will continue to recalculate subsidy when there is a change in income
in the household. In the past some of the vouchers have allowed recalculation at the time of renewal with
the exception of cases of decreased income which could be recalculated at the time of notification.
Recalculation can, as an option, be done only at renewal. There are a number of reasons for recalculating
at the time of income change (increase)
1. Minimizes impact by adjusting rent at the time of income adjustment. Tenants could find other
means of spending increased income and be negatively impacted at time of renewal with a
decreased rental subsidy.
2. Decreased assistance will have positive budget implications in assisting other clients.
Minimizes abuse of the program when tenants adjust their income downward prior to
3.
recertification
.
OFFICE OF HOUSING
The Office of Housing has nine staff positions, eight of which are currently filled.
·
The Chief of Housing oversees the Office and all program activities and participates in
developing/implementing policies related to affordable housing opportunities for the County.
·
Housing Planner (currently vacant) provides research and analysis of housing programs and
available resources and provides staff support to the Housing Committee
·
Rental Coordinator provides daily oversight for the Housing Choice Voucher Program including
managing program budgets/payments
·
Two housing specialists who work with clients in issuing and renewing vouchers.
·
One housing specialist who conducts inspections, makes rent reasonableness calculations,
and negotiates rental rates.
·
Two housing counselors, one of which is assigned to work with the Family Self-sufficiency
Program and Family Unification Program and the other assigned to the Homebuyers Clubs.
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
·
Office assistant who acts as receptionist directing clients to one of the specialists and
coordinates activities with the waiting list.
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
The Office’s policy on informal hearings is as follows:
The housing specialists, in consultation with the Rental Coordinator, make initial
determinations/decisions based on interpretation of program policy and procedures. A client not
agreeing with such determination/decision may make a written request for an informal hearing
within ten days of notification of the action. The Chief of Housing will act as hearing officer for the
informal hearing. If the Chief of Housing was directly involved in the initial action, another hearing
officer will be designated. Decisions made by the hearing officer will be based on interpretation of
policy and regulations.
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM
Although allowed, the Office has not developed a program to allow use of Housing Choice Vouchers for
homeownership. This allowance is relatively new with a lack of data on its success and the limited
availability of mortgage financing for the required junior mortgage. In addition, the demand for rental
assistance remains extremely high and is considered a high priority housing need for the very low- and
extremely low-income residents of the County. The County still supports homeownership for lower-income,
first-time homebuyers by providing funding for the Homebuyers Clubs. In addition, the Albemarle Housing
Initiative Fund can be used to finance downpayment and closing cost assistance.
CURRENT/PROJECTED ACTIVITIES
The Office has maintained approximately 380 vouchers under lease during the past year. The focus has
been on increasing and maintaining utilization to achieve a 95% lease-up rate (440 units). As of May 6,
2002 442 vouchers were under lease.
Efforts are underway to review and make revisions to the Family Self-Sufficiency Program. The Office has
12 openings for those voucher holders who volunteer to contract for this program that sets goals to
increase upward mobility and reach a stage when public assistance is no longer needed.
During the coming year, it is expected that 101 moderate rehab certificates will convert to housing choice
vouchers. This process, which will take place over a four-month period, will require new leases and
housing assistance payment contracts for each unit.
In an effort to increase the supply of housing, the Office of Housing will work with the Planning Department,
Housing Committee, and County Executive staff in developing an affordable dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance.
The General Assembly approved legislation during this year’s session that gives the County more flexibility
is establishing such an ordinance.
___________________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2001-017. Merrie Meadows (Sign #43). Public hearing on a request to
allow a church in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. The existing church is non-conforming & the
expansion of the bldg requires approval of SUP to bring church into conformance w/current Zoning Ord.
SDP-01-036, a request for a preliminary site plan waiver, has also been submitted. The applicant also
requested that SP-81-18, SUP for a private school, be vacated by the Board of Supervisors. TM 48, P 15A
contains 37.55 acs. Loc at 2746 Merrie Meadows Lane, on the W sd of Rt 20 N, S of Rt 640 in the Stony
Point community. Znd RA. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 29 and May 6, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said on October 10, 2001, the Board referred this request for a church use back to
the Planning Commission so the Commission could consider new information regarding accessory uses to
the church application. Also, they were to review new conditions of approval associated with the camping
operation. The staffs report of July 17, 2001, noted that SP-85-35 allowed four cabins for weekend lodging
=
two times a year with a condition that restricted the camp use to the owner rather than the land. When the
owner transferred the property into a family trust, the special use permit became invalid. At the time the
Commission recommended approval of SP-2001-17 for the church, it believed the camping operation
would require a separate special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 restricts
governments from imposing or implementing land use regulations in a manner that imposes a substantial
A
burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution unless there is a
@
compelling governmental interest and the regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
Based on the applicants statements at the Boards public hearing on September 9, 2002, and written
==
material submitted thereafter, staff determined that the camping activities associated with the congregation
are accessory to the primary church use. Cumulative impacts resulting from both the church and potential
accessory uses required further review by Zoning, Engineering and the Health Department. These impacts
included noise, lights, traffic, water, septic and waste management issues. With the exceptions of the
Health Department and the Planning Department, no additional comments from the other reviewing
departments were received. The Health Department evaluation included the kitchen and bathroom
facilities, as well as the water and sewer capability. The Health Department concluded that Merrie
Meadows could operate under conditions specified in their letters dated January 24, 2002, and January 29,
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
2002.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on August 15, 2001, the Board deferred SP-2001-017 until September 5,
2001, in order for staff to provide additional information regarding issues discussed at that meeting. As a
result of that additional review, conditions of approval were added to address the camp and potential future
accessory uses for the church. The information contained in the conditions concerning the maximum
number of people attending the events and the number of events to be held was provided by the applicant
in his application. The Commission, at its meeting on April 9, 2002, unanimously recommended approval
of SP-2001-017, subject to 11 conditions.
Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first.
Mr. Howell Cotten, the owner of Merrie Meadows, was present. He said after the Health
Department reviewed all of the facilities (well, septic facilities, and other potential expansions), they
approved the use for not only the congregation, but for the camping facility, as well. He has made
applications which are being held in the Zoning Department for a dumping station and a separate septic
field for that use. That will not affect the existing septic system. He asked the Boards approval.
=
Ms. Thomas asked about the number of cabins. She said the plat shows five, but Mr. Cottens
=
notarized statement mentions only four. Mr. Cotten said one cabin is used as a nursery, so it was not
classified as a cabin because of their limited facilities now. In the new building, there is a nursery area, so
that cabin will become a fifth cabin.
Ms. Thomas said that causes her concern since the existing sewage drain field does not fit the load
if there are five cabins. She said the Health Department is working under the misapprehension that there
are only four cabins. Mr. Cotten said the Health Department said they would count that as one of the
campsites. There would be one less campsite to replace the cabin.
Ms. Thomas said the Health Department is counting six campsites, as do the recommended
conditions. Mr. Cotten said there is a total of 10, so he is saying there will be five campsites and five cabins.
Ms. Thomas said the Board needs to change the conditions to reflect this change. Also, the
conditions limit the use to 15 nights per year for overnight camping. Mr. Cotten said it is not based on
nights, but weekends. Ms. Thomas said there are five incidents of assemblies to be limited to three
consecutive days and nights; that is how she got the number 15. Mr. Cotten said that sounds right. These
would occur on holiday weekends.
Mr. Rooker asked the meaning of regional meetings as mentioned in Condition No. 8. Mr. Howell
A@
said that is when people from Fredericksburg, Northern Virginia, and other places come for a regional
meeting. It is a larger meeting, generally once a month.
Mr. Rooker said Condition No. 8 says: The regional meetings shall be limited to the following:
A
The number of regional assemblies permitted on the site shall be a maximum of seven days per calendar
year. The regional assemblies shall not include overnight stays by the attendees. There is no definition in
@
the conditions of the term regional meetings. Mr. Davis said the land use issue is related to the number of
A@
people attending, rather then where they come from. Mr. Rooker said Condition No. 9 does limit the use to
no more than 350 people ... at any time.
A@
Mr. Martin said the term regional meeting would be defined differently by different churches. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the term should be eliminated. Mr. Rooker said Mr. Howell defined the term as when
they invite people from other congregations to attend. Mr. Davis said the goal was to say that at some point
in time there is an assembly that is bigger than what is normal, so that big assembly should be limited by
the number of people who attend, and not whether they are regional meetings.
A@
Mr. Bowerman suggested adding the language "will not be attained more than seven times a year
@
in Condition No. 8, and forget the term regional meeting.
A@
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board is getting rather restrictive anyway. Mr. Davis said Condition
No. 9 now says there can never be more than 350 people. That already caps the regional aspect. The
A@
question is how many times a year can more than the normal number of people be on the property. He
does not know what the normal number of people is. He asked if there is a regular attendance cap, and
then a maximum attendance cap?
Mr. Martin said it is one of those things where it would be best to just leave it alone.
Ms. Thomas said it is seven times a year that these regional assemblies take place, not once a
month. Mr. Dorrier said these people will be doing church business, not partying. Ms. Thomas said the
impact on the rural area is still significant. It is a land use issue.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there has been a problem before. Mr. Martin said some neighbors to this
property complained when this request came to the Board last year. Some of their complaints were
basically allegations. This request has been reviewed by all parties, and he would feel comfortable
approving this request tonight.
Mr. Davis suggested that Condition No. 8 be amended to say: The number of assemblies
A
permitted on this site exceeding 175 people shall be a maximum of seven days per year. Mr. Martin asked
@
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
the basis for the number 175. Mr. Davis said it was based on the number Mr. Cotten said was typical, 150 +
giving him some flexibility. Mr. Rooker said he finds that to be reasonable.
Mr. Cotten said there are seven regional meetings, plus the five holiday weekends, giving a total of
12. Ms. Thomas said the overnight assemblies then include the 350 people. Mr. Cotten said that is correct.
He said that is in all the calculations by the Health Department. Mr. Cilimberg said that is why the condition
was worded to have a maximum. There is a maximum number that cannot be exceeded in the event of any
activity, and that is somewhat associated with Health Department approval. The rest of what was being
limited were the regional meetings, which are not camping activities, AND the camping activities.
Mr. Rooker said if the number is changed to 12, is that okay with Mr. Cotten. He suggested using
Mr. Davis suggested wording. Mr. Cilimberg said changing the wording will get sticky. Mr. Martin said the
=A@
conditions would need to go back to the Commission for rewording.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many times 350 people are on the property for the weekend. Mr. Cotten
said about once a month; during months when there is a holiday weekend, such as for Memorial Day
weekend. Ms. Thomas said there are then 350 people on the property for three days and nights. Mr.
Cotten said there could be that many. On the fourth day of July, there will be a one-day event because it
falls on a Thursday this year. For Labor Day weekend, there will be a three-day event. That takes the
place of the regional meeting in the month where a holiday falls. They have Christian friends who come
from greater distances on those holiday weekends, and that becomes the regional meeting. Ms. Thomas
said there are five of those, and then the other months of the year there are regional meetings which are
not overnight. Mr. Cotten said that is correct.
Mr. Davis suggested rewording Condition No. 8 to say: The number of non-camping assemblies
A
permitted on the site exceeding 175 people shall be limited to no more than seven days per calendar year.
@
Ms. Thomas said that fits the intent, and does not rely on what the meeting is called. She referred
to Condition No. 5 and asked if the noise should not cease at 10:00 p.m., rather than after 10:00 p.m. Mr.
Davis said the question is what time noise can begin again, and that was not specified. Noise should cease
between 10:00 p.m. and some time in the a.m. Some reasonable time should be chosen when noise can
begin again.
Mr. Dorrier said he believes the word excessive should be placed in front of noise. Ms. Thomas
A@A@
said excessive will be in the ear of the listener. Noise is something than can be measured, and it says
heard from adjoining properties.
A@
Ms. Thomas asked when noise will begin in the morning that can be heard by the neighbors. Mr.
Cotten said that was noise in the activity center, the bouncing of balls, etc., and he said that would be cut off
at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Martin said the Board is trying to determine an appropriate time when noise can begin in
the morning. Mr. Cotten said on the camping weekends, they have Bible study start at 10:30 a.m, with
breakfast starting at 8:00 a.m. Kids do play on the slides and swings before breakfast, and it is in an area
totally remote from the neighbors. He would be satisfied with 8:00 a.m. or whatever. Mr. Rooker said he
thinks 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. is reasonable.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Davis to state the condition again. Mr. Davis said it should read: All
A
outdoor activities and activities within buildings on the subject site that produce noise that can be heard from
adjoining properties shall cease between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
@
Mr. Martin said he believes the public hearing is still open.
With no one from the public rising to speak, Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing, and the matter
was placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-2001-
017 subject to the 11 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with the modifications
suggested by Mr. Davis in Condition Nos. 5 and 8. Mr. Davis asked if Condition No. 10 is to be amended to
say five primitive campsites? Ms. Thomas said yes. Mr. Cilimberg said there is another condition which
A@A@
also applies to how much activity can take place on the site, and that is Condition No. 3 concerning Health
Department approvals.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The improvements shall be constructed on the parcel in substantial conformance
with the plan included in this report as Attachment E, titled Merrie Meadows Site
Plan and dated 6-13-01;
2. A commercial entrance, subject to Virginia Department of Transportation
standards, shall be constructed prior to the first camping event or regional event
under this permit. Adequate sight distance will be required by either a dedication of
a twenty-five (25) foot right-of-way along the property line abutting Route 20 or the
provision of a sight easement for the entrance, subject to the approval of the
Virginia Department of Transportation;
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
3. All required Health Department approvals shall be obtained prior to the issuance of
a building permit;
4. All structures and parking areas not in existence as of the date of the approval of
this special use permit shall maintain Commercial zone setback standards (fifty
[50] feet for rear and sides), as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning
Ordinance;
5. All outdoor activities and activities within any buildings on the subject site that
produce noise that can be heard from adjoining properties shall cease between
10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.;
6. SP-81-18 and all uses authorized thereby are terminated;
7. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, evergreen trees, such as Virginia
Cedar, shall be installed between the access road and the adjacent parcel (Tax
Map 48, Parcel 74). The landscape materials type, size and location of installation
shall provide a natural barrier to prevent direct glare onto the aforementioned
adjacent residential property from headlights of vehicles traveling along the access
road and shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director or designee. The
landscape screening shall be maintained in such a manner that the screening shall
be preserved;
8. The number of non-camping assemblies permitted on the site exceeding one
hundred seventy-five (175) people shall be limited to no more than seven (7) days
per calendar year. Assemblies shall not include overnight stays by the attendees;
9. No more than three hundred fifty (350) people shall be permitted on the site at any
time;
10. The camping operation shall be limited to the following:
The maximum number of camping (overnight) assemblies shall be five (5) per
$
calendar year,
The maximum length of time of the camping assemblies shall be limited to
$
three (3) consecutive days and nights,
No more than five (5) cabins (existing), five (5) primitive campsites, and four (4)
$
recreational vehicle sites shall be permitted. Primitive can be defined as a
building or site without kitchen or bathroom facilities attached; and,
11. All expansions of the church operation and its accessory uses shall require an
amendment to this special use permit.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2001-047. Albemarle Baptist Church (Signs #93 & 94). Public hearing
on a request to allow a church in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 61, P 1E contains 6.239
acs. Loc on the NE corner of Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) & Roslyn Ridge Rd (Rt 1390), approx 1.5 mls NE from
intersec of Seminole Trail (Rt 29 N) & Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743). Znd RA. Jack Jouett Dist. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 2002.)
*Mr. Rooker disqualified himself because he has an ownership interest in the underlying property.
He handed to the Clerk a copy of a Transactional Disclosure Statement which will be filed with the officials
records of the Board of Supervisors. He left the room immediately.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has requested approval of a special use permit to allow for the
construction of a church in three phases which will total 25,800 square feet and 174 parking spaces. The
applicant also requests that the normal period in which an activity needs to commence (24 months under
the Ordinance) be increased to 48 months to allow additional time to prepare for site plan review. If the
Board desires to allow that request, it is included in the recommended conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the property is located on the northwest corner of Hydraulic Road and Roslyn
Ridge Road. The property is zoned Rural Area, and the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as
Rural Area. It is in the reservoir watershed for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The surrounding area
consists of a mixture of residential and commercial development. There are churches nearby on that side
of Hydraulic Road. Also, the proposed Route 29 Western Bypass right-of-way is located to the rear of the
church property boundary. He said the applicant appeared before the Architectural Review Board and
agreed to their four recommendations. They have submitted some changes in orientation of the structures
and location of parking behind structures.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Health Department preliminarily approved the site for septic based on the
original master plan showing a maximum seating capacity of 240 occupants. The current revised master
plan shows a seating capacity of 435 occupants and the Health Department determined that this increase
in seating created a design flow of greater than 1200 gallons per day which would require a mass drainfield.
The applicant has submitted an engineering study of the soils for review and approval. Preliminary
approval has been granted by the Health Department for a proposal to utilize timed dosage of the sewage
effluent from the church. The Health Department determined that this would be an appropriate method to
circumvent the mass drainfield requirement.
Mr. Cilimberg said the number of parking spaces permitted in excess of the minimum standards
should be addressed at the site plan review stage to ensure there is adequate space to install a properly-
sized septic system (with primary and reserve fields). In addition, the number of parking spaces permitted
in excess of the minimum number required should not be paved.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval with conditions. The Planning Commission, at its
meeting on April 23, 2002, unanimously recommended approval, but added a condition reading:
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Permeable pavement shall be used for all parking spaces, subject to the approval of the Department of
A
Engineering. The Commission indicated that if the Engineering Department does not feel the condition is
@
appropriate they could so advise the Board tonight. The applicant has asked that the condition not be
included as part of approval for this request.
With no questions of staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
speak first.
Mr. Marcus DeLoach, Pastor of the church, said he had nothing new to add. They do request that
the condition concerning the permeable pavement be removed. It is expensive and hard to maintain.
Because the pavement is porous and allows water to seep through the pavement, in the winter time it would
cause buckling due to freezing/thawing.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked staff's opinion on the permeable paving item. Mr. Mark Graham, County
Engineer, said the applicant is concerned about clogging. He is thinking of what was previously called
pervious pavement, which is an asphalt or concrete pavement, a special mix which lets water seep through
it. From personal experience, he would strongly discourage use of that pavement design. As to the
alternatives of grass pave or gravel pave, they are still in the experimental stage, and their reliability is
questionable. The Department is reluctant to require a measure which might fail in just a few years,
especially this close to the Reservoir. Also, the cost is prohibitive.
Mr. Bowerman said the recommended action did not include a Condition No. 6 regarding parking
spaces recommended by staff (The required number of parking spaces shall be determined by the ability
A
to properly locate the septic drainfield). He said that condition was dropped by the Commission, and he
@
wonders if the Health Department and other requirements adequately deal with that. Mr. Cilimberg said
yes.
A@
At this time, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve SP-2001-047 for Albemarle Baptist Church
subject to Condition Nos. 1 through 9 as recommend by the Commission, eliminating Condition No 10
(Permeable pavement shall be used for all parking spaces, subject to the approval of the Department of
A
Engineering.).
@
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Rooker.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. All requirements of the Architectural Review Board shall be met, including the site
plan indicating the existing tree line and specific trees of six (6) inches or greater
and retaining significant trees;
2. The church's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall
be developed in substantial compliance with the master plan entitled Albemarle
Baptist Church, prepared by Dex A. Sanders, and dated 11/28/01;
3. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum four hundred thirty-five (435)
seat sanctuary;
4. Health Department approval of well and septic systems prior to final site plan
approval;
5. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Chapter 18, 21.7.2 of the
'
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential
uses or residentially-zoned properties;
6. Any number of parking spaces in excess of the required minimum shall not be
paved;
7. There shall be no day care center or private school on-site without approval of a
separate special use permit;
8. Construction of Phase 1 (six thousand [6,800] sq. ft. sanctuary) shall commence
within forty-eight (48) months or this special use permit shall expire; and,
9. All requirements of VDOT shall be met prior to final site plan approval, including
approval of one entrance from Roslyn Ridge Road, with a one hundred (100) foot
right-turn lane and one hundred (100) foot taper lane.
__________
(Note: Mr. Rooker returned to the meeting at 8:20 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-2001-017. Hickory Ridge Equestrian (Signs #72 & 73). Public hearing
on a request to rezone 5.02 acs from PUD to RA to allow zoning conformity of existing stable & establish 2
development rights. TM 30, P 39. Loc at 4600 Pelham Rd at NW corner of Pelham Rd & Rt 665. (The
Comp Plan designates this property as RA.) White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised
in the Daily Progress on April 29 and May 6, 2002.)
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request for a conditional rezoning of 5.02 acres from Planned Unit
Development to Rural Area with proffers. The rezoning, as proffered, would grant one development right
for a dwelling, and also would reference other conditions on the property that are laid out in the covenants
and bylaws of Hickory Ridge. The site is currently within the Open Space land use of the PUD and it
contains a horse stable. There are a mixture of residential dwellings, a nearby equine hospital, open space
and agricultural uses in the area. The subject site is at the entrance to an established residential
neighborhood and has been operating as a commercial stable.
Mr. Cilimberg said this PUD was originally approved in 1973 under the prior Zoning Ordinance, and
the original plan was approved for 199 units of which 32 were proposed to be cluster units. In 1982, four
units were deleted reducing the total number of units to 195 with 32 in clusters. The plan included 517.14
acres with 187 acres to be devoted to common open space. In the mid-1980's, a 193.371 acre parcel was
purchased by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for the Buck Mountain Reservoir. As the property
was sold, the lots could not be transferred (according to the Zoning Administrator) to other locations on the
remaining property. In fact, the rights for those lots were part of the purchase by Rivanna.
Mr. Cilimberg said no commitments were made with this application, but the applicant has indicated
that the future purchaser may wish to continue use of the stable as a commercial venture, in addition to the
construction of a single-family home on the property. He said this commercial stable could exist as a by-
right use under the new RA zoning, if this request is approved.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Rural Area within the
Farmlands and Forests designation of the Open Space Plan. The stable use of the PUD implements the
goals and objectives of the Plan regarding Rural Areas. The replacement of open space with an area that
could be used as residential use is contrary to the goals of the Plan. Based on the strict adherence to the
intent of the Growth Management Policy and the intent of the Rural Area District, this request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, staff could not recommend approval. Staff did note that the
impact of this proposal is limited based on the proffers offered by the applicant, and would be consistent
with the current pattern of development created by this PUD.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 23, 2002, recommended
denial of ZMA-2001-017 by a 4:2 vote. Since that meeting, staff asked the Zoning Department for some
idea of what remains as a possible use if this rezoning were not approved. They could find no record of a
zoning approval what would not allow for a commercial stable. Considering the fact that the commercial
stable has been in place for some time, Zoning said that use could continue even if this petition is not
approved.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when it was approved in the
1970s. Mr. Cilimberg said it was approved in 1973. Mr. Tucker said he cannot say it was consistent. The
petition was approved in the same year that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. At that time, PUD's
were allowed in A-1 Districts. Generally, it was somewhat consistent because it was a plan which met the
overall density of the Zoning Ordinance of one unit per two acres. They did have some very small lots, but
there was quite a bit of open space in the PUD.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. John Harris said he is the applicant and one of the owners. He said that originally in Section 1
and Section 2 of Hickory Ridge Farm there were 31 planned lots. Today, 23 of those lots have been built
on or are being built on.
Mr. Rooker asked how many lots were planned for Hickory Ridge. Mr. Harris said he does not
know that total. This particular property (5.02 acres) sits in the middle of 26 acres of open space, and there
has been no problem with the soil perking. They request a rezoning to Rural Areas with one subdivision
right to allow the legal operation of the stable which has been operated for 26 years. When the current
lessee tried to get a license in February a year ago, he was denied a license because of the zoning.
According to the Zoning Department, the zoning is common open space, but this property has been
privately-owned since February, 1975. In December, 1974, the Board of Supervisors approved the
applicant repurchasing the property from the Homeowners Association. Basically, with the PUD, the stable
=
property was owned by the Homeowners and the deed executing that approval was dated February 2,
=
1975. The developer, Bruce Brown, bought the property from the Homeowners Association. Then in late
=
1975, he formed a new corporation called Hickory Ridge Equestrian, which currently owns the property.
A@
The ownership of HRE has changed over the years.
Mr. Harris said he chaired a by-laws review committee in 1994, and they found that the
homeowners association had the option to repurchase the property. In the 1974 action by the Board and in
=
the deed of 1975, the County had two stipulations. One was that the HOA would have a twenty-year option
to repurchase the property. The other was a restriction on the use of the land. It says The land shall not
A
be used for any purpose except barns, rings, jumps, polo fields, and other horse-related activities without
the written consent of the owners of all of the lots in Section 1 and Section 2 of Hickory Ridge Farm.
@
Mr. Harris said they have obtained 100 percent written approval, and he attached part of that to the
hand-out he just gave the Board members. He said all of the neighbors support this rezoning. They also
contacted the adjacent neighborhood (Hickory Ridge Section 3) and they have sent a letter saying their
membership was polled and they support the application with the stipulation that there be only one
development and that any future development be subject to the same covenants and by-laws that apply to
Section 1 and Section 2 of Hickory Ridge.
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Harris said in 1994 he tried to organize the homeowners to purchase the property. He had 21
responses with 18 homeowners coming to a meeting, and 13 were interested in buying the property. The
Bowers Estate was being settled at that time, and Mr. Mussleman was trying to sell the property. In order to
protect the homeowners in Sections 1 and 2, he began negotiations on the price. When it came time to
write checks, there were only three property owners interested, so they acquired the stable. Part of the
stipulation was that they had to honor the existing lease. The stable has been in operation since then, but
has changed operators several times. The current operator wants to purchase the property and eventually
build a house there. This rezoning would approve the operation of a commercial stable, and allow the
building of a house.
Mr. Harris said according to the Zoning Administrator, this property must be commonly-owned, but
it has not been commonly-owned since 1975. There is a difficulty in that interpretation of the zoning. Since
it was a separate tax map parcel before the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted, it may automatically
be eligible for two subdivision rights. That question has been asked, but it will probably have to be settled
by the court. They are also paying real estate taxes based on its commercial operation. This property is
assessed at replacement value. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier said at one time the number of parcels on the plat were reduced because of certain
things which occurred. He asked for an explanation of that. Mr. Harris said on the plat there was an area
shown as four future lots. When the Buck Mountain Reservoir was planned, that land would not perk for
A@
septic systems and those lots were lost to the water level, so those four lots were purchased by the Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority and deeded back to the homeowners association, and they are now part of the
=
common open space. At the end of Pelham Road, there were three lots. Two of those lots are still owned
by Rivanna. One lot has a house on it. They moved the septic system uphill and put in pumps, and
changed the size of the lot. That house is currently occupied. There were four lots lost from future
A
development and two lots on Pelham Road.
@
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said back in 1975 when the three conditions were attached to the use of the property,
he thinks that should have been binding. The applicant has met all of those requirements. He has
obtained the written consent of 100 percent of the neighbors. He is willing to have the property bound by
the covenants and by-laws. He feels the rezoning to A-1 makes it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it is a reasonable request, and would move for approval of ZMA-2001-
017 with the two proffers that have been offered. Mr. Martin gave second to the motion.
Ms. Thomas said she would be happier if there were more assurance that this would remain a
riding stable. The current lessor thinks it can continue as long as the homeowners association continues to
=
allow him use of the rest of the open space. She hopes the use will continue, but it is impossible to say it
will continue because that is a market decision.
With no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 4/23/02
ZMA# 01-17
Tax Map Parcel(s) # 30 - 39
5.02 Acres to be rezoned from PUD to RA
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
requested.
1. Future development of the property shall be restricted by the Hickory Ridge
Covenants and Bylaws included in the "Statement of Subdivision Hickory Ridge
Farm Section One and Section Two" duly recorded in the Albemarle County
Deed Book 554, pages 43-58, dated June 10, 1974, and "Amendment to
Statement of Subdivision of Section One and Section Two" Hickory Ridge Farm
duly recorded in Albemarle County Deed Book 572, pages 97-105, dated April
22, 1975. The owner shall record said restrictions against the property within
thirty days of the date of Board approval of ZMA 01-17, with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle. The owner shall provide written
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
evidence to the Director of Planning of the recording within seven days following
the recording. The County of Albemarle shall not be responsible for enforcing
any of the aforementioned Covenants and Bylaws.
2. No more than one residential dwelling shall be permitted on the property. The
property shall not be further divided.
Signature of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
John Harris John M. Harris 4/18/02
Hantley G. Bruscoe Hantley C. Bruscoe 4/18/02
Doris M. Bruscoe Doris M. Bruscoe 4/18/02
Martha D. Harris Martha D. Harris 4/17/02
Charles B. Seibert Charles W. Seibert 4/18/02
Yvonne B. Seibert Yvonne B. Seibert 4/18/02
By: Charles W. Seibert By: Charles W. Seibert
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-2002-003. Sam's Woodworking Shop (Sign #77). Public hearing on a
request to allow construction of woodworking shop in accord w/Sec 10.2.2(31) of the Zoning Ord. TM 122,
P 33A, contains 12.24 acs. Loc on NE sd of Coles Rolling Rd (Rt 712), approx 1.25 mls NW of Blenheim
Rd (Rt 795). Znd RA. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress
on April 29 and May 6, 2002.)
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 8:43 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is requesting a special use permit for a Home Occupation-Class B
to allow for the operation of a custom-made furniture shop. The applicant proposed to construct a wood
shop, an office and a garage area under one roof for a total of 1485 square feet. There will be no
employees. This property is located in the Carters Bridge Agricultural/ Forestal District. The Ag/Forest
=
Committee reviewed the request, and recommended approval based on the proposal having a minimum
impact on the agricultural/forestal operations on neighboring parcels.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The level
of intensity of the proposed furniture shop would be consistent with the character of the Rural Area. This is
also for an applicant who has been self-employed as a woodworker in Albemarle County for about 24
years. Staff recommended approval, and the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 23, 2002,
unanimously recommended approval subject to conditions.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak. Mr. James
Sams said he had nothing to add to the staffs report.
=
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve SP-2002-003, subject to
the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. There shall be no on-site sales;
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials;
3. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable
hazardous waste regulations; and,
4. All production activity of custom-made furniture shall occur within the designated
workshop area, not to exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) sq. ft. as shown
on Attachment A (on file in the Clerk's office).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2002-004. Bright-Triton PCS - CVR 350E (Sign #75). Public hearing on
a request to amend a SUP in order to allow the continued use of personal wireless facility which was
installed in violation of a condition that was intended to restrict the diameter of a metal monopole to 30
inches at the bottom & 18 inches at the top. The facility instead was constructed w/a monopole
w/diameters of 39.19 inches at its base & 23.4 inches at its top. TM 58, P 61A, contains approx 5.144 acs.
Loc on the E sd of Tillman Rd (Rt 676), approx 1/2 ml N of intersec w/ Rt 250 W. Znd RA. Samuel Miller
Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 3, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request for a deferral, so he did not intend to make a presentation. Also,
he would note that the Zoning Administrator had planned on being present to discuss the diameter and
height of the tower above the trees. But since the applicant requested deferral in a letter dated May 15,
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
2002, received by Fax at 14:03 today, she did not come to the meeting tonight.
Ms. Thomas said there have been questions about whether the tower is being used without its
proper permit. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not have an answer to that question.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 8:45 p.m.)
Ms. Thomas said this is an unusual situation. Many people came tonight to speak and although
they understand there has been a request for a deferral, they still wish to speak. It is an advertised public
hearing, so she suggested that the Board hold the public hearing with the understanding that there may be
some changes before this petition is returned to the Board.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. She said that normally the Board would have
the applicant speak for about ten minutes. She asked if the applicant wished to speak tonight.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing the applicant, asked for the opportunity to give her comments at the
end of the public hearing if any clarifications are necessary.
Ms. Jerry Showalter, President of the Glenaire Neighborhood Association, said their community has
about 65 households on Tillman Road just west of the tower. They urged the Board to deny Tritons
=
request because it violated an important condition on the special use permit and they broke a promise to
the neighborhood. He said they are not opposed to progress. Many of them use cell phones and
understand that cell phone towers are part of the cost for that convenience. They are a progressive and
open-minded neighborhood, not one that says NIMBY to new ideas. However, they expect a company
which wants to be part of their neighborhood to keep its word. He said that two years ago, the Planning
Commission turned down Tritons first application. They told Triton to find a better location and to work with
=
the neighbors and County staff on the details. The neighborhood cooperated with Triton and County staff
helped to pin down the adjustments on siting and appearance Triton agreed to. Triton passed out copies of
a picture (on file) of the thin wood pole type of installation that could be expected. At the last minute, the
neighborhood heard that they wanted to switch to a steel tower. They understood the County would impose
strict limits on its size and visibility. The drawings that County staff approved was for a tower that was only
25 inches at the base. Because the neighborhood trusted the Countys conditions of approval to protect it, it
=
honored its end of the deal and dropped their objections. They never thought that Triton would renege on
its promises and slip in a 39-inch tower. This site cannot camouflage such an immense pole. For almost
six months of the year, it sticks out like a sore thumb and a shiny one, at that. Triton admits that it made
A@
an inexcusable mistake by ordering the wrong pole and has now asked the Board to excuse the
inexcusable. The Glenaire Neighborhood Association and the Planning Commission and County staff have
spent two years accommodating Triton. They are more than a little upset that Triton now expects them to
live in the shadow of this monument to its carelessness.
Mr. Tom Purvis said he lives directly across from the tower site. He said a picture is worth 1000
words (he showed a picture of the tower to the Board members). He said Ms. Long called his home today
to say that they are requesting a deferral, but she also said the pole is painted with a flat paint as required.
He went to look at it today, and the equipment is painted with a flat plain, but the pole is painted with a semi-
gloss which enhances the reflection of the pole. He hopes the Board will make them put up the pole that
everybody agreed on, and be sure it is painted flat brown.
Ms. Leslie Wilcox said she lives on Turner Mountain Road. She said if an individual homeowner
had made the same mistake, even an innocent one, the County would make him correct it. Last year a
nearby homeowner mis-measured the road setback by eight and one-inches when he laid out the
foundation for his new house. The error did not come to light until after he had built the entire basement.
His request for a variance was denied because the hardship was self-imposed. At great expense he was
required to jack hammer the whole thing apart and haul away the rubble and start from scratch. The
analogy is not perfect because that case involved a variance and this one involves a special use permit.
However, the equities are the same; the hardship in both cases was self-imposed. In the case of the
homeowner, the County never considered what it would cost him to tear down the basement and rebuild.
That was right. By his own error he had breached zoning regulations and was expected to bear the
financial costs. She said that three weeks ago the minutes show that Ms. Long informed the Planning
Commission that Tritons replacement cost of $52,000 was not the Commissions concern. The neighbors
==
understand that is really her primary concern at this time. She was right in that what it costs Triton is
irrelevant to the Boards decision. This is a self-inflicted wound caused by corporate neglect. The cost of
=
correction is no more relevant than her reminding the Board that Triton PCS Holdings, Inc. had revenues
last year of one-half billion dollars and paid its CEO a salary of $779,000. Ms. Wilson said she hopes they
agree that cost, like those factors about the corporation, are irrelevant at this time.
Mr. Rich DeMong said he lives at 881 Tillman Road which is about one-half mile north of the tower.
He is also a long-time cell user. He attended a neighborhood meeting about a year ago and was
persuaded that the tower would be nearly invisible; as can be seen, even with the cover of the greenery
today it is not nearly invisible. He learned as a young child that he was accountable for his errors,
intentional or unintentional. In this case, he thinks the company should be held accountable for its error.
The cost of $52,000 - in context this is a company which at the end of December had over $350.0 million in
cash and almost $1.0 billion in equipment and $1.6 billion in assets - is not a significant number in context of
its holdings. In effect, the neighborhood has to live with the error, and he would argue that is the companys
=
mistake, and who will end up bearing that cost is unknown. The cost may not even be borne by Triton. He
asked that the Board not allow that very visible tower to stand.
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Steven Rubin said he lives on Tillman Road. He said when you add all the households on
Tillman Road and Glenaire and Turner Mountain represented by unhappy people present tonight, there are
close to 100 households hoping the Board will take action on Tritons steel tower. He said there has been
=
something close to a spontaneous, grass roots outpouring of disbelief that Triton wants this Board to ignore
what it has perpetrated. The tower in the pictures stands in defiance of County government, and of its
democratic processes. It is hard on everyones morale when citizens do their best to accommodate a
=
corporation which thanks them for their reasonableness and then does what it pleases. If the Board
declines to tolerate Tritons Tillman Road fiasco, its stand will be good for public faith in citizen participation,
=
and it may prove equally good for Triton who will, however reluctantly, then be a responsible corporate
citizen. The corporation asks that its violation be judged in the light of larger circumstances. Having met
A@
them more than half-way, the neighbors do too.
Mr. Richard Selden urged that the Board deny the request. He lives at 1247 Turner Mountain Road
in a house he and his wife built in 1978. Previously, they lived in Glenaire in a house that now offers a clear
view of the Triton tower. They were attracted to Turner Mountain because of its unique natural
environment, plus their belief that it would be possible to keep it in an unspoiled state in the future. Toward
this end, a number of people who live there are exploring making a joint gift to the County of their remaining
development rights. There is already a 47-acre preservation tract on the mountain that will remain as an
undisturbed woodland and a haven for wildlife in perpetuity. The proposed conservation easements would
more than double their protected acreage. He does not propose this request because he finds the tower to
be an unpleasant eyesore when he looks out the window or when he drives along Turner Mountain Road.
In truth, it is invisible from his house, even in the winter. In any case, he assumes that the tower, in one form
or another, is actually a . At the same time, as a former Glenaire resident, he can readily
fait accompli
understand the negative reactions of those who live there. More fundamentally, his opposition reflects a
hope that the Board will support their efforts to protect Turner Mountain from future commercial
development, particularly when proposed developments fail to comply with clear regulatory guidelines.
Mr. Harvey Wilcox said they were taken totally by surprise by this last minute request for a deferral.
He said this group of homeowners has been through two years of meetings, of hearings, of gatherings of
one sort or another, a great many of which were under Mr. Rookers aegis at the Planning Commission
=
when they tried to reason together and come up with solutions which were satisfactory to both Triton and
the neighborhood. He said they reached a compromise last summer when a package of conditions were
attached to the special use permit when the Planning Commission and the Board approved a 25-inch pole,
etc. That gave the neighbors the confidence to put the matter in the Boards hands and cease to worry
=
about what would go up on Tillman Road. By error, Triton forgot to pass those details along to the steel
fabricator. He said the neighbors are ready to vote and he does not think the Board will be more ready to
vote than it is now. They recommend that this be over and done with. They are tired of coming to
meetings. He said all the salient issues are before the Board, and they urge the Board to not only to deny
the request to put this off for another month, but to deny the request on its merits.
Mr. Peter Thomas said he is a friend of the applicant; one of the co-applicants. He said of all the
towers in the entire County, this tower is probably more hidden than any other cell tower in the County. It is
sitting in the middle of 25 acres. Somebody had to trespass on the property to take the picture which was
shown to the Board earlier tonight. The picture is taken about 50 feet away from the base of the tower.
This tower sets about 250 feet off of Tillman Road, it is not even visible in the wintertime.
Ms. Thomas told Ms. Long she could speak now since no other member of the public has asked to
speak.
Ms. Long said if the request for deferral is granted, she will not make a presentation tonight. She
said the purpose of the deferral request is to develop some engineering solutions to this problem and to
make a proposal to the neighbors in the hope that it might be acceptable to them.
Ms. Thomas asked for a clarification. She said Ms. Long said they are going to look for ways to
make the tower smaller in diameter, but it might not be smaller in diameter from top to bottom. She asked
if that is accurate. Ms. Long said she will restate. Triton believes they can provide an engineering solution
to replace the top one-third portion of the pole so it can be in compliance with the condition of the diameter
of the top of the pole, that is the portion which is visible from locations in the neighborhood, and is the
portions the neighbors are concerned about. Triton was not certain they could do that in a manner which is
feasible given the differences between the sizes of the pieces. But, they received word this afternoon that
they believe it can be accomplished through engineering. They want to have an opportunity to discuss it
with the neighbors, and make some other changes as well.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Thomas said
there is a request for deferral, and there is the underlying petition to allow the tower to stand. She said the
Board can act on either of those requests at this point. Ironically, she said a friend sent her from Raleigh,
North Carolina, an article talking about Albemarle Countys cellular tower policy, and how wonderful it is.
=
Mr. Rooker said he would move to accept the applicants request for deferral to June 19, 2002. He
=
said it seems like a reasonable request. He does not see a problem with giving the applicant some time to
see if they can arrive at some engineering solution that satisfies the neighbors. He heard everyone who
spoke tonight, and will remember what they said until June 19.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Ms. Thomas said when she said the public hearing was closed, she actually was thinking that the
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
public hearing is not closed if the petition is deferred. Mr. Davis said the legal public hearing can be closed
today, but the Board can still hear public comments at the June 19 meeting.
Ms. Thomas said the applicant has heard these comments tonight and knows there is not much
support in this County for an applicant who disregards conditions. She, personally, was probably
responsible for cutting down the electric grid in the eastern part of the United States or so she was told by
A@
pointing out that a particular applicant had not painted a cell tower the color that had been agreed upon.
Since it was intermeshed with a high power electrical pylon, they went to tremendous effort to repaint it.
She said this Board and the Zoning Administrator have been sticklers for making sure conditions are met. It
is the Zoning Administrator who found this pole was not of the right size by going out and measuring it. She
thinks the County has a record of paying attention to those details and she has not sensed any intention on
this Board to move from that record. It is her assumption that the applicant understands that, and only with
that assumption will she support the motion.
Mr. Martin said the deferral is also with the assumption that the Board will allow public comment at
the meeting on June 19. Ms. Thomas said that is correct.
With no further comments, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Board recessed at 9:10 a.m., and reconvened at 9:20 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. CPA-2001-03. Rivanna Village at Glenmore. Public hearing on a proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would: (1) modify the Land Use Plan element of the
Comprehensive Plan by revising the following information for the Village of Rivanna - updating population &
housing information, providing new headings for the recommended elements of the plan, recommending
improvements to Rt 250 E & recommending mass transit to the Village; (2) change the land use
designation for TM Ps 80-50, 93A1-1, 93A1-2, 93A1-3 & 93A1-4 from Neighborhood Density residential
(which allows for 3-6 du/ac) to Community Service which would allow commercial uses & residential density
of 6-34 du/ac; (3) provide specific guidance for the area designated Community Service by recommending
that a neo-traditional street system, a main street w/ retail & office bldgs, a variety of housing types, offices
A@
& commercial use not in excess of 240,000 sq ft be provided; (4) allow for civic bldgs including schools,
churches & community centers to be included in the area designated as Community Service; (5) require
mass, scale, & architectural detailing of bldgs that provide for a human scale & supports pedestrians, a
A@
well-integrated pedestrian system, including sidewalks & paths & interconnections w/in the Community
Service Area as well as to the rest of the Village; (6) recommend that development be sensitive to the
location w/in Monticello's viewshed & that parking be minimized & buffered & shielded from nearby &
adjoining properties; and (7) allow for property formerly proffered for a school site on TM P 93A-4 to be
substituted for provision of other needed public facilities w/in the area shown as Community Service.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 3, 2002.)
rd
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which was presented to the Board at the April 3 work
session.
Mr. Rooker said previous suggestions the board made would be addressed through the rezoning
process. An application plan will be included with the proffers.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that on page 101 of the staff report, there is language describing how the
village center should be developed. He said this would be fine-tuned in the application plan.
Mr. Dorrier asked if stormwater drainage has been studied. Mr. Cilimberg said it has only been
generally addressed. Staff will examine this issue as part of the rezoning request.
Ms. Thomas said this is a public hearing. She asked if the applicant wished to speak.
Mr. Frank Cox was present to represent Glenmore Associates in the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, as well as the zoning map amendment, and the zoning text amendment, all of which were
filed about 14 months ago. He said they have been able to define and shape this application around most
of the principles embraced by the Board as part of the Neighborhood Model. While no plan is perfect, and
while they cannot be overly confident at the Comprehensive Plan amendment stage, they have submitted a
number of materials relating to traffic and land use and the environment that address some of the
troublesome issues citizens have brought up during this past year.
Mr. Cox said an analysis of this property led to the recommended master plan. They tried to take
into account the fact that VDOT and the upstream properties are uncontrolled from a water quantity and
water quality standpoint, and they hold an opportunity to catch a larger area than just the 78 acres. The
eight-acre lake they propose will be designed as a standing-water basin which will have full stormwater
management and best management practices. He knows the devil is in the details of the new urbanism
A@
project. He said staff has shaped a Comprehensive Plan text amendment in such a way that all of the
issues raised have been adequately reflected. They are aware of the buffer issue. They have presented a
schematic of how the buffer and additional residential units can take care of some of the issues the citizens
to the north expressed. These citizens are concerned about looking into the back of commercial buildings
and a large commercial parking lot.
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Cox said they want to move the process forward so the zoning text amendment and the zoning
map amendment can be heard. He offered to answer questions.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Wilson R. Norford said he is a neighboring property owner. He is concerned about losing the
border between the properties which contain an old established forest with very big old trees and a stream.
All of that will be lost. He said there is a drainage problem from the stream coming across the property
from I-64 which needs to be addressed.
Mr. Landers Bates said from the pipe that comes under the road, all the water runs through his
yard. It has washed away his garden many times. He has had to trench it out and put tiles out to keep the
water from running over the garden and yard. If the dam down in the woods was blocked in any way, he
would probably have a lake in his yard. That is his concern.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Bates where his property is in relation to the area under this application. Mr.
Bates said his property is to the east of the property.
Ms. Carole Milks said she is present for the homeowners in the Magruder Subdivision bordering the
proposed project. She mentioned that in their petition to the Planning Commission and Board on May 24,
2001, they asked that the area bordering their community stay in its wooded present state both for the
benefit of their residences, and to preserve some space for the wildlife in the area. If approved, they hope
the part of the property that adjoins their border will be screened as much as possible to protect them from
the commercial aspect of the village, and to prevent the loss of the peace and quiet of their neighborhood.
She said the loss of the wooded area behind the lots of those who border the proposed development will
create problems for some due to the large amount of storm drainage runoff that the Highway Department
has piped across their lots from the north side of Route 250 for many years. The woods and stream bed in
this strip of woods has provided an outlet for the storm runoff to prevent it from flooding their yards and to
filter it as it works its way toward the Rivanna River. To lose this green area and have the stormwater
entering some type of piped system would create problems for them when the runoff is heavier than the
system can handle. They hope the Board will see that their neighborhood is adequately protected. Also,
they do not understand how the developers can adequately pipe a stream that has as large a swampy area
as this stream does at the upper end. There are several springs that feed the stream in the swampy area.
The strip of woods provides the best screening for the neighborhood as there are many large hardwood
trees that measure two to three feet in diameter. The lose of these native woods would affect the health of
the residents. To leave much of the wooded area bordering the Magruder Subdivision as a buffer would go
far in showing that Glenmore is a considerate neighbor. She asked those people in the audience who
came to support these concerns to stand; about 15 people stood.
Dr. William Orr said they live in the Keswick area. They have about 20 acres along Route 250 East
near the entrance to Glenmore. He has three points to make about how this proposal affects Glenmores
=
neighbors, and how these neighbors have been shut out. He said he had left some documents for the
Clerk to hand to the Board. Their property was divided into lots, a part of Royal Acres Subdivision, which
was recorded July 31, 1948. There have been subdivisions near Glenmore such as Milton Heights and
Shadwell Estates that were recorded well before the Glenmore development. In 1986, the tax maps
showed Glenmore to be in the Rural Area. In the current designation of Rivanna Village at Glenmore, most
of the land included is the original horse farm and smaller tracts. The older rural subdivisions in the area
were ignored in the village designation. He believes that if this is truly going to be a village, it should include
property of owners other than just the developers.
Dr. Orr said his second point concerns the use of the waterline that runs along Route 250 East.
This 16-inch waterline was put in by Mr. Kessler to serve the original Glenmore development. It was taken
over by the Albemarle County Service Authority in June, 1995, and became a public waterline. It is still
treated as almost a private line for to gain access one must petition the Board of Supervisors and show
cause for tapping in. He said that Stone Robinson School and the Ramada Inn are now served by this line,
after their wells became contaminated. There are few other hookups. He thinks that before another large
development is added to this public waterline, it should be made available to property owners along this
route. Third, before Glenmore was developed, Route 250 East was a two-lane road with a gravel driveway
into a horse farm. Once the entrance to Glenmore was developed, 250 was widened to four lanes at the
country club entrance. He noticed at that time that there was an increase in water and washed trash into
his field. He thought the runoff from this increase of about a half acre of asphalt would be drained along
the side of the road where it was collected, and down to the creek, but instead, was sent through two long
existing pipes onto his property. There is no easement for this. He complained to VDOT and took it all the
way to the Governor, but repeatedly got the same answer, the development did not cause significant
increased runoff and the natural drainage was across his field. He finally paid to have a ditch constructed
on his side of the road to handle this insignificant runoff and take it down to the creek. He asked that the
Board protect adjoining neighbors from damage from future developments.
Mr. Gerry O'Rourke said he is a resident of Glenmore. He thinks an important duty of this Board is
to protect tax base of the County. He thinks that placing this village in front of Glenmore will have an
adverse effect on taxes. He said if the village system is a goal, it could be placed where it could establish its
own tax base and not interfere with or degrade the tax base at Glenmore. He said they had houses in
Vermont and Florida and sold both in order to locate in the middle-Atlantic area. Their research led them to
conclude that the Governors Club in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, or Glenmore were the best places to
=
relocate. In North Carolina, the real estate agent told him that the developer had purchased a very large
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
plot of land directly across from the entry to that Club and would be building high density, small houses of
lesser value, and there would be 400 to 500 houses. He decided to come to Glenmore. He went through
the whole process, and when about to move in he learned about the Village and he felt betrayed. He has
not been a resident very long, but does know there are people in Charlottesville who would be very upset to
think there were people in Chapel Hill who treated their customers with more respect and more honesty
than they do here. Time having expired, Mr. ORourke said he would type his remarks and submit them to
=
the Board.
Ms. Margaret Duncan said she is a resident of the Magruder Subdivision. Her home is at the corner
of Pinewood Drive and Route 250 East. She is concerned about a water drainage situation in the
neighborhood which she realizes is not part of the Comprehensive Plan, but a side issue. This water
drainage situation currently exists with a large storm drain pipe which runs under Route 250 carrying water
from the opposite site of the road and into her front yard. The water then runs along a ditch through their
yard until it empties into a pipe under Pinewood Drive and into the Nokes lot. During storms, the water
=
backs up and floods their yard. Runoff from the proposed Rivanna Village will create even more
accumulation of water to be dispersed and will cause even more of a backup of water into both of their
yards. The earth surrounding the outlet drain from their yard is being eroded, as well. With widening of the
road to three or four lanes in the future, the situation will be further complicated. There is enough of a
problem with excessive water on their lots now and do not want to see it increase. They hope the Board will
consider this situation in the planning stage rather than waiting to address the problem later. When they
purchased their home in 1984, they did not think development would reach this far out into the countryside
and invade their rural atmosphere. They hope that consideration of the individual landowners will be given
in designing this development.
Mr. Neil Means said he lives in the Village of Rivanna, not far from the Rivanna Village. He sent a
letter to the Planning Commission, but never heard a response, so he will read it into the record tonight. On
Page 3 of the Land Use Plan under the heading Growth Management and Facilities Planning Goals it
A@
states The County's primary growth management goal directs growth into designated areas and conserves
A
the balance of the County for rural areas and resource protection, thus, planning efforts aim to channel
growth into designated areas and to conserve the rural areas. Some years ago, when the Kessler Group
@
was going through the Countys approval process for the Village of Rivanna growth area in order to develop
=
the Glenmore community, there was a considerable amount of discussion about whether Glenmore would
fulfill existing demand for growth, thereby relieving pressure on the rural areas or whether it would attract
new growth to the County. The Kessler Groups position was that they would be answering an existing
=
demand. They said that while developing Forest Lakes a number of their customers had expressed interest
in a more up-scale community and that Glenmore would serve to relieve that growth pressure. At a
Planning Commission work session in 1989, Frank Kessler stated that they would not advertise Glenmore
outside of the County. In fact, they have advertised Glenmore outside of the County. He had attached to
his letter copies of several ads he has found over the intervening years. The UVA Alumni News in
November, 1992. He checked with them and ninety percent of their circulation is outside of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area. It was part of a brochure for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport in May,
1993. The brochure gives directions to Glenmore from Richmond and Washington, D.C., implying that the
targeted market is unfamiliar with the area. The New York Times Magazine, March, 1998. In March, 2002,
in Golf Digest there was a photo with a legend which read voted number one county in America to retire
A
and play golf. After the County approved the Village of Rivanna growth area and the Glenmore
@
development on the premise that it would attract pre-existing demand for growth which otherwise would
have gone into rural areas, the developers went out and marketed their product around the County
attracting growth which otherwise might never have come to Albemarle. If the Kessler Group is permitted
by the County to build the Rivanna Village, no doubt they will market it to people and organizations outside
the area adding to, instead of diverting, existing growth pressures on the County. The Plan is probably
already helping them to sell Glenmore lots because people who are interested in moving here from New
York to retire and play golf, are probably glad to hear that assisted-living facilities for their later years will be
conveniently located. Of course, the competition, like Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, also
advertises in the New York Times for people to move to Albemarle and retire. While growth areas and
villages within growth areas make sense for the Comprehensive Plan in theory, the County must find a way
to assure that in practice they dont just add to growth. Failing that assurance, and so far that assurance
=
has failed, and given the Kessler Groups track record in marketing Glenmore, the County certainly should
=
not increase the commercial and residential density available to them. Therefore, he recommended that
the County and the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors reject the proposed amendment.
Ms. Mary Beth Wagner said she lives in Glenmore. She has lived in the County more than twenty
years so has seen a lot happen to the beautiful County, some of it good. Lately, when she sees the rapid
development, she feels the beauty that many came to this area for is hard to retain. She used to live on
Route 29 north of town and was happy to get away from the traffic problems there. Although, if you are
local, there are many alternate routes available along Route 29. However, if you live on Route 250 East,
there is only one option, and that is to get onto I-64 to get through town. She suggested that the Board
members go out to the County line in that area and make several trips during rush hours to see the traffic
problems. It takes a few minutes to go just a mile or two during that rush hour in the morning, and the
same thing happens in the evening.
Mr. Gary Coleman said he is a long time resident. A good portion of his life he has lived next door
to the Glenmore development. He opposes the village. He said one needs to understand the impact of
something that big. The only way to do that is to live next door to the kind of neighbor Glenmore has
already been. His experience has been totally different than what was shown at the meetings before
Glenmore began the development. The amount of screening is extremely minimal. There are a lot of
things which are not considered while the building is taking place, such as noise and the constant
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
construction problems. He feels it is part of the Boards job to control growth and not let it get bigger than it
=A
can be fed. That is what Glenmore has become, and that is why it is taking over more and more. He does
@
not see enough evidence that the environmental impact studies have been sufficient. He has well water
and has experienced problems in recent years, and he thinks it is due to the dynamiting and the very heavy
type of alternation to the landscape. He knows residents in Glenmore do not want this because they moved
there wanting to live in the country. Now, all of a sudden they are losing that. He misses the nature of
things before this development started. He was told that certain sections would not be developed for a long
time. He senses that this is going on, not because of demand, but because of the impulse to keep their
economics going. He hopes the Board will consider everything about this request, and not just what is
economically-beneficial for some.
Mr. Scott Gardner said he lives in Glenmore. He is not opposed to the Village. He said that in
many ways these developers have done a good job. He thinks they will do a fine job with the structure
itself. He has compassion for the surrounding neighbors losing their rural area. His concern is the traffic
problem and he hopes that is part of what will be worked on. He said concern has been expressed about
buffering and all the environmental impacts right around the Village, but he knows that the sewer line which
runs from the Village to the treatment plant will cut along Carroll Creek and that is the only area left with a
lot of green space and old growth trees. A lot of that was lost to the new crossover of the creek, but
everyone knew that would happen with the new section. When he bought in Glenmore, he was told that
there would not be development between the back of his section (Q) and Carroll Creek. When they put in
the sewer lines, they are planning on clear-cutting a wide path for that sewer line right next to Carroll Creek
through the old growth. He thinks there must be other alternatives which are probably less economically
sound for the developer, but for the environment and the current residents, they should be looked at.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said the Board will not be making a decision tonight. It will discuss this petition further.
If the Board members have questions they wish staff to answer, this is the time to ask them.
Mr. Dorrier said he visited the area today. He was concerned about the stormwater runoff from two
points. First, the area on the north side of Route 250 is higher than on the south side, and water drains
under 250 in some culverts, and meanders through several properties and ends up in a swampy area which
the neighbors indicated is being considered for a parking lot. He did not think the area lends itself to that
use. Second, he is concerned that VDOT is going to be widening Route 250 to three or four lanes. He
thinks there must be a coordinated effort between VDOT and Rivanna Village to coordinate everything. He
does not know the timetable for this, but it needs to be looked at closely. He said a stormwater drainage
plan is being developed for the whole County. He said there appear to be some springs that feed these
streams which eventually drain into Carroll Creek. It is a natural, unusual area. He thinks that any changes
made to the Comprehensive Plan should deal with this stormwater runoff.
Mr. Cilimberg said what Mr. Dorrier is referring to will not be more firmed up by the Comprehensive
Plan. Those are items which are acknowledged by the Plan, but have to dealt with in some other way,
either through the Stormwater Plan or by the developer. As far as the Route 250 East corridor is
concerned, there is no actual plan by VDOT for the Board to review and endorse or reject for the widening
of Route 250 East. In this Comprehensive Plan amendment the need for that corridor study to meet the
Boards objectives in land use planning is acknowledged. A number of transportation elements have been
=
included in this amendment. An item mentioned had to do with waterline hookups but since the Board in
1990 expressly decided against allowing hookups along that waterline, staff assume that policy would not
change, so did nothing to that portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rooker said the Board adopted the Neighborhood Model last year as a part of the
Comprehensive Plan. This is an example of a developer doing exactly what was asked of him, and that
was to come forward with a proposal for a mixed-use development in the designated growth areas that
contain significant open space for amenities which are interior-focused, not strip center focused on a
highway. It provides a reasonable holding capacity for the significant natural growth the County is
experiencing. He said the Planning Commission passed this request by a vote of 5:0 after holding many
work sessions. This Board has had work sessions and the neighbors comments have been factored into
the proposed Comprehensive Plan language in a general way. Virtually every concern raised by the
neighbors tonight is something that would be dealt with during a rezoning request. He met with the
neighbors in the Magruder Subdivision about a year ago. He thinks their concerns have been addressed in
a general way in the amendment. He said the developer has come forward with a proposal and is doing
the things requested of him so the Board cannot sit on the proposal forever. This particular petition started
at least a year ago. At this point, he thinks the proposal is ripe for approval. He is in favor of acting on this
request tonight. That does not mean he will ultimately support the plan exactly as presented. The
Comprehensive Plan is just the general language which allows a proposal to come forward so the Board
can consider all the details.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a paragraph in the language concerning stream protection which says: In
A
general, the Planning Commission will have to make some policy decisions and trade-offs with regard to
streams in the development areas. It will be impossible to save all headwater streams and still achieve land
use goals for the development areas. The master planning process will help to discriminate between
stream resources ... that should be retained and those of lesser value where impacts should be expected.
@
He said that appears to state that there will be a problem with some intermittent streams that will have to be
traded off on the development side. Maybe these are things Mr. Rooker is saying will come up at a later
date.
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Rooker said those things will be dealt with in a rezoning. That is a general statement which is
true throughout the County. If there is to be Neighborhood Model type development, then the County will
have to deal with the intermittent stream situation on particular properties as they are presented for
development.
Mr. Dorrier said the development of this property may actually help the situation. Mr. Rooker said
staff should work with the developer on a plan for stormwater management that improves the situation. Mr.
Martin said it is more than just a hope. It is sort of like the Triton tower application; the County is obligated to
make that right.
At this time, Mr. Rooker offered motion to adopt CPA-2001-03, to amend the Comprehensive Plan
to (1) modify the Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan by revising the following information
for the Village of Rivanna - updating population and housing information, providing new headings for the
recommended elements of the plan, recommending improvements to Route 250 East and recommending
mass transit to the Village; (2) change the land use designation for Tax Map Parcels 80-50, 93A1-1,
93A1-2, 93A1-3 and 93A1-4 from Neighborhood Density residential (which allows for 3-6 du/ac) to
Community Service which would allow commercial uses and residential density of 6-34 du/ac; (3) provide
specific guidance for the area designated Community Service by recommending that a neo-traditional street
system, a main street with retail and office bldgs, a variety of housing types, offices and commercial use
A@
not in excess of 240,000 square feet be provided; (4) allow for civic bldgs including schools, churches and
community centers to be included in the area designated as Community Service; (5) require mass, scale
and architectural detailing of buildings that provide for a human scale and supports pedestrians, a
A@
well-integrated pedestrian system, including sidewalks and paths and interconnections within the
Community Service Area as well as to the rest of the Village; (6) recommend that development be sensitive
to the location within Monticello's viewshed and that parking be minimized and buffered and shielded from
nearby and adjoining properties; and, (7) allow for property formerly proffered for a school site on Tax Map
Parcel 93A-4 to be substituted for provision of other needed public facilities within the area shown as
Community Service.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Ms. Thomas said she had said this petition would not be handled tonight because she thought the
Board members would want more discussion. Mr. Martin said its not like its a new petition. Ms. Thomas
==
said that is true. She has been looking at the paperwork to see what changes were suggested at the work
session. Mostly things were being emphasized, rather than changing things. She said if everyone is
comfortable that the wording in the Comprehensive Plan sets the stage for the rezoning decision, then
there is no reason to drag this out to another meeting.
Mr. Dorrier said he was concerned because Mr. Cilimberg said if it were deferred the staff would
not present any further information about the stormwater runoff. Mr. Tucker said the only thing staff would
be able to reiterate would be general comments which are already outlined in the proposal.
Mr. Dorrier said VDOT has agreed that in the Scottsville area they will deal with stormwater runoff
as a result of culverts going under Route 20. They are working with the citizens there, so he knows they do
work with citizens on these issues.
Mr. Cilimberg said almost all of the drainage/stormwater issues raised tonight are upstream of this
property, and actually are flowing from areas on the other side of Route 250. The problem is an existing
problem which needs to be looked at whether or not this proposal goes forward.
Mr. Dorrier said if the Board will have a chance to review the actual solutions to the problem at a
later date, he will vote for the motion.
Ms. Thomas said a couple of things mentioned tonight which did not come up in the work session
have to do with specific areas containing big, old trees. She said that sometimes there are tree
conservation plans as part of overall development plans. She does not think that wording needs to be
placed in the Comprehensive Plan unless Mr. Cilimberg thinks it is appropriate. Mr. Cilimberg said that can
be addressed during the rezoning process. Theoretically, it could be another bullet in the Comprehensive
Plan regarding specific areas where that tree conservation should take place.
Mr. Bowerman said because of his recent absence, he is not as up-to-speed on this request as are
the other Board members. He does think the language in the Comprehensive Plan amendment adequately
deals with his concerns as to the general nature of what the County intends for that area. It is even clear,
that when the rezoning request comes forward, there will be much information already available about the
concerns expressed. He is satisfied that the time to deal with all the specific issues within the context of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment is during the rezoning. He is satisfied that the Comprehensive Plan
amendment before the Board is adequate to protect the interest of the community. He will support it.
Mr. Martin said the only other thing mentioned in the public hearing tonight that is not part of this at
all is the question about hooking to the waterline which was built to Glenmore. He was not on the Board at
that time, but he believes there were a lot of people at the time who were afraid to have that waterline run
from town because growth usually follows water. There was a big fear that Pantops would become like
Route 29 North following all the way to Glenmore. The compromise was that they could build the line to
Glenmore, but no one could tap onto it, and that would prevent growth from following the water. That is the
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
situation, and it is not because the developer built it and did not want anyone else to tap on.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has been ruthless in not allowing connections to that waterline. Mr.
Rooker said the same decision was made for the Crozet Interceptor out Route 250 West.
Ms. Thomas said there is no way the Board can deal with the issue of advertising Glenmore outside
of the County. She knows that was a promise and a lot of people feel it was not kept.
Mr. Rooker said that would be something for counsel to look into and discuss at the time of the
rezoning. He does not think such a condition could be imposed on the request.
Ms. Thomas said she has heard no one say the Board should not go ahead and vote, so she asked
for the roll to be called. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(The text is set out below:)
Village of Rivanna
The Village of Rivanna is located east of the City of Charlottesville and south of Route 250 East. The
southwestern boundary is formed by the Rivanna River. The western boundary is formed by an unnamed
stream just east of Camp Branch. The northern boundary is formed by Route 250. The eastern boundary is
formed by the eastern ridgeline of the drainage area for Carroll Creek and Route 808.
Existing Land Use
Residential– Rivanna Village contains an estimated 506 dwelling units and approximately 1355 people.
Ninety-nine percent (502) of the homes are single family units. There are three single family attached units
and one mobile home within the Village (August 2000). Almost all of the residential development is located
in the Glenmore development.
Commercial/Office- Two businesses are located in the Village. While no other commercial uses exist in
the Village, there are currently three country stores located along Route 250 between Route and the
22
County line. In addition, the Village is located approximately four miles from a major shopping center and
other commercial areas on Pantops Mountain (Urban Neighborhood 3).
Other Land Uses- A golf course is located in the Glenmore Development. Stone Robinson Elementary
School is located just west of the Village off Route 729. Clifton, which now serves as an inn, is listed on the
Virginia Register of Historic Properties and is also, located on Route 729 near the Village.
Environmental Characteristics
The area is largely wooded with open spaces along Route 250 East and adjacent to the Rivanna River. As
the Village develops, it should continue to be orientated toward the river, rather than Route 250. There is
extensive floodplain along the Rivanna River, Carroll Creek and other streams. Along the Rivanna River
exist the ruins of the canal connecting Charlottesville to the Kanawha Canal, which runs along the James
River.
Transportation
Route 250 East is heavily traveled and serves as a major access point to the Urban Area and City and
needs to be upgraded from Interstate 64 east to the County line.
Water and Sewer
Water and sewer service is adequate to the area. Water service was extended to Rivanna Village from the
Urban area as part of the Glenmore development. The waterline along Route 250 was sized adequately to
serve the entire Village. Glenmore was developed with a wastewater treatment plant on Carroll Creek that
has a capacity of 385,000 gallons per day and is sized appropriately to serve the Village.
Public Facilities
A fire station is located in the Village. An elementary school is located west of the Village. Public Facility
service is adequate to the area.
Recommendations
Environmental and Historic Protection
·
Preserve as open space the extensive floodplain and critical slopes along the Rivanna River, Carroll
Creek and other streams. Provide a greenway along the Rivanna River. Protect the unique scenic and
historic characteristics of the river with the development of the Village.
·
Areas north of Interstate 64 have historic/scenic significance to the County and region (including
possible designation as a Rural Historic District and have large acreage in an Agricultural/Forestal
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
District). To preserve and protect these resources, do not expand the Village boundaries north of U. S.
Route 250 East, west of Route nor south of the Rivanna River.
22,
Transportation
·
Provide interconnections between existing development and areas to be developed in the Village of
Rivanna.
·
Provide several points of access from Route 250 East into the Village that help to create an internal
road network for the Village so that properties that front Route 250 may have access to Route 250
through the internal road network.
·
Provide for pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the Village.
·
Upgrade Route 250 East to improve traffic safety and circulation in the area. Many of the necessary
improvements are described in the Route 250 East Corridor Study. Improvements should:
·
Provide the minimum level of improvement necessary to support anticipated development along
Route 250 East from the eastern city limits to the County line.
·
Be designed to minimize the visual impact adjacent to historic properties and sites including
Monticello and the Southwest Mountain Historic District.
·
Provide a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 250 East and Glenmore Way when warrants are
met.
·
Be provided by both the public sector and private sector to ensure that existing traffic needs are met
as well as future traffic needs generated by proposed developments are met.
·
Be streetscaped in strategic locations to improve the character of the corridor, especially at or near
the I-64 interchange and along the commercial strip of development between I-64 and the railroad
crossing.
·
Have landscaped medians where median strips are necessary.
·
Minimize lighting at intersections and be installed to meet the County lighting ordinance for down-
shielded lights.
·
Provide bicycle facilities and, where appropriate, walkways in conjunction with these upgrades.
·
Provide mass transit, where feasible, to the Village of Rivanna.
Land Use
The Village of Rivanna should meet the functional description of Villages as described on pages 12 – 14 of
the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. To meet this intent, residential and mixed-use areas with
commercial activity are expected.
Areas shown as Neighborhood Density
·
Should continue to be developed at a density of 3 – 6 dwellings per acre.
Areas shown as Community Service
·
Are intended to be developed as a compact, higher density residential area with a mixture of retail
businesses, services, public facilities, and civic spaces.
·
May have residential density of up to 6 dwellings per gross acre in addition to the non-residential
uses. This density can be increased if the non-residential square footage decreases.
·
Should contain:
·
A grid street system of interconnected roadways which are neo-traditional as characterized by
narrow widths, on-street parking, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street trees.
·
Street connections to both Glenmore Way and Route 250 East.
·
"main street" with retail and office buildings.
·
A variety of housing types
·
Housing that provides opportunities for all age groups, including senior housing and housing for
all socioeconomic levels to live in the Village of Rivanna.
·
Non-residential uses, mostly in small commercial, office, retail and restaurant/inn uses. Total
commercial, office, retail, and service square footage should not exceed 240,000 square feet
for the Village. Automobile repair and self-storage areas are not considered to be appropriate
uses to this Community Service area.
·
Commercial uses interior to the Village rather than “highway oriented” uses along Route 250.
·
Mass, scale, and architectural detailing of buildings that provide for a “human scale”
development that supports pedestrians.
·
A well-integrated pedestrian system, including sidewalks and paths.
·
A fire station located either on Route 250 or interior to the Village.
·
Other civic buildings including schools, churches, community centers and public offices located
within the Village.
·
A variety of park and recreational amenities including open space appropriate to the residential
needs of the Village.
·
In addition to density of 6 dwellings per acre and 240,000 square feet of nonresidential space, the area
may have nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
·
Are to be designed and developed in general accord with the design for the Rivanna Village at
Glenmore prepared by the Cox Company on March 6, 2001 2/26/02 and pages 4 – 7 and 17 – 19 of
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
the Application for Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map Amendment dated March 6, 2001 with the
following exceptions. No commercial uses are to take place on the property adjacent to the most
eastern entrance from Route 250 East. The large vacant area shown with trees at the corner of Route
250 East and Glenmore Way should be available for development with internal access but no direct
access from Route 250 East or Glenmore Way. No retail use of this area is allowed.
·
Should be developed in a manner that is sensitive to its location within Monticello’s viewshed in
accordance with the Monticello Viewshed Guidelines for Developers.
·
Should be developed in a way that minimizes adverse impacts on residential properties adjoining the
Community Service area by preserving mature vegetation, having residences abut adjoining residential
properties, use of screening and berming and use of wide buffer strips.
·
Should have parking that is
·
Not in excess of that necessary to support individual uses in the Community Service area.
·
Shared with other uses whenever possible.
·
Located in ways to minimize visual impacts and heat generated by large areas of
pavement
·
Buffered and screened from neighboring residential properties in areas shown as
Neighborhood Density using a combination of techniques such as landscaping, screening,
fencing, or berming.
Utilities
·
Maintain capacity for anticipated development, public facilities, and public services.
Public Facilities
·
Locate public facilities such as a school, library, police substation, or playing field, when needed in the
Village in the Community Service Area.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Perkins said the water system at Corville Farms has been discussed by the Board. The man
who owns the water system has his farm for sale, and he has made some proposals to Mr. Tucker and
himself about what can be done there. Mr. Perkins said he would like to ask that with the Boards consent,
=
staff be asked what can be done with the water system. The landowner is proposing that the system be
sold to the County, and that the operation be taken over by the County or the Albemarle County Service
Authority.
Mr. Martin said he thought staff was already studying this request. Mr. Tucker said staff has looked
at the idea of improving the waterlines because some of the lines are leaking. Staff also looked at whether
there could be individual wells installed to serve one or two homes rather than having a central well. He
said staff needs to make a report on the different approaches that have been discussed. That report will be
made on June 5, if possible.
__________
Mr. Martin said the minutes of February 20 show him leaving at 10:20 p.m. and then the Board
adjourned at 10:20 p.m. also. He was not there for the end of the meeting, so he will give pages 21 and 22
to Mr. Rooker to read.
Mr. Rooker said he would offer motion to approve the minutes of February 20, 2002, page 1
through page 20. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Martin offered motion to appoint Mr. Franklin P. Micciche as the Rivanna District representa-
tive on the Equalization Board for the Calendar Year 2002. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said Carters Bridge is being replaced. The Carter family has asked him to look into
=
putting an obelisk on the bridge. VDOT says they need a resolution from this Board approving it. He
understands that VDOT pays the cost, but he does not think it is a significant cost. Before making the
installation, VDOT needs to know there is public support of the request. He asked if the other Board
members would be in favor. Mr. Rooker said he does not object. Mr. Martin said he does not object, but
does not want to make a commitment until he knows what the cost will be and who pays that cost. Mr.
Tucker said he knows VDOT approved of placing the obelisk as requested, but does not know if they
assumed the County would pay the cost. He will make an inquiry.
__________
Mr. Bowerman thanked the Board for its support during his recent absence. He said no one likes to
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
have their personal affairs dragged into the public press and have them discussed, but having said that, that
is done. It was important to him that the Board and members of the public express their support of what he
was trying to do. He wants to assure the Board and the public that he will do everything in his power to
assure that this issue does not come up again because it was a rather protracted solution for him. He
thanked all the Board members and staff.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the School Board wants to talk to this Board about long-range planning. Mr.
Steve Koleszar wants the Board to get involved in the discussion about how many spaces should be added
to Monticello High School. If this is something the Board wants to tell them to decide based on good
education and not become involved, the Board can do that when he makes his monthly presentation at the
June day meeting.
Mr. Dorrier said at the next meeting with the School Board, this is something the Board should
discuss because it deals with property acquisition and where the next school should be located.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the School Board should be involved in Comprehensive Plan
discussions about future school sites. The short-term decision they have to make is the addition to
Monticello High School and its size. She said the Board can become involved in that decision, or stay out of
it.
Mr. Dorrier said he does not see the need to get involved in the short-term Monticello High School
expansion. He does see a need to get into the long-term location of future schools.
Mr. Martin said the Board could be involved in the long-term location and long-term plans for the
type of school, but he thinks it is extremely important that this Board stay out of the redistricting issue. In his
opinion, tough decisions have to be made, and regardless of the decision made, it will make a lot of people
mad, and a lot of kids will suffer psychological trauma. The School Board has to make those decisions.
A@
He is afraid they will say it is the Supervisors saying they have to expand Monticello versus some other
solution.
Mr. Bowerman said there is one fly in the ointment in the way of long-term planning. This Board
A@
may be able to determine long-term where schools will be, but the immediate redistricting will be based
upon the build-out of what this Board approves. This Board has no control over the patterns of
development and their affect on redistricting lines as the school fills up.
Mr. Tucker said the School Board has a committee which works on long-range planning issues.
For something like this 300 to 500 space addition to Monticello High School, planning staff provides data
and runs the numbers and projects where the spaces are needed. He is puzzled because he has never
heard the School Board ask the Board of Supervisors for advise on this type of question. He is concerned
about what the real basis of this request is.
Mr. Martin said he thinks they want this Board to get involved in this question. Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Martin said they have been indicating that this Board might become involved. Ms. Thomas said a
recent newspaper article had the Superintendent saying how some decision the School Board made would
make the Board of Supervisors mad. She said she is just a messenger of this request.
Mr. Martin said there is the committee which spends hours and hours coming up with a plan, and it
is best to stick behind them unless they have done something very bad.
Mr. Tucker said the timing works to their favor in that they have had a very difficult redistricting, and
the Supervisors are now proposing the new Neighborhood Model. It is easy to say that is the reason for the
difficulty.
Mr. Bowerman said they are going to have to make tough decisions every couple of years
regardless of what this Board does.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) will be asked at its next meeting
in a few days to approve the future water supply proposal its staff has made. She thinks Mr. Tucker could
go on the assumption that this Board is pretty much in agreement with what the RWSA staff has come up
with because the Board has not said otherwise. She asked if the Board members generally agree.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Larry Tropea recently made a presentation of those recommendations. There
was a public hearing on it a couple of weeks ago, and the comments were positive. The meeting was not
heavily attended, but those who did come were supportive of the recommendations. Mr. Martin said he is in
agreement. Mr. Rooker agreed.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board is a member of the High Growth Coalition. She and Ms. Humphris
attended most of its meetings, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Cilimberg. If anyone else would like to become
involved, he said it would be nice to have at least two Supervisors attend those meetings.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) may be asking the Board to lift
the existing water restrictions. She has shared her thoughts with the other Board members by E-mail. She
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
thinks the restriction should be kept in place. She gathers from Mr. Davis last E-mail that the legal status is
=
that by holding onto the emergency designation, then the ACSA can act more quickly when there is a
fluctuation in public water supplies. Today some people at Hickory Ridge said to her that it was good that
the water situation is fine now, and yet they are all on wells, so they should not be feeling that the situation is
fine.
Mr. Martin said he disagrees with Ms. Thomas. He thinks the Board looks foolish to be yelling
drought when it has been raining every day for four weeks. Mr. Bowerman said that is a perception versus
A@
reality.
Ms. Thomas said there can be a groundwater drought, which is what is occurring now, and yet have
the reservoirs full because they are catchment basins. Mr. Martin said Ms. Thomas is assuming there is a
groundwater problem. Ms. Thomas said she is reacting to measurements that show that the groundwater
is at an historic low for this time of the year. Mr. Martin asked if there is data about wells for the last month.
Ms. Thomas said they do not recharge within a month, but one can see the information on the website to
get a measurement of the Mechum River, the Rivanna River and the Louisa County well. They have not
recovered in the last month. The rivers recover temporarily when there is a rain storm, so there are little
peaks. Then they go back to being below the historic low for this time of year.
Mr. Martin said when the director of the Countys agency which oversees the water suggests that
=
the Board get rid of the drought designation, then he feels he knows what that person is talking about, and
he agrees with him.
Mr. Bowerman said he is concerned about the reservoirs. Ms. Thomas said the Countys Engineer
=
says the Board should keep the designation. Mr. Martin said he disagrees. Mr. Rooker said a drought is
something that occurs over a longer period of time than a month or two, and there is still clearly a long-term
drought. The County has gotten about 60 percent of the rainfall over the last 12 months that is normal.
Mr. Martin said he just thinks the Board makes itself look bad when it says there is a drought when
it is raining every day, and people look at the reservoirs and see the water running over. That is his
personal feeling.
Mr. Perkins said there is probably some merit to pulling the ads which have been running, but
keeping the emergency declaration in effect so they can act quicker than 100 days. The reservoirs could
also be in bad shape. When the hot weather comes, they will not recharge as fast. He agrees that it does
sound rather foolish considering some of the ads which were beneficial a few months ago.
Mr. Martin said keeping those ads running now will make it hard to convince people to cut back on
water consumption when there is a real need. Mr. Rooker asked about pulling the ads and keeping the
declaration in place so action can be taken reasonably quickly if conditions warrant doing so. Mr. Martin
said he feels like the Board is crying wolf.
A@
Ms. Thomas said the problem is that Mr. Bill Brent speaks for users of public water and the
reservoirs are in pretty good shape. However, half of the people in the County have wells, and if they are
told there is no more water emergency, they are being given a false message.
Mr. Martin said this Board is not responsible for people's wells. Ms. Thomas said the Board is
taking responsibility for any messages sent out whether there is a water emergency or a drought. For
people on wells, the measurement shows that this is a serious drought.
It was the consensus of the Board, to use Mr. Perkinss suggestion.
=
__________
Ms. Thomas said she attended a VACO Finance Steering Committee which is working to get more
money into education from the State to pick up what JLARC said the State has not been doing. It was
interesting to know that VACO and VML have hired a firm to work on something, and they are being more
creative than the study committees could be. So far, the Governors comments have been encouraging.
=
Mr. Rooker said State revenues were down 14 percent last month, which is more than had been
predicted. In the prior months, they were only down three or four percent. The entire state budget is being
readjusted because of this. The Governor issued an edict to departments to cut back another three
percent.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, at 10:50 p.m.,
motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adjourn this meeting until May 22,
2002, at the Old City Recreation Center, at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting will be a joint meeting with City Council,
the Board of Supervisors, the Albemarle County Planning Commission and the Albemarle County School
Board called UNJAM.
A@
Mr. Tucker said the T. J. Planning District Commission will make the presentation about land use
and transportation. Ms. Thomas said this meeting responds to pressure from City Council to talk with this
Board, with the Planning Commission, and with the School Board, so several birds are being killed with
A
one stone.
@
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
May 15, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 08/07/2002
Initials: LAB