2003-01-08(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
8, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., 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,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the County Executive, Mr.
Tucker.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Election of Chairman. Mr. Tucker opened the floor for nominations for
Chairman.
Mr. Martin asked for an executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Davis said if the
purpose of the closed session is to discuss the election of a chair, in 1999 the Attorney General's office
issued an opinion which specifically says it is not proper to have that discussion in a closed session. If there
is a particular situation where he wanted to talk about personal circumstances of a Board member not
related specifically to the chair position, that could be talked about in closed session. But, the Board cannot
talk about who will be selected in a closed meeting.
Mr. Martin said he then needs to withdraw his motion, or be very careful as to how it is discussed.
He then withdrew the motion.
Mr. Perkins nominated Mr. Dorrier as Chairman of the Board for Calendar Year 2003.
There were no further nominations. Mr. Tucker closed the nominations, and asked that the Clerk
call the roll for Mr. Dorrier as Chairman for Calendar Year 2003.
The vote was as follows:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dorrier thanked the Board for their confidence. He thanked Ms. Thomas for her leadership
over the last two years. He said this is a board with six leaders, and he does not pretend to have all the
answers. He is proud to be a part of the Board. He said Virginia is experiencing tough economic times.
There are some major problems in Albemarle, but with the good will and support of all the citizens, the
Board will move along the road to solve those problems.
Mr. Martin said Ms. Thomas did a good job. He said she worked hard as a member of the Board.
Other Board members voiced agreement with this statement.
Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman.
Mr. Perkins nominated Mr. Rooker as Vice-Chairman of the Board for the Calendar Year 2003. Mr.
Martin gave second and moved to closed the nominations. Ms. Thomas seconded that motion. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Certificate of Appreciation, Presentation of.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. David Krohn served as a member of the Joint Airport Commission from
September, 1993 to December, 2002. A certificate of appreciation is presented for his tireless efforts as a
member of that Commission. During his tenure he served as both Vice-Chairman and Chairman and the
Airport Authority completed numerous capital improvement projects. The community is grateful for the
time, energy and dedication he committed to serving the airport needs of this region.
Mr. Krohn said Mr. Bryan Elliott has done a good job and he thinks the Airport is in great hands.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appointment of Clerk.
Mr. Thomas moved to appoint Ms. Ella Washington Carey as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
the Calendar Year 2003. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dorrier congratulated Ms. Carey for her reappointment, and said she does a great job.
Agenda Item No. 8. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 2003.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to set the following meetings times, dates and places for
Calendar Year 2003; on the first Wednesday of each month the meeting shall begin at 9:00 a.m.; on the
second Wednesday of each month the meeting shall begin at 6:00 p.m.; meetings to be held in the County
Office Building on Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Set Dates for Hearing Zoning Text Amendments Requested by Citizens.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to set dates for hearing zoning text amendments requested by
citizens as June 11, September 10, and November 12, 2003, and March 17, 2004. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Rules of Procedure, Adoption of.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to readopt the Rules of Procedure which were used by the Board
in 2002 (as set out in full below). The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
RULES OF PROCEDURE
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
A. Officers
Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chairman who, if
present, shall preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the
year for which elected. In addition to being presiding officer, the Chairman
shall be the head official for all the Board's official functions and for
ceremonial purposes. He shall have a vote but no veto. (Virginia Code
Sections 15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423)
Vice-Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a
Vice-Chairman, who, if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of
the Chairman and shall discharge the duties of the Chairman during his
absence or disability. (virginia Code Section 15.2-1422)
Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for
one-year terms; but either or both may be re-elected for one or more
additional terms. (virginia Code Section 15.2-1422)
Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice
Chairman are absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen
to act as Chairman.
Clerk and Deputy Clerks
The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy
Clerks who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk shall
be those set forth in Virginia Code Section 15.2-1539 and such additional duties set
forth in resolutions of the Board as adopted from time to time. (virginia Code
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Section 15.2-1416)
C. Meetings
Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January held after the newly elected
members of the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting held in
January of each succeeding year, shall be known as the annual meeting. At
such annual meeting, the Board shall establish the days, times, and places
for regular meetings of the Board for that year. (Virginia Code Section
15.2-1416)
Regular Meetings. The Board shall meet in regular session on such day or
days as has been established at the annual meeting. The Board may
subsequently establish different days, times, or places for such regular
meetings by passing a resolution to that effect in accord with Virginia Code
Section 15.2-1416. If any day established as a regular meeting day falls on
a legal holiday, the meeting scheduled for that day shall be held on the next
regular business day without action of any kind by the Board. (virginia Code
Section 15.2-1416)
If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman it is unable to act) finds
and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous
for Board members to attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be
continued to the next regular meeting date. Such finding shall be
communicated to the members of the Board and to the press as promptly as
possible. All hearings and other matters previously advertised shall be
conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement shall be
required. (virginia Code Section 15.2-1416)
Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjourned from day
to day or from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed
for the next regular meeting, until the business of the Board is complete.
(virginia Code Section 15.2-1416)
Special Meetings. The Board may hold special meetings as it deems
necessary at such times and places as it deems convenient. A special
meeting may be adjourned from time to time as the Board finds necessary
and convenient. (virginia Code Section 15.2-1417)
A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested
by two or more members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to
the Clerk of the Board and shall specify the matters to be considered at the
meeting. Upon receipt of such call or request, the Clerk, after consultation
with the Chairman, shall immediately notify each member of the Board, the
County Executive, and the County Attorney. The notice shall be in writing
and delivered to the person or to his place of residence or business. The
notice shall state the time and place of the meeting and shall specify the
matters to be considered. No matter not specified in the notice shall be
considered at such meeting unless all members are present. The notice
may be waived if all members are present at the special meeting or if all
members sign a waiver for the notice. (virginia Code Section 15.2-1418)
The Clerk shall notify the general news media of the time and place of such
special meeting and the matters to be considered.
D. Order of Business
The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in consultation
with the Chairman. The first two items on the agenda for each regular meeting of
the Board shall be the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment for silent meditation.
The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not on the
agenda shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, no more
than three persons will be allowed to speak during the time set aside on the
agenda for "Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public". Each
person shall be permitted no more than five minutes to provide comments.
Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the agenda for public
hearing on the advertised date unless the applicant submits a signed written
deferral request to the Clerk of the Board no later than noon on Wednesday of the
week prior to the scheduled public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be
granted administratively by the Clerk. The Board will be notified of the deferral in
the next Board package and the deferral will be announced at the earliest possible
Board meeting to alert the public of the deferral. Any request received later than
the Wednesday deadline and any subsequent request for a deferral for the same
application previously deferred will be granted only at the discretion of the Board by
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
a majority vote. The deferral shall not be granted unless the Board determines
that the reason for the deferral justifies the likely inconvenience to the public
caused by the deferral. The staff will make every effort to alert the public when a
deferral is granted.
E. Quorum
A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting
of the Board. If during a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains
present, no action can be taken except to adjourn the meeting. If prior to
adjournment the quorum is again established, the meeting shall continue. (Virginia
Code Section 15.2-1415)
A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established
for any regular or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of
adjourning such meeting from day to day or from time to time, but not beyond the
time fixed for the next regular meeting.
F. Voting Procedures
Approval by Motion. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall
be made by approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a
motion properly made by a member and seconded by another member. Any
motion that is not seconded shall not be further considered. The vote on the
motion shall be by a voice vote. The Clerk shall record the name of each
member voting and how he voted on the motion. If any member abstains
from voting on any motion, he shall state his abstention. The abstention will
be announced by the Chairman and recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall
defeat the motion voted upon. (Article VII, Section 7, Virginia Constitution)
Special Voting Requirements. A recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all
elected members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or
resolution (1) appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2)imposing
taxes; or (3) authorizing the borrowing of money. (virginia Code Section
15.2-1428)
Public Hearings. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board
requiring a public hearing until the public hearing has been held. The Board
may, however, at its discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public
hearing or consideration of such matter.
The procedures for receiving comment from the applicant and the public for
public hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise
decided, the applicant shall be permitted no more than ten minutes to
present its application. Following the applicant's presentation, any member
of the public shall be permitted no more than three minutes to present public
comment. Speakers are limited to one appearance at any public hearing.
Following the public comments, the applicant shall be permitted no more
than five minutes for a rebuttal presentation.
Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, properly
seconded, shall be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is
taken on the original motion unless the motion to amend is accepted by both
the members making and seconding the original motion. If the motion to
amend is approved, the amended motion is then before the Board for its
consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original motion is
again before the Board for its consideration.
Previous Question. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any
member moving the "previous question". Upon a proper second, the
Chairman shall call for a vote on the motion of the previous question. If
approved by a majority of those voting, the Chairman shall immediately call
for a vote on the original motion under consideration. A motion of the
previous question shall not be subject to debate and shall take precedence
over any other matter.
Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Board may be
reconsidered if a motion to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an
adjourned meeting held on the same day at which the matter was decided.
The motion to reconsider may be made by any member of the Board. Upon
a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the
motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the matter for discussion
in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon.
Motion to Rescind. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map
amendments, special use permit decisions, and ordinances, (these
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
exceptions shall only be subject to reconsideration as provided above) may
be rescinded by a majority vote of all elected members of the Board. The
motion to rescind may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a
proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the
motion to rescind, if approved, is to nullify the previous decision of the Board.
Zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions and ordinances may
be rescinded or repealed only upon meeting all the legal requirements
necessary for taking action on such matters as if it were a new matter before
the Board for consideration.
G. Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the
next regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to
amend is given.
H. Suspension of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the Board
members present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any
member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and
voted. The effect of the motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule
inapplicable to the matter before the Board. Provided, however, approval of a
motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the Board to act in violation of a
requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution of Virginia, or any
other applicable law.
Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedure shall be
governed by Robert's Rules of Order.
(Adopted 2-15-73; Amended and/or Readopted 9-5-74, 9-18-75; 2-19-76; 1-3-77;
1-4-78; 1-3-79; 1-2-80; 1-7-81; 1-6-82; 1-5-83; 1-3-84; 1-2-85; 1-3-86; 1-7-87;
1-6-88; 1-4-89; 1-2-90; 1-2-91; 1-2-92; 1-6-93; 1-5-94; 1-4-95; 1-3-96; 1-2-97;
1-7-98; 1-6-99; 1-5-2000; 1-3-2001; 1-9-2002; 1-8-2003).
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Barbara Shifflett was present to speak about the Albemarle County Fair. She said if the Fair
does not gain access to a permanent property in coming years, this tradition in the community will be lost.
More than a third of their yearly operating budget goes to temporary tents and electrical costs. That does
not include the movement and placement of storage and office trailers. They have had to place many rules
and regulations on vendors because of temporary facilities, so the number of vendors is decreasing. Also,
they cannot address drainage issues.
Ms. Shifflett said the Fair is willing to entertain any partnerships with the community, but would
prefer to find a permanent location in the southern area of the County. Relocating north of Charlottesville
would cause competition with other fairs, as well as destroy their volunteer base. She has been involved
with the Fair for a number of years and finds it to be disappointing that people must take their bigger
entertainment dollars elsewhere. Partnership with an entertainment venue, or a much needed conference
center, could make the community and the tourism industry all it can be.
Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. Shifflett to provide the Board a written statement of the Fair's needs.
Mr. Richard Brickwedde of Keswick was present to represent some families in his community and
himself who object to the latest land assessment. He said his property's land value was increased by 54.2
percent with this reassessment. If this rate of increase continues for the next eight years, just his land would
be worth $451,735. To show the absurdity of that, in 2011 one acre of property in Albemarle County would
be worth $45,173. He thinks that is a bit excessive. He understands the law that enables the County to
reassess property is not determined by the County, but by the State. He does not think it is equitable.
There is one house in their community that was sold by the owner to a builder last year for $180,000. Six
months later it was sold for $275,000. Evidently the buyer could afford to pay that price and wanted to live
in that neighborhood. The only thing that was done to improve the house was painting. Because someone
overpaid by $100,000 makes his property value go up, and he does not believe that is equitable. He thinks
there needs to be a better system for determining property values. He realizes that it is not determined by
the Board, but hopes that through the Board's influence something can be done. In the meantime, the
economy is not what it used to be. The economy is in trouble, and to increase the property tax, out-of-
pocket expense, by 20 percent is not in the best interest of the community. He would like to see the Board
roll back the tax rate. A few years ago the Board increased the tax rate, and the public went along with that
increase. Now, he thinks the Board needs to roll the tax rate back.
Mr. Dorrier informed Mr. Brickwedde that he can appeal the assessment to the Equalization Board.
Mr. Brickwedde said he spoke to the County Assessor and was told that on the average every property
owner in Albemarle County saw an average increase of 18.74 percent. He thinks it would be more
equitable to roll back the tax rate rather than have everyone in Albemarle file an appeal.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Tucker said he would not discount the Equalization Board. Since he does not know the
specifics, he would suggest that it would be worthwhile to file an appeal.
Mr. Martin noted that Mr. Brickwedde's ability to appeal to the Equalization Board will have expired
by the time the Board sets the tax rates for this year. He should go ahead and exercise his options, and
spell out his individual situation. Mr. Brickwedde said he intends to do that for his own personal situation.
He would like to hear what the Board members think of his suggestion.
Mr. Martin said it is hard for the Board to react to the suggestion because it has not gone through
the budgetary process yet. Mr. Brickwedde said the last tax rate change increased the tax on his property
by $70. This change would increase his taxes by $270. He does not see the need for the County to charge
him an additional $270. He has been a resident in Albemarle 10 years, coming from New York where the
taxes are very high, but you receive something for that money. He does not see what he gets for his money
in Albemarle County.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board needs to proceed with the other agenda items.
Mr. Perkins said the Board could ask the County Executive to develop a budget which reflects
inflation and the current growth rate in the County, but base it on the current tax rate. He agrees with the
speaker that it is unfair to put the whole burden on the real estate tax. He said the State and Federal
people are not helping, but he does not think it is wise to put so much of the burden on real estate taxes.
Mr. Rooker said 66 percent of the County budget goes to Schools, and the County does provide
services in the urban area. There is also fire and police for the entire County.
Ms. Thomas said she agrees, but anyone who wants to go to Richmond and make a statement
should do so. She appeared at both of the public hearings on the budget which were held in
Charlottesville. She told State legislators that localities are taking the brunt with an unfair tax that does not
respond to a person's income, only to the housing market which it is rising in the face of a recession and the
localities only have the ability to raise that tax. Soon, the Board will have to tell the public that it has to raise
this tax because their legislators do not have the nerve to raise the tax which reflects a family's income.
Mr. Bowerman said the problem is that the taxpayers never go to Richmond, they come to this
Board.
Mr. Tucker said he was going to mention later today that Mr. Jim Campbell, Executive Director of
VACo, sent an e-mail requesting that all localities pass a resolution urging the General Assembly to adopt
legislation granting counties the same taxing powers as cities. If the Board is interested, it might want to
adopt a resolution. He said this same request has been made to the local legislators every years for many,
many years.
Mr. Dorrier asked how long it would take to put together some option on various tax rates based on
the reassessment. Mr. Tucker said staff already has an idea of what the rates will be. Staffwill be talking
to the School Board in the next couple of weeks. An update on revenue projections does not show any
significant change since the report in November.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that this conversation be moved to the end of the agenda because the
Board has "gotten derailed" and the agenda is running behind schedule.
Agenda Item No. 12. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to approve Item 12.1 (as noted) and Items 12.2 through 12.5 on the Consent Agenda, and to
accept the remaining items for information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Item 12.1. Approval of Minutes: March 25(A), August 7 and August 14, 2002.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of August 14, 2002, and found them to be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved. All
other minutes will be carried forward to another meeting.
Item 12.2. Set public hearing for February 5, 2003, on an ordinance to amend Section 4-401,
Dangerous dogs, vicious dogs.
It was noted in the executive summary that a recent review of the County Code concerning
provisions relating to dangerous and vicious dogs revealed that the County Code did not conform in two
respects to recent amendments to the State Code. Virginia Code § 3.1-796.93:1 was amended to allow an
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
animal control officer to determine if a dog is dangerous or vicious without such determination being made
by a court, except upon appeal. In addition, this Code section was amended to require that animal control
officers be responsible for confining a dangerous or vicious dog pending a judicial determination of its status
and providing that the owner of an alleged dangerous or vicious dog can confine his dog until a Court
hearing only if the animal control officer determines that the owner can do so in a manner that protects the
public safety. Staff had prepared an ordinance which would bring Section 4-401 of the County Code into
compliance with the State Code, and this would improve the County's ability to address dangerous and
vicious dog enforcement. Staff recommends that the ordinance be set for public hearing on February 5,
2003.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set An Ordinance to amend and reordain
Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Section
4-401, Dangerous dogs; vicious dogs, for a public hearing on February $, 2003.
Item 12.3. Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing.
It was noted in the executive summary that Internal Revenue Service regulations require the
adoption of a "reimbursement resolution" when the proceeds from the issuance of a tax-exempt bond are
used to cover expenses of a project incurred prior to the bond sale closing. The planned acquisition of the
Wachovia building, as well as expenses of the 800 MHz radio system, will require expenditure of County
funds prior to the bond sale closing currently scheduled for March 4, 2003. Staff recommends adoption of
the resolution.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Official
Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing:
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING
WHEREAS, Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), intends to acquire,
construct and equip new administrative facilities for the County, make a capital
contribution to the costs of constructing a juvenile courts facility and, in collaboration with
the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, the Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport Authority and the
University of Virginia, acquire and install a new emergency communications system
(collectively, the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the County expects to
advance its own funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the "Expenditures")
prior to incurring indebtedness and to receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from
proceeds of tax-exempt bonds or taxable debt, or both; and
WHEREAS, the County expects to ask the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), to issue its revenue bonds and to loan the
proceeds thereof to the County to finance the costs of the Project;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The County intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds of the
Authority (the "Bonds") or to incur other debt, in an amount not currently expected to
exceed $30,000,000 to pay the costs of the Project.
2. The County intends that a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be
used to reimburse the County for Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or
after the date that is no more than 60 days prior to the date of this Resolution. The
County reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with
a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt.
3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond
counsel, either (a) of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general
Federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date of the
Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item
that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not
related to or an agent of the County so long as such grant does not impose any obligation
or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the County.
4. The County intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a
written allocation by the County that evidences the County's use of a portion of the
proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the
later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in service or
abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the
Expenditure is paid. The County recognizes that exceptions are available for certain
"preliminary expenditures," costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures
by "small issuers" (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and
expenditures for construction of at least five years.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
5. The County intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the
"official intent" within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated
under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
Item 12.4. Resolution to accept roads in Still Meadows Phase 3 Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, and subject to the recorded vote set
out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Still Meadows Subdivision, Phase 3, described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 8, 2003, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Still
Meadows Subdivision, Phase 3, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated January 8, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
§33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts,
fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
2)
Brownstone Lane (Route 1355) from the existing intersections of Route
1350 (Still Meadow Avenue) and Route 1355 to the intersection of Route
1353 (River Inn Lane), as shown on plat recorded 10/25/2001 in Deed
Book 2098, pages 579, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.04
miles.
Brownstone Lane from the intersection of Route 1353 (River Inn Lane)
to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 10/25/2001 in Deed Book
2098, pages 579, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.07
miles.
3)
Doringh Place (Route 1356) from the intersection of Route 1353 (River
Inn Lane) to the intersection of Route 1353 (River Inn Lane), as shown
on plat recorded 10/25/2001 in Deed Book 2098, pages 579, in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.11 miles.
4)
River Inn Lane (Route 1353) from the intersection of Route 1355
(Brownstone Lane) to the intersection of Route 1356 (Doringh Place), as
shown on plat recorded 10/25/2001 in Deed Book 2098, pages 579, in
the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 miles.
5)
River Inn Lane (Route 1353) from the intersection of Route 1356
(Doringh Place), to the intersection of Route 1356 (Doringh Place), as
shown on plat recorded 10/25/2001 in Deed Book 2098, pages 579, in
the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, with a
50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.19 miles.
6)
River Inn Lane (Route 1353) from the intersection of Route 1356
(Doringh Place), to the existing intersection of Route 1353 (River Inn
Lane) and Route 1352 (Pheasant Crossing), as shown on plat recorded
10/25/2001 in Deed Book 2098, pages 579, in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, with a 50-foot right-of-way width,
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
for a length of 0.12 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.63 mile.
Item 12.5. Authorize County Executive to execute Service Agreement with Seminole Trail
Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. for purchase of new command vehicle.
It was noted in the executive summary that several years ago, Albemarle County established a
revolving fund to be used by the ten volunteer fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund,
currently funded at $2.0 million, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed flreflghting
and rescue squad equipment and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from their
annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and approved by
Albemarle County's Fire Rescue Advisory Board (ACFRAB). The amount currently available in the
revolving fund is $377,551.33.
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company has requested, through ACFRAB, an advance of
$16,250.00 to be used for the purchase of a new command vehicle to help free an engine that is currently
responding to the growing number of EMS calls. They plan to donate their service car (SERV 89) to the
new Monticello Fire & Rescue Station and use their existing command vehicle (CAR 80), which is larger, to
respond to EMS calls. By using a larger vehicle, it enables Seminole Trail to carry all of the necessary
equipment including backboards and to carry a crew of three. This leaves a void of a command vehicle.
Seminole Trail has executed the standard service agreement approved by the County Attorney's office.
This advance can be disbursed upon approval of this agreement by the Board. Repayment of the
allocation would be over an eight-year period beginning in FY 2003-04. ACFRAB approved this request on
November 20, 2002. Staff recommends that the County Executive be authorized to execute the service
agreement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute
the following Service Agreement with the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company.
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 9th day of January, 2003, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, (the "County"), and the
SEMINOLE TRAIL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the
"Fire Department").
WHEREAS, the Fire Department agrees to continue to provide valuable fire
protection services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the
Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Communications Center ("Service
Area"); and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department desires the County to contribute Sixteen
Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($16,250.00) for the purchase of a command
vehicle for providing fire services.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the
County and Fire Department agree, as follows:
1. The County shall contribute to the Fire Department Sixteen Thousand Two
Hundred Fifty Dollars ($16,250.00) to be used for the purchase of a command vehicle.
The funds shall be allocated from the County's Fire Fund ("Fund") and shall be made
available upon execution of this agreement.
2. The Fire Department agrees that the County will withhold Two Thousand
Thirty-one Dollars and Twenty-five Cents ($2,031.25) from the County's annual
appropriation to the Fire Department's operating budget beginning July 2003 through July
2010. Thus at the end of eight (8) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of
$16,250.00 shall be withheld. This withholding may be used by the County to replenish
the Fund for so long as the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This
withholding is in addition to the withholding for all prior advances under the prior service
agreement with the Fire Department dated January 7, 2000. The Fire Department
agrees that any amount of this repayment that may exceed the County's annual
appropriation will be remitted to the County no later than July 31 of each repayment year.
3. The Fire Department agrees that the Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty
Dollars ($16,250.00) contribution shall be used only for the purchase of the command
vehicle to be used to provide fire services in Albemarle County. The Fire Department
further agrees that it shall not convey the command vehicle or any interest therein to any
party other than the County without the County's prior written consent during the useful
life of the command vehicle or the term of this Service Agreement, whichever is longer.
For purposes of this Agreement, the useful life of the command vehicle shall be ten years
from the date the command vehicle is placed into service. In addition, the Fire
Department agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to any
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
damage to the command vehicle shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and
improvement of the command vehicle unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a
different use for such funds.
4. The Fire Department agrees that at such time as it no longer provides
volunteer fire protection services in Albemarle County while operating under the
jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey all of its interest in the vehicle described in
paragraph 1 to the County at no additional cost to the County upon the County's request.
5. The County and Fire Department agree that the covenants set forth in their
prior agreement dated January 7, 2000, to the extent they are not in conflict with this
Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect.
6. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional
appropriations by the County to the Fire Department, at the discretion of the County
Board of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the
Fire Department.
Item 12.6. Letter dated December 10, 2002, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Noah DeFalco, re: Official Determination of Parcels and Development Rights - Tax Map
129, Parcel 10A, and Tax Map 130, Parcel 7 (Property of Noah DeFalco) Section 10.3.1, was received for
information.
Item 12.7. Letter dated December 11,2002, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Charles G. Jr. and Eleanor J. Sudduth, re: Official Determination of Parcels and
Development Rights - Tax Map 22, Parcels 9, 10B, 12, 12A, 16, and Tax Map 34, Parcel 51 (Property of
Charles G. Jr. and Eleanor J. Sudduth) Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
Item 12.8. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes of November 19, 2002, was received as
information.
Item 12.9. Rural Area Review Status Report.
It was noted in the executive summary that when the Board reviewed this project's status on
October 2, 2002, it was projected that the Rural Area review would be completed in September, 2003. The
Board has since decided to hold a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission on the Mountain
Overlay District (MOD) on March 19, 2003. This was scheduled to allow the public meeting component of
the Rural Area review to be completed. It was understood that, due to the staff resources necessary to
prepare for the MOD public hearing, drafting and adoption of the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive
Plan would be delayed until after the Board's hearing and decision on the MOD. This final component of
the Rural Area review has been previously estimated to take seven months to complete, beginning in
February, 2003 and concluding in September, 2003. Depending on the outcome of the MOD, this work
would begin no earlier than April, 2003 and conclude no earlier than November, 2003.
Two public meetings have been held on Rural Area issues and directions. Two other meetings
were postponed due to weather and have been rescheduled for January 6 (Scottsville) and January 8
(Stony Point), 2003. As a result, the completion of the summary and report of these meetings will be
delayed and the joint Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission meeting originally scheduled for February
5, 2003, will need to be delayed to no earlier than March 19, 2003. This will not impact the overall schedule
of the Rural Area review as the final component of the review is already being delayed for the MOD.
This report is provided for the Board's information. Staff can review more particular elements
at the Board's January 8 meeting, if so desired.
Item 12.10. Charlottesville VDoT Residency Monthly Report, January 2003, was received as
information.
Mr. Tucker said he would like to introduce Mr. Michael Culp, the new Director of Information
Technology. He is a graduate of the University of Virginia. He has 18 years of experience, primarily in the
private sector. He has worked as a consultant for the Department of the Treasury, the Virginia Department
of Forensic Science, and was the Chief Information Officer for MED Specialists, was a manager with Value
America, as well as Senior Vice-President with Wheat First Union. He said the County is delighted to have
Michael join the County's work force. He actually started work on December 15. Mr. Tucker asked that the
Board appoint Mr. Culp as Director of Information Technology effective December 15, 2002.
Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Perkins, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Agenda Item No. 13. Transportation Matters: Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, said he learned this morning that the public hearing for the
Jarman's Gap Road project will be in May. Everything else in his report is current. He said the Department
continues to improve its snow removal operations. They are organizing a review on the Afton Mountain pile-
up.
Mr. Dorrier said the one piece of good news from that event is that no one was hurt because
everybody had on their seat belts. Mr. Bryan said that on New Year's day there was a death on 1-64 on the
mountain because the person did not have on a seat belt.
Mr. Perkins asked that the speed limit in the community of White Hall be check by VDOT. Coming
in on Route 810 the speed limit is 45 mph, and he does not think there is any change or reduction in the
speed limit coming from the north on 810. He thinks the speed limit should be reduced to 25 mph from the
upper store just east of the cluster of houses east of Wyant's Store.
Ms. Thomas mentioned a letter concerning Clark Road. Mr. Perkins said this person has brought
this up several times, and written several letters.
Mr. Dorrier said he has talked to this lady. The people live in Esmont and inherited property on
Clark Road, and there is about a 100 foot drop-off along the edge of the road where there is no guardrail.
Mr. Bryan said VDOT has also been talking to them, and has sent someone out to look at the
situation. He just needs to respond.
Mr. Martin said driving south on Route 20 and getting ready to turn left onto Route 250 East
heading toward Richmond, he thinks there should be some way to strip the road for two left turn lanes.
Mr. Martin said he received a letter from Mr. Walter Johnson concerning a study about improving
city intersections, which includes the Route 29 Western Bypass project. Mr. Johnson wants to include in
that study Route 250 on Pantops.
Mr. Rooker said he saw Mr. Bryan earlier today, and Mr. Bryan said VDOT is thinking about putting
a 45 mph cautionary speed limit sign in front of Colthurst Subdivision. He thinks that might be a good first
step in trying to solve the problem there.
Mr. Rooker asked about the letter Mr. Bryan sent to Juan Wade regarding the Southern Parkway.
Mr. Bryan said the question was whether the roadway would qualify for Secondary Road Funds. Right now
it qualifies for the use of Revenue Sharing funds. It is on the Six-Year plan already.
Mr. Rooker said in the past the MPO was told it did not qualify for Secondary Funds. Mr. Cilimberg
said it will be part of the Six-Year review when that comes to the Board soon.
Ms. Thomas said the Morgantown Road neighborhood is concerned about big, heavy trucks, if light
industry goes in that area. They are protesting the whole definition of light industry for the particular
company going into the area, even though it seems to fit the definition. It consists of really big construction
equipment which is sometimes carried on even bigger trucks. The neighborhood is concerned about these
trucks going past the school. She got a telephone message from Juan Wade last night saying that
designating a truck route might be more productive then having a truck restriction. She is bringing this
before the whole Board because it is at the point where the whole Board needs to ask staff to look into this.
She asked Mr. Bryan the difference between designating a truck route and putting on a truck restriction.
Mr. Bryan said he does not know about a truck route, although there might be one.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board does not disagree, maybe that could be looked at. She agrees with
the neighborhood and the parents at the school that this will not be just ordinary traffic. Mr. Bryan said
VDOT has been successful, such as on Earlysville Road, getting voluntary compliance with certain
measures. He is confident they could work in this situation.
Mr. Bryan said some VDOT staff rode Route 250 West with some of the Task Force members to
point out where future work will be done in terms of tree trimming. That was beneficial.
Mr. Dorrier said there has been an increase in the number of automobile wrecks on Carter' Bridge.
He said it is very narrow. He asked if there would be someway to put a caution sign on either end of the
bridge. He has seen two wrecks on the bridge itself.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 14. Police Department's Reorganization, Presentation of.
Chief John Miller handed to the Board a copy of the slide presentation he was about to make. He
said one of their major work objectives for FY 2002-03 was to look at the design of the organization. The
design started to change last summer with the appointment of two new police captains. A committee,
composed of both police captains, the director of human resources and members of the agency, both
sworn and civilian, was created and worked hard on this matter for six months.
Chief Miller said they wanted to change the structure of the organization and a number of changes
have been instituted. First were the structural changes which define how the agency operates. This gave
an opportunity for both captains to set up lines of accountability and to make sure the department functions
as equitably as possible. Through the process they identified a number of things to change. As to physical
changes, he would like to thank the Board for the recent purchase of the Wachovia Building. This has had
a positive effect on the department. Technical changes have happened in the department the past three
years with the support of the county executive. Of course, the Board of Supervisors has always been
supportive of the Police Department. They have a new records management system. They have just
updated all of their computer system network. There is a video camera program. The regional computer-
aided dispatch system is new. The 800 MHz system will be coming along soon. All of these technical
advances have occurred during the past four years.
Chief Miller said the committee started off by setting a goal: "To recommend solutions to create a
more effective and efficient Police Department through the assessment of current organizational design
and work processes." He said the County Executive had all departments do a SWOT analysis a few years
ago. The committee developed a team goal, time lines to be met, conducted a preliminary needs analysis,
reviewed the SLOT analysis, identified key processes for improvement, and drafted a design for the
processes to address the needs of the department.
Chief Miller said the parameters for structural and process changes had to fit into one of the
following four categories: communication internally and externally, staffing, training and leadership. The
implementation redesign was basically implemented as of January 6, 2003. Process changes were made
in warrant services because there have been as many as 1400 unserved warrants at the end of a month.
There is also subpoena service. Quality control of reports has to be assured since there have been 13,000
incident reports entered into the computer system in a given year. The majority of these reports are then
submitted to the FBI so quality control is important. There was a change needed in allocation of supervisory
personnel, and there was the issue of having a desk officer who could handle the continuous number of
walk-in visitors to the department.
Chief Miller then introduced Captain Crystal Limerick, head of the Operations Bureau.
Capt Limerick said it encompasses all of the patrol divisions, as well as the community support
division and the K-9 Unit. Each division has two sergeants and two corporals. She said the corporal
program was instituted about five years ago, and it has been helpful to the sergeants and the lieutenants
and division commanders so they can keep control of what it is going on in the field. They can have a level
of response immediately to anything in the field, and the sergeants and lieutenants can make an
appearance where necessary. She said the Community Support Division incorporates the School
Resource Officers (there are now seven in the schools), the Traffic Unit, and the Community Services
Officers. Currently, there is only one officer in Community Support. They wanted to have some supervision
for the K-9 crew as well as the Power Shift, so they expect that unit to expand.
Ms. Thomas asked the definition of "Power Shift." Capt. Limerick said it refers to the particular
hours worked (6:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. It is the busiest time, with the most emergency calls, with the type of
calls that require multiple officers.)
Capt. Neil Kearns said his side of the department is known as the "Support Services Bureau." It is
divided into two sections, administrative and investigations. The administrative functions have been grouped
under a lieutenant. This is not the creation of a new position. They moved Lt. Earl Newton into this
administrative service division. One of the biggest changes in the department, and the role of Lt. Newton, is
that he will serve as its public information officer. They believe they need a renewal of relations with the
media on a departmental level. Ms. Lee Catlin does an excellent job for the County overall, but as the most
visible arm of County government, they feel the department needed to reestablish itself with the media.
One thing that brought this to his attention recently was when Officer Curtis Kenney climbed into the window
of a burning apartment and dragged a woman out. His name was in the press release, but the newspaper
stow said "an officer dragged a lady out of a smoked-filled apartment." This was the department's fault.
He said the public is intensely interested in the department, and should report when the department is
wrong, but there should be a relationship where they are happy to help celebrate the department's victories.
Capt. Kearns said there is a newly-established Professional Standards Division. This is a new way
of addressing citizen complaints and internal investigations within the department. The fact that there is a
division which is solely responsible for professional standards and accountability emphasizes the
importance placed on standards and culture within the agency, the department's response to citizens. Sgt.
Jenkins reports directly to him and he assists her in investigations.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Rooker asked if this it is a one-person division. Capt. Kearns said it is. Ideally it would have a
higher rank to show the importance of the standards they want to set for the agency. He said the Criminal
Investigations Division is still the same as it was. It has a very strong leader and two strong supervisors.
The department has excellent detectives. They work around the clock on the big cases. They have great
knowledge in investigative techniques. Recently, there was the "Fashion Square Burglary Caper" that they
just announced arrests on yesterday. They cleared that case and two similar incidents in Spotsylvania
County. A couple of months ago a drug gang from Washington, D.C., came here and murdered a local
drug dealer. It was an intense investigation involving search warrants in Washington, D.C., and they solved
the case. People involved in a recent home invasion case and rape also involving a running gun battle
down Route 29 had to be extracted from a house in the City using the SWAT team. Albemarle's detectives
worked around the clock solving that case. He said some of Albemarle's detectives were invited to the
White House recently for an event with the President because of their work with children involved with
Internet predators.
Capt. Kearns said the Criminal Unit has an administrative sergeant for training and personnel
development. There is only one person in this unit who is responsible for all on-going training, recruiting
and recruit training. They felt this responsibility was important enough to require a sergeant. For analysis
and research, they put all of the civilian positions in this section. Essentially on what was a civilian side, they
now have a police lieutenant as the commander for all of those elements.
Mr. Dorrier said the County created an Advisory Citizens Commission. He asked if there it is any
interaction between that Commission and the Police Department. Capt. Kearns said they meet regularly
with the committee giving them information about the department. Mr. Tucker said they meet monthly, and
Mr. Bowerman as liaison for the Board attends those meetings.
Ms. Kimberly Suyes, Director of Human Resources, said she talked to the Board a year ago about
partnering with other departments to be sure they are receiving the support necessary. One of the biggest
departments is the Police Department so Human Resources is very involved with that department at this
time. Some of their personnel have been riding along with police officers, learning their jobs, so Human
Resources can assist them. She said the Police Department has exceptional officers. There has been a
significant change in that Department over the last six months.
Ms. Suyes said there is a cultural change coming about because of the four components
mentioned earlier. Human Resources looked at existing staff and moved some personnel to a different
area. But, existing staff is not sufficient to support the culture where the department needs to be at this time
or five years from now. In looking to the future, the national trend data shows 2.5 officers per 1000 of
population. The market average is 1.65. The Board's adopted goal is 1.5. Currently, Albemarle's Police
Department is at 1.18.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the national average takes into consideration that there may also be a sheriff's
department in the locality. Ms. Suyes said she will answer that question later. She said they are looking at
the 1.5, which she believes is Iow. There are 108 authorized positions in the Police Department. If the 1.5
goal were reached, it would require 129 authorized positions. Of the 105 filled positions currently, six are in
field training so they are not productive officers yet. There are 99 officers on the street, when there should
be 129. She said Human Resources is driven by data, so they are looking at what is needed for a
comprehensive plan. It is obvious that a five-year strategic plan is needed for the department. A committee
has been put together with herself, Capt. Kearns, Capt. Limerick, Lt. Noteman, and Lt. Beherns. They will
consider a five-year comprehensive plan for staffing.
Ms. Suyes said that in response to Mr. Dorrier's question, there are things they must take into
consideration, such as: Is the market she mentioned appropriate for this department? Is the fact that there
is a sheriff's department a consideration? The crime rate is a consideration as is geographic distance.
Could technology mean a more productive officer thus requiring fewer staff members? County growth, and
the turnover rate in the department are other considerations. At this time, there is a chance that the country
may be going to war, and a few officers are members of the reserve. It is likely that new hires would be
members of the reserve which makes hiring the right people difficult.
Ms. Suyes said she comes from the private sector and nine months to produce a viable employee
is an unacceptable length of time. She said it takes three months to hire an employee because Human
Resources is extremely selective. Training at the police academy takes another three months. Finally, field
training takes another three months. She said they need to take into consideration the nine months needed
to produce an officer when drafting any plan.
Mr. Dorrier asked the rate of turnover. Chief Miller said it averages about five per year. Ms. Suyes
said the turnover in the department is Iow. She said her staff has not verified all of the numbers mentioned
this morning. That is a reason this committee has been constituted. She said if there were the 1.5 officers
right now with a population of 86,000, in five years with 97,000, there would need to be 145 sworn officers.
She said the good news is that they are moving in the right direction for the department. There is a positive
change taking place. There has not been a strategic plan for staffing which could be used by the Board for
planning purposes. There should be a comprehensive staffing plan finished within the next six months to
help with planning processes.
Mr. Bowerman said that would mean adding about seven new officers per year. That is ambitious.
Mr. Tucker said there is some additional work that needs to be done on the market analysis. When this
report was presented to him, he asked if sheriff's office was included in other agencies even though they
are not included in Albemarle. Also, in most other communities, the sheriff operates the jail, and he asked
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
if the correctional officers are included as sheriff's deputies. That does not mean that Albemarle is not still
below what the Board's goal has been.
Chief Miller said that is the next major step of the design committee. They will be looking at staffing
needs and justify those needs.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to know which positions are unfilled.
Mr. Dorrier commended Chief Miller for his leadership and ability at selecting capable people. He
thinks they are moving in the right direction having been accredited, and working with a fine Sheriff's
Department.
Mr. Perkins said it seems to be a complex formula. How many police officers do you need based
on the crime rate and the number of square miles that have to be covered? He said there are
improvements in technology, and he hopes the department will gain some efficiencies through that
technology. He said the County is not growing in area, but in people.
Chief Miller said one of the initiatives this Board has supported are the mobile data terminals. They
are looking at having an officer in his car have access to all the information necessary, and how much
savings that would take off of the officers time. He said all of those issues will be looked at by this
committee.
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: To solicit input for development of Community Improvement
Grant Proposal and Dry Well Replacement Program. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily
Progress on December 23 and December 30, 2002.)
Mr. Ron White noted that local citizen participation is encouraged throughout the process of
developing Community Improvement Grant (CIG) proposals funded through the Virginia Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. To facilitate participation, two public hearings are required.
One hearing is to receive input on community needs and one is to receive input on any proposed CIG grant
proposals. Albemarle County has been successful in receiving a number of CIGs over the years, the most
recent being a multi-year funded grant for housing and neighborhood improvements for the Porters
Road/Yancey School neighborhood. This public hearing is to assess community development needs and
potential projects for the coming year. The Board may wish to go ahead and set a public hearing in March
to receive input on an application.
Mr. Rooker asked who generally makes the proposal.
Mr. White said in the past there have been joint proposals between AHIP and the County. The
Esmont project just completed was a multi-year grant and was accomplished through a combination of
sources. Available since December is a new activity, a Dry Well Replacement Program. Currently the
CDBG program has a set-aside (approximately $2.5 million) to assist Iow- and moderate-income
households replace dry wells. Based on requests for assistance to date, staff recommends pursuing these
dry well replacement funds for Albemarle County residents. The State has, under their competitive grant
program, approximately $12.0 million in CDBG funds, and the $2.5 million for the dry well replacement
program. There is also another $500,000 set-aside for an innovative grant program where they will fund
small pilot projects. Individual development accounts, which are basically savings accounts people can use
for purchasing a home, furthering their education or starting a business, are part of that program also. His
office is looking at that program as a benefit to members of their Homebuyer's Club.
Ms. Thomas asked which of these grants would help to get more people into affordable housing.
She has heard the City praised for the number of people they are able to help. She wants to make sure the
Board is doing the right thing. Mr. White said in looking at usefulness, one must also look at how the
program it is developed. Whatever the County develops in the area of housing has to be a 100 percent
benefit for Iow- and moderate-income people. At the State level, it is a very competitive process which
requires that almost all of the clients be identified in the beginning. That creates a problem with home
ownership and down payment and closing cost assistance for a community development block grant
proposal.
Mr. White said he will bring to the Board from the Housing Committee a more extensive report by
the end of March on a variety of activities the office can undertake. In looking at demographics in the
census data, rental housing is a critical need. At this time, the focus of their planning efforts is on home
ownership. If the County had access to land and the desire to do more moderate income housing like the
five units in Esmont, some block grant funds could be used for development of the land, the roads, the
septic systems, water, etc. There are a variety of things which could be done, but it is hard to say which
would be the best.
Mr. Tucker said the County is at a disadvantage when compared to the City which is an entitlement
community. They City automatically gets CDBG funds, whereas the County has to compete for those
funds. The County has not been successful in that competition each year. Mr. Bowerman said the City
uses the County's population in their calculations. Mr. Tucker said event though the City does not have a
population 50,000, they are able, by HUD standards, to use the County's urbanized area to meet that
50,000 criteria.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. White said it creates a problem with land. For the last two years, the County has applied for
funds for a community center at Whitewood Village. That will probably be a proposal again this year.
There were difficulties because AHIP had not gained ownership of the property, but did close on the
property on December 30, 2002. There is about $110,000 available yearly in HOME funds through the
Consortium. He has told the Planning District Commission that his office needs more time this year to bring
to the Housing Committee and the Board, recommendations on how to program that HOME money.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to authorize staffto move forward on the dry well replacement
program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Tucker said there will be a second public hearing at which staff will present actual projects for
consideration. The public hearing will be at one of the March meetings.
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: Proposed FY2003 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 29, 2002)
Mr. Roger Hildebeidel, Budget Manager, said Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any
locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal
year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one
percent of the total expenditures shown in the budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must be
accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the
budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E-911, School
Self-Sustaining, etc
Mr. Hildebeidel said this proposed FY 2003 Budget amendment totals $2,033,091.31. The
estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund
Local Government Programs/Grants
School Fund
Education Programs/Grants
General Government Capital Projects
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES-All Funds
$156,383.54
830,177.79
17,833.71
748,669.27
280,027.00
$2,033,091.31
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
Fund Balances
Borrowed Funds
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES-All Funds
$153,255.71
127,712.45
653,300.82
908,822.33
190,000.00
$2,033,091.31
Mr. Hildebeidel said this budget amendment is comprised of 17 separate appropriations, eleven of
which have already been approved by the Board at meetings in November and December, 2002. The
eleven approved appropriations are as follows:
* Four Appropriations approved on November 6, 2002. Two Appropriations for school programs
totaled $336,561.00 (#2003-017 and #2003-020). Two Appropriations for $31,095.00 (#2003-018 and
#2003-019) were grant funds to the Police Department.
* One Appropriation (#2003-024) for a $5,000.00 contribution to the Fire and Rescue Department
was approved on November 13, 2002.
* Six Appropriations were approved on December 4, 2002. One Appropriation (#2003-021) in the
amount of $18,333.71 for school programs; three Appropriations(#2003-023, #2003-025 and #2003-026)
totaling $3,970.00 in grant funds to the Police Department; one Appropriation (#2003-022) of $190,000.00
to the Capital Fund for the lease/purchase acquisition of the Permit Automation System software; one
Appropriation (#2003-027) in the amount of $9,716.54 in dedicated State revenues to the County's
Volunteer Fire Companies and Rescue Squads.
Mr. Hildebeidel said six new appropriations are included in this budget amendment (#2003-028,
#2003-029, #2003-030, #2003-031, #2003-032 and #2003-033) total $1,438,414.93 and will need to be
approved by the Board after consideration of this Budget amendment. The six new appropriation requests
are:
* Two Appropriations (#20030-28 and #2003-031) totaling $411,608.00, for various School
programs including a Federally-funded grant award of $397,558.00.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
* One Appropriation (#2003-029) in the amount of $29,668.06 to the Emergency Communications
Center (ECC) in funds received from the State's E911 Wireless Board.
* One Appropriation (#2003-030) in the amount of $181,971.87 for expenses related to the
acquisition of the 800 MHz Radio System.
* One Appropriation (#2003-032) in the amount of $141,667.00 for expenses related to hiring four
additional career fireflghters for the Monticello Fire Station for three-quarters of FY 2003.
* One Appropriation (#2003-033) providing a $673,500.00 additional transfer from the General
Fund to the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) Fund and authorization to spend the transferred funds
within the CSA Fund for mandated CSA program services.
Mr. Hildebeidel said to cover a portion of the funds required for the four additional firefighters
(Appropriation #2003-032) the remaining balance of $116,030.00 in the FY 2003 appropriated Board's
Contingency Reserve will be used. Approving this appropriation will leave a zero balance in the Board's
Reserve. Providing the remaining needed funds for the additional firefighters and the CSA mandated
services (Appropriation #2003-033) will require using all of the remaining unallocated FY 2002 Fund
Balance of $427,000.00, plus $272,137.00 from the County's $13.0 million approved cash flow reserve. He
said that Ms. Roxanne White and Ms. Kathy Ralston are present this morning to answer questions about
CSA.
Mr. Hildebeidel said staff recommends approval of the FY 2003 Budget amendment in the amount
of $2,033,091.31, after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2003-028, #2003-029,
#2003-030, #2003-031, #2003-032 and #2003-033 to provide funds for the various General Government
and School programs.
Mr. Rooker asked which of the appropriations were not included in the adopted budget, or are not
matched by funds coming from the State or Federal government. Mr. Hildebeidel said CSA is entirely local
money as is the additional money for the Monticello Fire Station. The expenses for the 800 MHz radio
system includes Fund Balance moneys. A large part of the school appropriations are either new donations
or Federal grant moneys.
Ms. Roxanne White said CSA is one of the unfunded mandates and it is increasing. She brought
the Board members' attention to Attachment 4 of the executive summary. She said the department has to
do a supplemental request ever year because the actual State pool is based on 1994 and 1995 allocations.
She said they have not asked for a supplemental request since June 2000. At that point, there was a
General Fund transfer of about $915,000. In June of that year the supplemental request brought the
amount to $1.3 million. There was some Fund Balance money left that year, so the next year they
budgeted the same amount for the General Fund transfer ($1.3 million) and were able to use a little bit of
that Fund Balance to make up the difference. The next year there was still a level General Fund transfer
($1.3 million). In FY '02 they expected to use some of the Fund Balance and still have funds left for FY '03.
As it turned out, in FY '02 they used all of the Fund Balance, so going into FY '03 there was no Fund
Balance left. They have not had to ask for supplemental money for the past three years. This is a large
appropriation, but it is actually making up for the past three years when Fund Balance moneys were used.
Mr. Martin said he thinks that some communities just do not increase funding. Ms. White said they
have to, it is mandated. Mr. Martin said some communities are ignoring that mandate. Ms. White said there
may be some communities which have not been legally challenged yet. She thinks the majority are in the
same situation that Albemarle is in, and are funding the level of services required.
Mr. Martin said he knows there are localities which are simply saying "sorry, we are not sending this
kid to a $3000 or $5000 a month placement." He it is not saying Albemarle should do that, but he knows
localities where the CMPT's say "we can't do it." Ms. White said Albemarle may have to say "we can't do
this level of service" but will have to be careful that what is done is legal. Mr. Tucker said the question is
one of what a judge requires. Not all localities are seeing the kinds of increases that Albemarle is seeing.
Mr. Perkins asked if Albemarle gets more than its share. Ms. White said the County has a high
case load. Mr. Perkins asked if it is because of the University Hospital. Ms. White said part of it depends on
the judges.
Mr. Rooker asked about the committee which has been formed to study and make recommenda-
tions about current and future efforts to contain cost. He asked if committees from other areas might come
together and draft a plan to successfully contain costs. According to material in the staff report, it says
Albemarle's cost have gone up from $3.098 million, to $8.5 million. On a per child served basis, it is an
incredibly high number. He wonders if there are alternative ways to deal with some of the problems that do
not cost as much. Mr. White said how to fund these costs is always a topic of discussion at the statewide
meetings she attends. She said some localities make a decision as to the level of services they will provide.
That is one of the things the study group will look at. Mr. Tucker said there is also the question of whether
there are other facilities that could offer the service for less money. Ms. White said the judges do not make
the decision about facilities, that is done by the department.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is left with the final product because all of the decisions have been
made. Unfortunately, at this point, all the County can do is pay.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Ms. Thomas said it is a topic which comes up every time there are people from two or more cities
and counties together talking about finances.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier 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. Bowerman asked if these appropriations affect the budget forecasting for FY 2003-04. Mr.
Tucker said they will lower the revenues by the amount being requested. Mr. Bowerman asked the exact
amount by which it will be lowered. Mr. Tucker said the Board's Fund Balance has been eliminated, and
some of the unappropriated Fund Balance, as well as the Fund Balance held for cash flow needs. The
total amount is probably $673,000. Mr. Bowerman said the FY 2003-04 year will then begin with less
money. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve the budget amendment as advertised. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman to adopt the following Resolutions of Appropriation.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin said when different scenarios are discussed (see staff report), he thinks it would be good
for people to see the income level of these families. Most people will impose a certain income level of
these people, and that imposition is wrong. He thinks it would be good for people to see that this runs the
gambit, so it helps people understand that primarily you are talking about kids who have not been raised,
and it is across the board income wise.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP #2003-028
APPROPRIATION DATE: 12/12/02
EXPLANATION SCHOOL DONATIONS AND PROGRAMS
SUB LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT
1 2255 61101 580000 Misc Expense J 1 200.00
1 2302 61411 580000 Misc Expense J 1 1,000.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 1,200.00
2000 0501 EST REVENUE
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION
1 3203 61311 112100 Salaries-Teacher J 1 242,357.00
1 3203 61311 152100 Sub-Wages-Teacher J 1 240.00
1 3203 61311 210000 FICA J 1 18,117.00
1 3203 61311 221000 VRS J 1 22,324.00
1 3203 61311 231000 Health Ins J 1 21,065.00
1 3203 61311 232000 Dental Ins J 1 840.00
1 3203 61311 312505 Prof Svcs J 1 66,510.00
1 3203 61311 550400 Travel-Education J 1 1,730.00
1 3203 61311 580500 Staff Development J 1 15,475.00
1 3203 61311 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 8,900.00
2 3203 33000 330132 Title II-PartA J 2 397,558.00
3203 0501 EST REVENUE
3203 0701 APPROPRIATION
TOTAL 797,516.00
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
1,200.00
1,200.00
397,558.00
397,558.00
398,758.00 398,758.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP #2003-029
APPROPRIATION DATE: 12/12/02
EXPLANATION: ADDITIONAL FUND BALANCE FROM E911 WIRELESS BOARD FROM FY '02 TRUEUP
SUB LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT
1 4100 31041 331800 Repair& Maint J 1 29,668.06
2 4100 24000 240424 Wireless Bd J 2 29,668.06
4100 0501 EST REVENUE
4100 0701 APPROPRIATION
TOTAL 59,336.12
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
29,668.06
29,668.06
29,668.06 29,668.06
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP #2003-030
APPROPRIATION DATE: 12/12/02
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR ACQUISITION OF PETERS MOUNTAIN FOR 800 MHz
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT
DESCRIPTION CODE
1 4110 31050 312700 Prof Services J
1 4110 31050 800750 Purc of Land J
2 4110 16000 160502 Ch'ville J
2 4110 16000 160503 Albemarle J
2 4110 16000 160512 UVA J
2 4110 16000 160534 Airport J
2 4110 51000 510100 Fund Balance J
4110 0501 EST REVENUE
AMOUNT
1 91,944.87
1 90,027.00
2 28,133.44
2 45,652.69
2 13,531.06
2 2,709.81
2 91,944.87
DEBIT CREDIT
181,971.87
4110 0701 APPROPRIATION
TOTAL
181,971.87
363,943.74 181,971.87 181,971.87
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP #2003-031
APPROPRIATION DATE: 12/16/02
EXPLANATION: SCHOOL DONATIONS AND GRANTS
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION
1 2302 61105 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1
1 2216 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1
1 2304 61105 580000 Misc Expenses J 1
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2
2000 0501 EST REVENUE
2000 0701 APPROPRIATION
1 3104 60253 312500 Prof Svcs J 1
2 3104 24000 240295 Va Comm Touring Grant J 2
3104 0501 EST REVENUE
3104 0701 APPROPRIATION
1 3126 63328 550100 Travel-Mileage J 1
1 3126 63328 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1
2 3126 24000 240306 Learn/Serve Grant J 2
3126 0501 EST REVENUE
3126 0701 APPROPRIATION
TOTAL
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2,500.00
1,300.00
500.00
4,300.00
4,300.00
4,300.00
1,050.00
1,050.00
1,050.00
1,050.00
500.00
7,000.00
7,500.00
7,500.00
7,500.00
25,700.00 12,850.00 12,850.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP #2003- 032
APPROPRIATION DATE: 12/20/02
EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR FOUR ADDITIONAL FIREFIGHTER POSITIONS MONTICELLO FIRE STATION
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT
1 1000 32019 11000 Salaries J 1 84,966.00
1 1000 32019 210000 FICA J 1 6,501.00
1 1000 32019 221000 VSRS J 1 6,372.00
1 1000 32019 241000 Group Life J 1 834.00
1 1000 32019 231000 Health J 1 11,130.00
1 1000 32019 232000 Dental J 1 420.00
1 1000 32019 270000 Worker's Comp J 1 1,749.00
1 1000 32019 312381 Polygraph Serv J 1 600.00
1 1000 32019 360000 Advertising J 1 595.00
1 1000 32019 550400 Travel J 1 6,500.00
1 1000 32019 601100 Uniforms J 1 20,000.00
1 1000 32019 601200 Books&Subs J 1 2,000.00
1 1000 95000 999990 Contingency J 1 (116,030.00)
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 25,637.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE 25,637.00
1000 0701 APPROPRIATION
TOTAL 51,274.00 25,637.00
CREDIT
25,637.00
25,637.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: APP #2003-033
APPROPRIATION DATE: 12/20/02
EXPLANATION: ADDITIONAL FY '03 FUND BALANCE FOR COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
SUB LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT
1 1551 53120 581101 Therap FC IV-E J 1 517,893.08
1 1551 53120 581102 Therap FC Other J 1 65,834.76
1 1551 53120 581201 Family FC IV-E J 1 81,856.05
1 1551 53120 581203 Fstr Care Maint J 1 7,916.11
2 1551 51000 512016 Trsfrom G/F J 2 673,500.00
1551 0501 EST REVENUE
1551 0701 APPROPRIATION
1 1000 53013 930206 Trs to CSA J 1 673,500.00
2 1000 51000 510100 G/F Balance J 2 673,500.00
1000 0501 EST REVENUE
1000 0701 APPROPRIATION
TOTAL 2,694,000.00
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
673,500.00
673,500.00
673,500.00
673,500.00
1,347,000.00 1,347,000.00
(Note: At 10:50 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:00 a.m.)
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Agenda Item No. 17. Update on the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Events, Lee Catlin.
Ms. Catlin said the community has been working hard for the last year to be prepared for the
number of visitors expected at these events. For Albemarle County there were three areas on which to
focus. First, Albemarle is one of the hosting venues for a significant national and international event which
will take place over several days next week. That means there must be safety and security for all of these
visitors. Second, Albemarle has the opportunity to showcase the community to these visitors, while at the
same time protecting properties and sites that may take a little stress from these visitors. Lastly, the County
has the opportunity to share its story in the Lewis & Clark expedition. Most people do not know Albemarle's
unique part in the whole adventure. It was felt that this is a good time to tell Albemarle's story as it relates to
the Corps of Discovery.
Ms. Catlin said there is an event on January 18 at Monticello. This has consumed a major part of
time and resources for planning and emergency services. The best way to know what will be happening
with all events is to visit the Monticello website. Another major activity for the County as a hosting venue is
the Corps of Discovery II which is a large multi-media education and performance venue which will be
hosted at the Visitors Center for a couple of weeks after the Bicentennial begins in town, and then it will
move to a location in downtown Charlottesville for a while. The second thing is highlighting the community
to be sure Albemarle it is "putting its best foot forward." They have created a brochure to go in the
registration packets of about 600 people who are registering for the program next week. It has been named
"The top ten reasons Lewis & Clark came all the way back, and why you should too" as a way to get people
to reconsider the community as a place to visit at other times.
Ms. Catlin said to showcase the community, it is a Wednesday morning breakfast reception for the
Seaman Chain of Events art exhibit being hosted in the County Building. This it is a unique piece of art
which is being brought here from Idaho. It depicts events of the Newfoundland dog that Lewis brought
along with him on the journey. It is a fun piece of art work. There will be members of the Idaho delegation
at the breakfast, and people from our sister county, Pacific County and Long Beach, Washington.
Ms. Catlin said the main effort of the committee has been to share the local story while at the same
time protecting the property owners. A lot of places along the trail related to Lewis & Clark are National
park sites, or in the public venue. In Albemarle, there are a lot of descendants and the property is in private
ownership and they don't welcome a lot of people coming to visit their property. In order to protect them as
much as possible, a video approximately 12 minutes in length was produced in cooperation with the City of
Charlottesville, the Visitors Bureau, and the UVA Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Project. She said they are also
working with PBS on a thirty-minute expanded version of the documentary that will be aired later.
Agenda Item No. 18. County's Strategic Planning, Work Session.
Due to time constraints, this item was skipped and will be taken up during the afternoon session.
Agenda Item No. 19. Update on Neighborhood Model Implementation Plan and Work Session on
ZTA-01-08, Neighborhood Model. Request to amend Zoning Ordinance to modify Section 8, Planned
Districts - Generally, and to add Section 20A, Neighborhood Model Zoning District.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board has received a lot of information (staff's report on file) regarding this
work. In addition to working on the Neighborhood Model provisions and the new Parking Ordinance, staff
has been working on the various Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance changes necessary in the conventional
zoning districts in order to accomplish the flexibility necessary for the development community and the
public to see that the Neighborhood Model it is implemented as it should be implemented. At the present
time, there are lot of barriers in the conventional districts. The work needed on this must be balanced
against other staff activities.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that attached to the staff's report is the comprehensive schedule necessary to
accomplish these things in light of other staff work. Staff from the County Attorney's Office and all of the
Development Departments convened to discuss the process and the time frame needed to accomplish this
work. They found that more time was needed than originally thought; some of that is caused by other work
activities. He said that water restrictions for the Engineering and Public Works staff were particularly taxing.
For the development departments in general, there are a lot of large development proposals pending
which demand a lot of stafftime. He said this schedule has been adjusted by five to six months for
completion of the amendment work.
Mr. Cilimberg said because of the additional time taken by the Planning Commission with its work
on the Neighborhood Model District, about two months have been added to the schedule for the Board's
review of that district. After the Board's discussion of the Model today, the time schedule may need to be
readjusted. He asked if there were any questions about Neighborhood Model implementation in general.
There were none.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Blue Ridge Homebuilders' Association had sent a letter to Planning
Staff stating their feelings about the Neighborhood Model District. A memorandum in response to the
BRHA's recommended changes dated January 7, 2003, from Elaine K. Echols, Planner, has been
distributed to the Board.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Dorrier asked what staff wanted the Board to do today. Mr. Cilimberg said this is a work
session, an opportunity for the Board to ask staff questions. Staff will give the Board context, give an idea of
what the amendments are and what is intended to be accomplished by the amendments.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Neighborhood Model District originated with an applicant's request. What
has evolved over time through a combination of input from the applicant and from staff research on similar
types of districts. Ultimately there was a public input meeting. The district itself was one of three areas in
which amendments were recommended. There were also recommendations for amendments in
Definitions, and in the General-Planned Development District which is Section 8.0. The Model itself will be
purely an applicant driven district. It will not be applied to the Zoning Map except in cases where applicants
make that request. It is essentially a district intended to accommodate planned development of the
neighborhood model type. It is a district where staff fully expects two projects the Board recently reviewed
to be ultimately reviewed under, the Rivanna Village in Glenmore and Albemarle Place. Potentially, it may
be used by others. It is hoped that others will use it to do the kind of development that otherwise they would
not be able to do easily under the existing zoning districts. It is a stand-alone district that is purely applicant-
driven.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Section 8.0 changes are to apply to all planned development districts, and
except for one addition regarding specimen trees, are essentially what staff is asking applicants to provide
now. This was based on a request by the Planning Commission in March, 2000 (see Attachment B to the
staff's report). This list is given to all applicants in rezoning cases. That has been reflected in the
amendments, and it has raised questions above the level of detail, the volume of information, and the
potential cost associated with applications. Generally speaking, what the amendments call for is not
anything beyond what has been requested of applicants over the last three years.
Mr. Tucker said there has been some confusion as to whether this district would be applied
throughout the development areas. A person can still develop their property using traditional zoning
categories. This new district will be owner-driven requiring that the new zoning be applied so they could
develop under this new neighborhood district.
Mr. Rooker said that has been a general misconception. He said this will not be "the" form of
development, only "a" form of development in Albemarle County.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Neighborhood Model requires a certain size of development in order for this
to be applied, or can one house be a part of the Model. Is it geared towards big scale development?
Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner, said the district itself has no minimum acreage requirements. That
gives it maximum flexibility. Any size property could apply for this designation, and if it is a small property it
would be looked at in the context of the larger situation.
Mr. Dorrier asked if you owned five acres, and two different neighbors owned five acres each, if all
could combine their property and apply for this district. Mr. Cilimberg said they would have to apply as one
applicant. This district it is only realized through application and approval by the Board.
Mr. Dorrier asked what incentive there is for the developer other than clustering and greater
density. Mr. Cilimberg said the incentive is the flexibility the overall scheme of this district provides, i.e.,
flexibility that is not part of current districts. Staff has been looking at how some of the planned
development districts can be used to achieve the Neighborhood Model, but it is not easy. That it is why an
applicant actually came to the County and applied for this zoning ordinance amendment. Staff felt that
such a district was necessary in order to do a comprehensive proposal that was in keeping with the
principles of the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were a proposal for a 20-acre parcel surrounded by 100 acres, would
the impact of the 20 acres on the 100 acres surrounding it be looked at. Ms. Echols said that it is what staff
routinely looks at during a rezoning, the relationship of this particular change in land use on the surrounding
areas. Each district will be unique.
Mr. Rooker said availability of amenities was discussed for the Albemarle Place petition. He said
that generally when looking at development proposals and the 12 principles, the Commission looked at the
context of the property with respect to what surrounded it.
Mr. Bowerman said something that could not be picked up at all.
Ms. Echols said staff thinks the incentive for using this district is its maximum flexibility. The
developer gets to create his own district. He can create the type of building setbacks or yards wanted, the
appearance, and can list for consideration the types of uses wanted in that district. There is every use in the
Zoning Ordinance to choose from.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this district would only apply in five percent of the County, the Development
Areas. Ms. Echols said that is the way it is proposed at this time.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in essence most districts only apply in the development areas. Currently,
staff is working on changes to the conventional zoning districts. While doing so, they intend to reflect
Neighborhood Model concepts and what could be done in those districts. In many cases, that will liberalize
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
those districts as well, but that will be looked at later. At this time, the focus is on the Neighborhood Model
District. He said the Section 8.0 changes apply to how an application is made for any planned
development. Staff has discussed internally how they might prepare an applicant for filing that kind of an
application. Their interest is to provide a mechanism for the applicants and the County to get together and
look at the concept without a lot of expenditure of time and money on an application.
Mr. Martin said time and money are things which concern a lot of people, and it is a legitimate
concern. When all is said and done it is actually a lack of trust among the public. People are looking at
worse case situations. Mr. Cilimberg said additional language would be needed so people would know that
it is a process they can use before getting to the actual zoning application.
Mr. Rooker said he thought the letter from the BRHA was well done, thoughtful and helpful. He
said the process should not be more cumbersome than developing in other ways. The BRHA brought up
the application of the entire process to very small parcels and whether it makes sense to determine
requirements based on the size of the parcel. It is not something that has been discussed at prior Board
work sessions, and he does not recall it being discussed when he was a member of the Planning
Commission. He said when the Commission put together the list in 2000, they made it clear that it was not
a mandatory list for every application. It was a list of things to help the applicant not come to the
Commission and have them request further information requiring a deferral of the applicant's request.
Ms. Thomas said this district is only for planned developments, i.e., would it apply to something as
small as six acres?
Mr. Rooker said what is being adopted should encourage applicants to use this form of
development. That was the focus of the DISC Committees. To the extent that the ordinance needs to be
refined to ensure that, then it should be done.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with Mr. Rooker who has more expertise as a former Commissioner to
read through this text and recommend changes. But, a citizen Board member, he feels that is why staff is
hired. His concern is just a general concern because he cannot be that specific, and does not want to be.
Having served for two years on the DISC Committee, one thing he did as a member of the Supervisors was
to not try and direct the committee because it was composed of a bunch of experts. As the Board's liaison,
he tried to keep everyone moving along by consensus. Almost each meeting was left with a consensus.
When they reported back to this Board, there was not a single member of the DISC Committee who could
not stand up and say "we support this." He felt good about that process, but feels uncomfortable getting
this far into the ordinance. He wants to figure out a way the Board can have some consensus so that
different minds (the DISC Committee was made up of people who had completely different backgrounds
and different reasons for wanting to be a member of DISC), can get back to a situation with this ordinance
where people who differ can agree to disagree. He does not see the Board at that place now. He is not
capable like Mr. Rooker to go through the ordinance and recommend sentence changes. He does not
want to eventually have to vote on this question without having people in a general consensus. He said he
does not know how to get to that point.
Mr. Dorrier asked if that is not what a public hearing should do. Mr. Martin said he is bringing this
up now so that when the Board gets to the public hearing, what is presented to the public is something
every member of the Board had agreed to.
Mr. Rooker said it might be good to ask specific questions during this work session. He asked if this
proposal has been looked at by DISC II. He thinks the Board will need at least one more work session on
this ordinance.
Ms. Thomas said there are already some applicants who want to use this district for development
purposes. One of the people speaking before the Commission said there is a need for some examples of
this on the ground. There are some people who are willing to put those examples on the ground if they can
get a workable ordinance. She feels some pressure to not delay action on this ordinance. She mentioned
Page 53 of the staff's report which sets out the things the ordinance is intended to accomplish. It is almost
the same list quoted by Ms. Echols earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Dorrier asked how much extra time would be needed to bring the ordinance to the DISC II
Committee. Mr. Cilimberg said on the Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan amendment, the
Committee ended up having four or more meetings.
Ms. Thomas said that this time they have the staff's work to review. She is very impressed at the list
of very specific items brought by the BRHA, and she thinks that should speed up the process. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff just met with them yesterday to receive this information. Staff would need to get DISC II
together. They are going to meet on a monthly basis in the future. If the Board sets a specific time for a
report to be returned, staff will work with that date.
Mr. Dorrier said rather than set a specific time, the Board should just ask that it be returned as soon
as possible. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission has two representatives on DISC II. The Board
does not have a representative. He asked if the Board wanted to have one of its members participate.
Mr. Martin said he will volunteer to do that if the meetings are held in the late afternoon and not
early in the day.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Martin will be the Board's liaison.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Rooker said he assumes anyone can attend.
Mr. Tucker said time is running short this morning, but there may be a few minutes to talk about
specifics of the ordinance if Board members have questions.
Mr. Rooker said he will sit down with Mr. Cilimberg and Ms. Echols and go through his questions
about the ordinance, rather than doing so at this time. Mr. Tucker said he would suggest that all the Board
members do this individually with staff, or send their comments to staff by e-mail.
Mr. Dorrier suggesting putting this back on the agenda for an update on February 5.
Agenda Item No. 20. Community Development Authority, Discussion.
Mr. Davis said he had been asked to provide an introduction to the Board on an entity called a
"Community Development Authority (CDA)". This is something the Board may be reviewing in the near
future for one development that may occur in the County. He said Ms. Bonnie Franz from McGuire Woods
is present at this meeting. She is a bond counsel and is representing the North Point development and is
experienced with these CDAs.
Mr. Davis said a CDA is similar to a water and sewer authority, and is created under the same
general authority in the State Code. The difference is that it is designed primarily for infrastructure for a
particular development area. Its boundaries are set up as the boundaries of the CDA. The uniqueness of
this proposal is that the CDA has the ability to issue bonds to finance those infrastructure improvements and
has the ability under the Act to impose, through the Board of Supervisors, an ad valorem tax of up to twenty-
five cents per $100 on the property within the CDA area, or to impose an assessment equal to the amount
of the improvements proposed within the development area.
Mr. Davis said in order to create a CDA (which is landowner-initiated), 51 percent of the landowners
in the proposed CDA district must petition the Board (petition must include the proposed name and
boundaries of the CDA district, a description of the services and facilities to be provided, the proposed plan
for providing and financing such services and facilities, the benefits to be expected from these services and
facilities, and the method for selecting the board members of the CDA). It requires a public action by the
Board after an advertising requirement is met. If the Board chooses to go forward with creating a CDA, it
has to be done by ordinance or by resolution. The ordinance or resolution must be consistent with the
petition and cannot be adopted until after notice of the proposed ordinance or resolution is mailed to the
petitioning landowners after the public hearing or the right to notice has been waived by the landowners.
He said the landowners have the right to withdraw before the Board acts if they don't like the ordinance. He
said a legal entity is created. It has Articles of Incorporation, and a board with membership typically
appointed by the board of supervisors.
Mr. Rooker asked if the members have to be landowners within the district. Mr. Davis said they do
not have to be landowners in the district.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is similar to a service district. Mr. Davis said it is similar except for the fact
that it has a board which manages it and it has the right to issue bonds. Otherwise it is much like a service
district in that particular improvements within a particular area are identified, and people within that district
pay for the improvements themselves.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it is done by majority rule. Mr. Davis said it requires that 51 percent of the
landowners agree that the authority should be created.
Ms. Thomas said it is basically the same situation as with a homeowners' association. It is
inevitable that where homeowners are only 30 percent of the development and the developers still have 70
percent, conflicts begin because the homeowners have certain expectations. In this case, the Board would
be setting up the structure, and the homeowners will not have any say at that point, but they will be paying
the taxes, and the taxes will be coming from this Board.
Mr. Rooker said that is one reason he asked about the makeup of the board.
Ms. Thomas said what that board may do will have already been set up by the Supervisors.
Mr. Martin said a homeowner will know that when they buy the home.
Ms. Thomas said that has not been the experience in the County in the past.
Mr. Tucker said when the Supervisors set up the authority board, it appoints the members. It does
not mean that because the developer still owns 80 percent of the lots, he has a weighted vote.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this could be looked at in terms of the wider area which surrounds it. This
CDA would not be on its own, but would be plunked down into an existing community, so the improvements
would accrue to the surrounding area, would they not? These are public facilities.
Mr. Martin said what he likes about it is that on Route 29 North where VDOT has basically said the
County is on its own, this is an opportunity to do some of the things in terms of infrastructure that would
make improvements for all the folks who live along Route 29 North.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Martin pictured a district that included all of the residents of Hollymead
and Forest Lakes, and the new North Point and Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. Martin said if North Point decided to apply for something like this, it would just be the people
living within that district, but some of the improvements they might make could help people outside of that
district. People buying a home or commercial property would know when they bought that they would have
this added expense.
Ms. Thomas said she can see this linked to commercial development, but not with one
homeowner paying a $1.00 tax rate, and another paying a 76¢ tax rate, with their children all going to the
same school, all using the same roads, and all using the new police station and fire station.
Mr. Rooker asked how this is different from impact fees. If the County had the authority to charge
impact fees, those fees would only apply to new development while still recognizing that some of the things
financed would accrue to the benefit of existing property owners. In this case, the applicant can define the
territory they cover with the district. If Hollymead and Forest Lakes did not want to be included in a district
like this, they would vote it down.
Mr. Davis said it is based on 51 percent of the property owners, or 51 percent of the assessed value
of the land within the district. It depends on how the district is created. The experts say this is a complex
device and one which needs to be examined carefully as to its impacts. It could be set up with the ad
valorem tax. There could easily be the circumstances Ms. Thomas spoke about where there would be
disparate tax rates and people would not understand why they were paying that rate. There could be
special assessments set up so the person buying the property knows exactly what they will pay based on a
predetermined monetary amount. Under that situation, it could easily compare to an impact fee. The
developer could have a direct role in how that assessment is paid through the closing or in the price of the
property as it is sold and developed.
Mr. Davis said one of the restrictions of the Act is that it is designed to provide the infrastructure
"that results from the increased demands placed upon the locality as a result of development within the
community development district." Only one court has addressed that issue and made a distinction between
what those improvements are as compared to improvements which are only necessary for the development
itself. In that case in Henrico County, the court took a narrow view and said that most of the proposed
improvements in that development were only necessary for the development itself, and ruled that they were
not qualified improvements to be paid for by bonds. That case was appealed, but the Supreme Court did
not address that issue specifically. In fact, it avoided deciding that issue by reversing the case on other
grounds. To his knowledge, that created a cloud that has highlighted that issue since 1999 when the case
was decided. It is something the County needs to look at more carefully as it examines the use of CDAs.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is anything that caused this matter to come up at this time. Mr. Tucker
said there is a development that is considering this approach, and with their development proposal there
may also be a petition for a CDA.
Mr. Bowerman said as an example if a developer wanted structured parking on his property and
could not afford it specifically out of his development funds, he might want this authority just on the property
he is developing.
Ms. Thomas said Albemarle Place talked about that earlier. She can see a CDA for commercial
purposes. She asked if it would be possible for Mr. Bowerman's example.
Mr. Davis said he thinks that is the way the Act has been used. He handed to the Board members
a list of CDA's which have been created. The developments utilizing these have done so for things like
parking and other infrastructure improvements which are very expensive.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the improvements could be funded with Industrial Development Authority
bonds. Mr. Davis said that is a possibility. He understands that under the statute the CDA has the authority
to issue the bonds itself as an entity, so it would not have to go through an IDA.
Ms. Dorrier asked Ms. Franz to speak.
Ms. Franz said that often these improvements could be financed through an IDA, but because of
the special tax structure that a CDA can take advantage of, often the CDA can finance these improvements
on a tax-exempt basis where an IDA cannot. That it is a major advantage of the CDA.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the CDAs across the state are cost-effective and popular with the developer
and the citizens. Ms. Franz said it is a new kind of financing. They are becoming more popular, but it is a
complicated method of financing. Once developers understand how it works, she thinks it will be a very
popular way to finance infrastructure. She has talked with Mr. Davis about Bell Creek which is a CDA in
Hanover County which is similar to the kind of mixed-use developments that are being proposed in
Albemarle County. It gives loan terms that are more favorable than bank loans. To answer Ms. Thomas'
question about commercial versus residential, that comes up frequently, but she does not think one would
have to pay a tax on residential property because that is usually prepaid before the residential owner
purchases the lot. Because of legal requirements, it cannot be required that those be prepaid, but as a
practical matter most residential lots are not sold with a special assessment. In future years, residential
owners may see the value of financing infrastructure this way, and be comfortable with the concept. At this
time, the market does not favor residential lots being sold with an assessment on them. The developer
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
usually finds that it is better to go ahead and prepay the assessment on the residential part and then there is
no additional tax on those residential owners. Commercial owners have caught on to this, and the
purchaser of a commercial lot usually likes to see the assessment because that means they are paying for
their infrastructure over time instead of up-front.
Mr. Davis said it is not possible to treat residential property differently than commercial because of
Federal tax laws. Ms. Franz said that is correct. The Federal IRS provisions that allow these things to be
financed on a tax exempt basis require uniformity. Therefore, when an assessment is imposed it must be
uniform for both residential and commercial purposes.
Mr. Martin said he assumes this was brought up today to see if there is anyone on the Board who
would say "absolutely no." Mr. Davis said that is correct. It is a complex concept to understand. From his
review of the Act, it is essential that the Board knows what it wants to finance up-front, and know what
restrictions to place on a CDA so that can be included in the ordinance. In practice, these CDAs have been
very structured in their creation.
Mr. Rooker asked if these CDAs have a limited life. Ms. Franz said they are created for just one
specific purpose. Mr. Davis said the CDA could have a life of 20 to 40 years which would be the term of the
bonds.
Mr. Rooker said if the authority is limited to the activities necessary to raise the money to pay the
bonds and that is circumscribed in the ordinance, he thinks that would limit the authority from taking any
extraneous action. Mr. Davis said that is an important aspect in formulating the CDA so the Board would
have that control.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board just works with the applicant when a CDA is proposed. Mr. Davis
said it is very important that the application be molded to meet both the applicant's needs and the Board's
desires. If there is any discrepancy between the two, it is probably a recipe for disaster at the time the
public hearing is held.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks this is something that should be encouraged. He can see situations,
particularly with the Neighborhood Model, where there will need to be infrastructure provided. He
mentioned Pantops and fire protection. He said they could form their own district, and provide that service
through this mechanism.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Ms. Franz for appearing today to talk about this matter.
Agenda Item No. 21. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards and commissions. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 22. Certify Closed Session.
At 2:00 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Ms.
Thomas that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only
public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or
considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
Agenda Item No. 23. Appointments.
(Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 2:01 p.m.)
Mr. Rooker offered motion to appoint Mr. Frank L. Robinson, III, to the Joint Airport Commission to
replace Mr. David E. Krohn, term to expire on December 1,2005. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bowerman.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to appoint Mr. Kevin O'Connor to the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority to replace Mr. Richard C. Collins, term to expire on December 31,2004. The motion was
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 24. ZMA-2002-12, Charlottesville Piano (Signs #63 & 67). Public Hearing on a
request to rezone .23 acs from LI to C-1 to allow furniture store that will sell & restore pianos. TM 45, P
163. Loc at intersec of Rio Rd W (Rt 631) & Berkmar Dr (Rt 1403) approx .25 mis from intersec of Rio Rd
& US Rt 29N. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Office Service in Neighborhood 1 .)
Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 23 and
December 30, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office. He said this
proposal is to rezone the parcel of land which contains the old WWW Electronics building at the intersection
of Rio Road West and Berkmar Drive. In 1982, the property was rezoned from CO to LI with a proffer that
the only use allowed at the site was the manufacturing of semi-conductors. This requested rezoning from
LI to C-1 would allow for the retail sale of used pianos and restoration of old pianos. These activities
require large volumes of space, but need fewer employees and create little traffic. A proffer was provided
to insure closure of an existing concrete entrance on Rio Road, with improvements being made to the
second entrance onto Rio Road. This rezoning would allow a limited number of uses in the C-1 zoning
district (part of the proffers). The property is currently developed with one 2428 square foot building and
appurtenant parking.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff found the rezoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and good
zoning practices. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to the proffers. He said the Planning
Commission, at its meeting on December 17, 2002, also recommended approval subject to the proffers.
They asked that staff confirm that there is an access easement on the adjacent parcel and that it does
provide access to this parcel. Staff found that the easement has been recorded in the Circuit Court Clerk's
Office.
Ms. Thomas asked if there will be any entrance to the front parking area. Mr. Cilimberg said that
parking area has no access from any other location. It has a limited amount of space available so he thinks
that area will be converted to non-vehicular use.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Lane Bonner said he was present to represent both the buyer and the seller of the property. He
needs to correct what Mr. Cilimberg just said. The easement that runs along the building will provide for
one handicapped parking space at the front of the building. Mr. Cilimberg said there is an existing concrete
entrance shown on the site plan which comes off of the access easement on the adjacent parcel.
Mr. Don Burch said he is employed by Resorts which has been the tenant of the property next door
to the building in question for the last 20 years. He and Mr. C. J. Hammer, the President of Resorts, are in
opposition to the rezoning. They feel this came about because of past mistakes. The first mistake was
made by the Albemarle County tax assessment office when they measured this building at 2400 square
feet. The building is really 4800 square feet and that is quite significant in terms of parking. Their engineer
told them there are no more than seven parking spaces available and that is not enough for 2400 feet of
commercial space, much less 4800 square feet. There is also an indication that this access off of the road
isn't available, but any questions about that will ultimately have to be decided by a lawyer.
Mr. Burch said there is no maintenance provided in the proffer for the easement. There was also a
proffer made that VDOT would have to approve this roadway being brought up to State standards. It might
require that a large wall on Mr. Letner's property have to come down because there is not the right amount
of visibility from the access road onto Rio Road. He said Mr. Ivan Letner, the other adjoining owner, is also
present today. Mr. Dorrier reminded Mr. Burch that his allotted time had expired, and asked him to
summarize. Mr. Burch said it has been stated that this property will be used for sale and service of pianos.
Pianos are considered furniture. He said the property should be rezoned for furniture and appliances. He
said he appreciates the Board's time and is available to answer questions.
Mr. Ivan Letner said he is the owner of the adjacent property. He feels this will put a retail business
next door to him. He has handicapped individuals going in and out of his building constantly. The
handicapped parking space would need to go in front of the building. There is not the needed amount of
access from the rear of the building to the top floor. People would be backing into his lot, or into Rio Road
to get in and out of the property.
Mr. Letner said this will open up Rio Road to a thoroughfare. From one side of Rio Road to the
Greenleaf Subdivision behind them, there is traffic in and out all of the time. He said the building is 4800
square feet, not 2400 square feet. He is concerned because the State put up a huge wall, one that was to
have been 36 inches in height, but is actually almost seven feet tall. It puts a burden on his business at this
time.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Letner's property is not the property which is impacted by the easement.
Mr. Letner said that is correct.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Bonner said the property has been on the market for about 18 months. He said piano
salesmen only have about three visitors a day. There is basically no traffic. They do have an easement
from the back parking lot into the front parking lot. It is true about the size of the building, but 1500 feet is
used for a showroom. There are only two employees, so they will only use part of the building.
Mr. Rooker asked what will happen to the rest of the building. Mr. Bonner said it will either be
empty or used as storage for piano parts.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any way to limit this request to this kind of use.
Mr. Bowerman said the proffer shows a lot of uses struck from the rezoning request. He asked
staff if the request was reviewed as 4800 square feet and the parking requirements for that were based
upon the building size, and not necessarily the use. Mr. Cilimberg said the parking is always based on the
use. Any use of the building under the zoning approved, will need a zoning clearance to have the
necessary amount of parking. The parking for the use requested has already been confirmed by Zoning. If
they wanted to occupy a larger area with a different use, or replace this use with another, it would require
another zoning clearance.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant is locked into this square footage of use. Mr. Cilimberg said they
have seven parking spaces along the back property lines, and another two spaces near the building. Then
they have the area in the front with the handicapped parking space. That is all the parking that is available,
and all that is necessary under the zoning request.
Mr. Bowerman said that means there cannot be a more intensive use on the property because of
the parking limitation. Mr. Davis said this request is actually a downzoning of the property from LI.
Mr. Bonner said, in his opinion, LI is not the correct zoning. VDOT did a huge taking on Berkmar
and Rio Roads and it left the property with limited use. Charlottesville Piano wants to be a good neighbor
and do the right thing.
There being no one else from the public to speak, Mr. Dorrier closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rooker asked if they could use the property under the current zoning, and use the entire
building with the limited parking because it is grandfathered. Mr. Cilimberg said it is only grandfathered if
the existing use remains in effect. Once the use is abandoned for two years, then any use comes under
review for parking requirements. Mr. Rooker said his point was that an industrial user could come in today
and use the entire building. Mr. Davis said the building could be used for whatever use was established
within the last two years.
Ms. Thomas asked the situation with VDOT approval. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT approval is only
required to make sure the entrance they are using is designed according to VDOT requirements. That
entrance was in some way reconstructed during improvements to Rio Road. VDOT will also have to
approve the closing of the existing entrance. He does not know the status of that approval.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is still possible that VDOT might rule that quality of the access is such that
the wall on the neighboring property will have to come down. Mr. Cilimberg said it would only need to be
adjusted if there were a sight distance problem.
Mr. Bowerman said there is a commercial use in the building now, so the entrance would have
been reconstructed. Mr. Cilimberg said closing the existing entrance will take the most work.
Mr. Bowerman said the issue of the maintenance agreement is between the applicant and the
adjacent owner. With that clarification, he moved for approval of ZMA-2002-012 with the proffers
submitted by the applicant. This is a Iow volume user, and he does not believe it will create any additional
problems.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffer, as approved, is set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 01/08/2003
ZMA # 2002-012
Tax Map and Parcel Number: 45-163
.21 Acres to be rezoned from LI to C-1
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
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
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
request.
Only the following by-right use of the area zoned C-1 shall be permitted
by right pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of Section 22.2, C-1 Commercial
zoning district, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as those
regulations exist on December 17, 2002, a copy of which is attached
hereto: Section 22.2.1 numbers (a)7; (b)l; (b)3; (b)5; (b)12; (b)13;
(b)17; (b)18; (b)19; (b)20; (b)23; (b)26.
The applicant shall have the existing entrance onto Rio Road West
(Route 631) closed, as shown on the concept plan for Tax Map 45
Parcel 163 prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC dated
11/6/02, which is made a part of these proffers solely for the purpose of
showing the locations of the existing entrances. The existing entrance
onto Rio Road West shall be improved to a standard approved by the
Virginia Department of Transportation and the Albemarle County
Engineering Department and shall be completed prior to the approval of
a certificate of occupancy or zoning compliance clearance.
Signature of All Owners
(Signed)
James P. Cox iii, Trustee
First Rio Road Land Trust
Printed Names of All Owners
James P. Cox III, Trustee
First Rio Road Land Trust
Date
12-03-02
Agenda Item No. 25. Mr. Dorrier said the Board would skip this item temporarily.)
Agenda Item No. 26. SP-2002-039. John A. Griffin (Signs #53 & 82). Public Hearing on a request
to allow private heliport in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.19 & Sec 5.1.01 of the Zoning Ord. TM 28, P 12, contains
153.120 acs. Loc at 3332 Millington Rd on N sd of Rt 665 (Millington Rd) & E of Rt 671 (Ballards Mill Rd).
Znd RA & is w/in Moormans River A/F Dist. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in
the Daily Progress on December 23 and December 30, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report. He said the applicant has requested a special use
permit to be allowed a helistop for private use on a 153.120 acre parcel located at 3332 Millington Road.
The actual number of landings requested at this time is three to four per year. The helistop would be
located in an existing pasture. No construction or structure, other than a windsock on a 12-foot high pole,
has been requested.
Mr. Cilimberg said the subject property, as well as the surrounding area, is characterized by its rural
mixture of farmlands, forests and scattered residential. The nearest residential structure, located on an
adjacent property, is approximately 912 feet from the site. He said staff does not believe that the helistop
would interfere or conflict with agricultural or forestal uses on the land, and it would not alter the character
of the rural area. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has determined that due to the limited use and the
fact that this site is located greater than five nautical miles from the Airport, it is highly unlikely that it would
interfere or complete with the Airport facility. The Virginia Department of Aviation and the Virginia FAA
Flight Standards District have no objections to this application. There are no flight obstructions that fall with
the approach zones.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of this request subject to conditions. However, the
Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1,2002, by a vote of 4:1 recommended denial of the
permit. If the Board approves this request, staff offers six conditions for that approval, plus a seventh which
needs some rewording.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Ed Bain was present on behalf of the applicant, along with Mr. Forbes Reback, representing the
owner Mr. John Griffin, and Mr. Don Kopowich, the helicopter owner/flight services representative. He said
the original application was for six landings per year, and a subsequent letter said there would be three to
four. If it is a weekend, and Mr. Griffin comes in on Friday night, the helicopter leaves and comes back on
Sunday to pick him up, that would be two, so they would be looking at three times that. Technically, that is
three weekends a year, but it is six operations. The helicopter does not stay. This is a time share
helicopter.
Mr. Bain said he will address only the zoning issues. Mr. Griffin will address his reasons for making
this request. They think that given the minimal request, it fits within the fine text of the Zoning Ordinance
and the rural areas and that is does not adversely affect the rural character of the area. They asked staff
for the history of helistops in the County. In 1986, Mr. Kluge got approval of a helipad. Since he was
allowed to have lights, Mr. Bain said he believes that would have been a helistop. Also, he was allowed 10
per month. The other one in the rural areas was in 1993 at Keswick Hall.
Mr. Bain said they think this use is less than the hot air balloons. They think it is less obtrusive than
a six-week hunting season. He asked for five minutes rebuttal time at the end of the public hearing. Mr.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Bain said Mr. Griffith is a graduate of the University of Virginia and is a member of the Board of Trustees for
the University Commerce School, and a member of the Monticello Board of Trustees. He is an adjunct
professor of finance at Columbia University, and a visiting professor at UVA's Commerce School since
1999.
Mr. John Griffin said he wants to land and take off in one of the many fields on his property six
times a year. There will be no construction. He does not want to change the characteristics of a rural area.
He came to Albemarle from New York to be in a rural area. He recognizes the importance of noise. He is
an environmentalist, a conservationist and is against all types of pollution. Noise is a pollutant. That is why
he has worked hard with the helicopter in terms of the flight pattern over areas where there are no houses.
He has talked with his neighbors. Some support his request and some do not want the noise. He is
extremely understanding, but he thinks it should be looked at in light of the fact that there are very few trips.
To land and take offtakes about 12 minutes. One of the reasons he can live in this area is because there
is transport like this to occasionally visit business interests elsewhere. The windsock will only be flown
about an hour before the helicopter arrives. He is sensitive to the rural community and to noise. They tried
to address both of those issues. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Griffin what he does now with the helicopter. Mr. Griffin said they fly into
Charlottesville. It is too far to commute. Because it is a share program, the helicopter company bases their
helicopters at big airports. He does not see this as a crucial business need.
Mr. Tom Kopowich said he works for the helicopter company. He said they have restricted the
approach to come in from the west and depart to the west to limit the impact of the sound in the area. He
offered to answer any technical questions.
With no further questions for the applicant, the public hearing was opened.
Ms. Katie Hobbs said she had a statement. These requests (SP-2002-039 and SP-2002-038)
received approval from the Engineering Department, the Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport Authority, and
the Ag-Forestal Committee. She understands that the approvals were given for a maximum of six landings
per year. The Planning staff also recommended approval of four landings per year. She does not
understand why the Planning Commission recommended denied of the special permit. She said the
community must change its thinking about what can and cannot be allowed in a rural area. This is simply a
request by a landowner to fly in a few times a year to oversee his property. This owner is preserving the
rural areas and keeping it as agricultural land, but he would be denied the modern conveniences of doing
that. She read the Commission's minutes and the main argument seemed to be the noise that would be
made and that the noise might alarm the cattle. Ms. Hobbs said she lives in Carrsbrook in the flight path of
the helicopter flying from the University Hospital a few times a week. She does not find that noise
disruptive. She has had military helicopters fly Iow over her house, and she agrees that can be disruptive.
She said the community cannot continue to expect the undeveloped land in the County to stay as
agricultural land if the property owners are not allowed the 21 st Century tools to continue to exist and to
make a profit on their land. As a member of the Rural Area Advisory Focus Group, Ms. Hobbs said she
could give the Board a list of the tools needed, and the thinking that must be changed. She thinks this
request is reasonable and should be given immediate approval for six landings a year.
Ms. Marya Vandyke said she has been a resident of Free Union for about 20 years. Many people,
like herself, have discovered Free Union and the beauty, peacefulness and quietness of it. Unfortunately,
these people are disrupting this quietness by just being there making all kinds of noise. There is the airport
in the neighborhood, and other kinds of public transportation. There are all kinds of modern conveniences.
People who want to live in Free Union now are trying to find a quiet peaceful place. She said if it were only
three or four times a year that would be one thing, but who would control it? She is also speaking for two
sets of neighbors who are against the request.
Mr. William Abbott said he lives on Millington Road. He is a commercial pilot and has lived in the
County for about 20 years. His property is in a conservation easement. He is speaking against the
proposal because in their community there are 13 houses within .7 to .9 miles of the proposed site.
Pegasus flies over his house regularly, but that is for the public good, and they support that. It also flies
much higher. He asked what the altitude would be for the helicopter coming in on a short approach. There
is the noise and endangerment to livestock and wildlife. The Farmington Hunt Club routinely has hunts up
and down Millington Road. They ride on the road. There is a stable across the road, and students live
there. Mr. William Finley, a Planning Commissioner, commented that horses and cattle will spook if there is
noise nearby. As to pollution, the helicopter could burn diesel fuel. He said the request started at four, and
is now up to six. Who knows what the next request will be. He does not think it is necessary. Mr. Abbott
said he drives to the Airport two to three times a week, and it takes only 15 to 17 minutes. He asked that
the Board consider that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
Ms. Liz Lauer said she lives directly across the street from where the helistop is proposed. She
also owns the riding business where the horses will be. She has talked with Mr. Griffin about the number of
times he will use this service each year, and he has agreed to call her each time so she can take care of
her horses. She worked for a person years ago whose husband flew in on a helicopter each weekend and
these people had horses, dairy cows, pigs and sheep. The first time the animals heard the noise, it
distracted them, but after that they could hear the helicopter coming, and there was no problem. She does
not foresee this request as a problem.
Mr. Robert Strutton said he lives at 3624 Millington Drive. He comes from northern New Jersey
and can understand Mr. Griffin's transportation problems. His concern is not the noise, but he does not see
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
the necessity for this request since it is only a short drive to the Airport. Rarely is there enough traffic to
cause a driver to even slow down. He said Free Union and the Western Albemarle area is very affluent.
He feels that granting this request would set a precedent for everybody who feels they should not have to
drive or for those who would like to take 30 minute trips to Washington. He said the Airport is conveniently
placed for the property in question, and he does not see the need for this request.
Mr. Griffin said he was glad to hear the views of the people who spoke today. He is anti-
development and wants to conserve the land. One way to do that is to allow the people who have their
businesses and income elsewhere to buy large tracts of land in Albemarle and protect them. He is in the
process now of putting 1600 acres at Lone Oak in an easement. He disagrees with the statement that this
benefits one and hurts many. He is asking for about 70 minutes a year of some noise. Lastly, he thinks the
good from this will come from more people like himself coming down and preserving land. He said that
when land is put into an easement it does give a tax break, but it lowers the resale value of the land, and
protects it forever.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Griffin would accept a condition on this special permit that there could be
no subdivision of the property. Mr. Griffin said he is working on an easement now. That is in progress; he
would not tie the two things together. A lot depends on what his neighbor does.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Griffin would agree to a condition that so long as this special permit is
active, the property could not be subdivided. He said there are 135 acres in this property, so he wonders at
what point a property is too small to support this activity. Mr. Griffin said that is a good suggestion. Mr.
Davis cautioned Mr. Griffin that such a condition might affect the value of the property or the easement
valuation. Mr. Griffin said he understands the concern. If there is anyway to figure that out, he would be
glad to do it. The most important thing to him is to get the land into the easement and to put Lone Oak,
which is 1600 acres, into an easement.
Mr. Rooker said one way to consider this would be to defer this petition and come back after the
property is in the easement. Mr. Griffin said that will take a long period of time. He would rather attach the
condition. The problem is that his neighbor does not feel he can use the tax deduction at this time. So, they
need to wait until he has the income to do it, and they can do it together.
Mr. Rooker said it was mentioned that there is an agreement concerning the flight path. He said
that is not part of the conditions. To the extent that it is important to the neighbors, it might be an important
consideration for a condition. He asked if there is a problem with a condition that would match the
description of the flight path that Mr. Griffln's technical person described. Mr. Griffin said he has no problem
with that suggestion, and he also thinks there could be a condition on the verification element which Ms.
VanDyke brought up. He said all of this is filed with FAA, so there should be some way to have the files
mailed each year to one of the people who spoke.
Mr. Rooker said that theoretically if a neighbor wanted to verify at the end of the year the number of
flights which had come into this location, there is a place where they can check. Mr. Griffin said "yes."
Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Griffin were visiting Free Union by helicopter if he would visit Lone Oaks at
the same time, and what would be the path to Lone Oaks. Mr. Griffin said the approach into Free Union
would be the same. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Griffin has six occasions when he can come in and leave. He
would be using up the number of times he could use the helicopter if he flew from Free Union to Lone
Oaks. Mr. Griffin said he can foresee an occasion when he might fly into Free Union then to Lone Oaks,
Lone Oaks to Richmond, Richmond to Free Union. That would use two of the six trips.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Perkins had a recommendation on this petition. Mr. Perkins said he would
like to hear Board discussion first.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to see two conditions added; one on the flight path, and a second
stating that there could be no subdivision of the property so long as the special use permit is in effect. He
does not know if flight plan verification is appropriate for a condition. There is a way the neighbors can
verify the number of flights in and out of the property.
Mr. Davis suggested that Mr. Griffin's attorney review a condition concerning the flight path of the
helicopter. Also, he should review the suggestion about allowing no subdivision of the property to make
sure it would not negatively impact on the viability of doing a conservation easement.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Bain if he has any problem with a condition concerning the approach. Mr.
Bain said he has no problem with such a condition because it is a temporary thing. He does not think that
tax-wise, it creates a problem. Mr. Davis asked if Mr. Griffin would be giving up the helicopter when he goes
into the conservation easement. Mr. Bain said that was not correct. Mr. Davis said there is a valuation
problem on property if it cannot be subdivided because of zoning requirements. Mr. Griffin may have to
give up his heliport before he does the appraisal of the property.
Mr. Perkins said when it goes into a conservation easement, the property no longer has any division
rights.
Ms. Thomas said she has questions she is not sure the Board has thought through. Questions
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
about enjoying rural property. The Board's goal is to encourage agricultural and forestal uses. She does
not think it is an easy decision.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins to approve SP-2002-039, John A. Griffin, with the seven
conditions recommended by staff, amending Condition No. 2 to read: "The maximum number of landings
per calendar year shall be six." adding Condition No. 8 reading: "Approaching and departing flights shall be
from the west." and adding Condition No. 9 reading: "There shall be no subdivision of the property as long
as the special use permit is in effect."
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Martin said he could very easily not approve this request, but the property is in Mr. Perkins'
district, and Mr. Perkins knows the people in his district. He will, therefore, follow Mr. Perkins' lead.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The location of the helistop shall be located as shown on Attachment A, titled
SP-02-39 John Griffin Helistop and dated September 2002;
The maximum number of landings per calendar year shall be six (6);
No helicopter maintenance, other than emergency maintenance, shall be
allowed to occur on the property;
Other than a windsock on a maximum twelve (12) foot high pole, no
improvements or construction will be permitted;
No other airborne vehicle, other than helicopters, shall be permitted to use this
facility;
No lighting for the helicopter-landing site will be permitted;
Section 5.1.01 .cl shall apply and any other sections of the ordinance that relate
to heliports as well;
Approaching and departing flights shall be from the west; and
There shall be no subdivision of the property as long as the special use permit is
in effect.
Agenda Item No. 25. SP-2002-038. Lone Oak LLC - Helicopter Landing (Signs #35, 36 & 52).
Public Hearing on a request to allow private heliport in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.19 & Sec 5.1.01 of the Zoning
Ord. TM 134, P 03, contains 1,330.490 acs. Loc on N sd of Rt 626 (James River Rd) approx 3600 ft from
its intersec w/Rt 723 (Chestnut Grove Rd). Znd RA & is w/in Totier Creek A/F Dist. Scottsville Dist.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 23 and December 30,
2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report. He said the applicant requested a special use permit
to have a helistop for private use on 1,330.490 acres located on the north side of Route 626 approximately
3600 feet from its intersection with Route 723. The property, as well as the surrounding area, is
characterized by its rural mixture of farm lands, forests and scattered residential. The closest residential
dwelling on an adjacent property is approximately 1150 feet from the helicopter landing site.
Mr. Cilimberg said this report had the same findings as those for SP-2002-039 and the same staff
conditions should the Board chose to approve the request. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on
October 1,2002, by a vote of 3:2, recommended denial of this request.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Ed Bain said he would be happy to answer questions. The issues are the same, but at a
different location. He asked that the number of landings/take-offs be changed to six per year. He said it is
a bigger tract of land.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing at this time.
Ms. Kate Spears said she is from Free Union and is one issue behind at this point. She does not
know the Scottsville region well, but has lived in Free Union for many years. There are many people living
in Free Union who could afford a helicopter. Her concern has to do with setting a precedent and she asked
if the Board wants to establish that precedent by allowing helicopter petitions to those requesting same.
Mr. Dorrier asked Ms. Katie Hobbs if her comments on the previous petition apply to this request
also. The answer was affirmative.
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 she thought there was a difference between the two applications. She was more
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
favorably inclined to this one because of its distance from the airport, the ease of one accessing one's
property by ordinary alternative means to the helicopter, the number of acres surrounding it, and the type of
property all made it seem to be a more appropriate place than the other location.
Mr. Dorrier said this property is in his district, and he thinks it is a reasonable number of trips, and
the property is located in the rural area. He has not heard any opposition from the residents of the district.
Mr. Perkins asked that the applicant address the flight path on this application. Mr. Kopowich said
for this location, they can approach from any direction but the north.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a preference on the direction of the approach based on the
neighboring property.
Ms. Thomas said if it does not matter, can it be assumed that if six months from now someone
expresses a preference, being a good neighbor, the helicopter owner and the applicant would exceed to the
request. Mr. Kopowich said it is common to have a single approach.
Mr. Bain said the approach will not be from the south because there is someone who has horses
south of the property, so they will not use that direction. That can be put on the petition.
Mr. Dorrier asked if that should be added to the conditions. He then asked for a motion to approve
this request.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2002-038 subject to the same conditions as
those imposed on SP-2002-039, but adding a condition stating: "There shall be no southern approach on
landing."
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
The location of the helistop shall be located as shown on Attachment A, titled SP
02-38 Lone Oak L.L.C. Helistop and dated September 2002;
The maximum number of landings per calendar year shall be six (6);
6.
7.
8.
9.
No helicopter maintenance, other than emergency maintenance, shall be
allowed to occur on the property;
Other than a windsock on a maximum twelve (12) foot high pole, no
improvements or construction will be permitted;
No other airborne vehicle, other than helicopters, shall be permitted to use this
facility;
No lighting for the helicopter landing site will be permitted;
Section 5.1.01 .cl shall apply and any other sections of the ordinance that relate
to heliports as well;
There shall be no southern approach on landing; and
There shall be no subdivision of the property as long as the special use permit is
in effect.
Agenda Item No. 27. ZTA-2001-09. Parking. Public Hearing on a request to repeal §4.12,
Off-street parking & loading requirements & all of its subparts; repeal §4.13, Parking & storage of certain
vehicles & all of its subparts; add new§ 4.12, Parking, stacking & loading, including subparts; to amend
§3.1, Definitions, §15.2.2, By special use permit, §16.2.2, By special use permit, §17.2.2, By special use
permit, §18.2.1, By right, §18.2.2, By special use permit, §19.3.2, By special use permit, §20.3.2, By special
use permit, §20.4.2, By special use permit, §20.5.2, By special use permit, §22.2.1, By right, §22.2.2, By
special use permit, §23.2.1, By right, §23.2.2, By special use permit, §24.2.1, By right, §24.2.2, By special
use permit, §27.2.1, By right, & §28.2.1, By right; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code.
This Ord would establish new parking, stacking & loading regulations applicable to new uses, structures &
parking areas, redeveloped sites & preexisting & approved parking, stacking & loading areas; define certain
terms used in new § 4.12; & delineate in which zoning districts parking may be a primary use by right or by
special use permit. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 23 and
December 30, 2002.)
Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Planner, summarized the staff's report. She said a final draft of the proposed
Parking Ordinance, Section 4.12, and the related sections of the Zoning Ordinance, were forwarded to the
Board. This included new definitions, new supplemental regulations, the addition of parking as a use in
selected residential, commercial and industrial districts, and a portion of the Site Plan Ordinance to support
the new parking text. Since the original resolution of intent was adopted in November, 1999, this proposal
has been through a public round table discussion, four work sessions and two public hearings, and has
been recommended by the Planning Commission for approval.
Ms. Sprinkle said that as a result of the Board's work session on November 6, 2002, the following
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
changes have been made:
Sec. 4.12.1, Purpose and intent, was expanded to encourage the use of Transportation Demand
Management strategies;
Sec. 4.12.2, Applicability, and Sec. 4.12.7, Unscheduled uses etc., were expanded to include
Zoning Administrator modifications of the minimum number of required parking spaces for
scheduled uses in Sec. 4.12.6. The text also includes the process to request the reduction and the
terms under which it may be allowed;
Sec. 4.12.5, Location of parking areas, now allows parking in garages to count toward required
parking;
The revised tables for angled parking dimensions have been incorporated into Sec. 4.12.16,
Minimum design requirements etc.; and,
Stand-alone parking has been standardized as a use by special permit in all districts (except
PD-SC) starting with R-4, Residential, and ending with PD-IP, Planned Development - Industrial
Park. Sec. 25.2.2, Planned Development - Shopping Center, PD-SC, was inadvertently not
advertised and will, therefore, be brought back separately (or with the next batch of "housekeeping"
amendments) to add stand-alone parking.
Ms. Sprinkle said that at the November work session, the County Attorney mentioned another
Virginia locality which is currently amending its parking ordinance to prohibit parking in front yards. It was
suggested that it may be possible to address this for Albemarle County in this Zoning Text amendment.
After considering a draft proposal, staff determined that there is no easy method of addressing front yard
parking, but recommends bringing it back as a separate amendment which would remove this potential for
an unsightly situation and cause for nuisance complaints.
Ms. Sprinkle said Attachment B to staff's report is a letter itemizing three concerns from Mr.
Stephen Koleszar, Chairman, Albemarle County School Board. His first request is that public schools be
exempted from the maximum of 15 percent above the required parking. Consistent with policy, staff feels
the County should be held to the same standards to which it holds the public. Therefore, staff does not
recommend exempting public schools from a standard that is applied to private schools. Staff suggests a
concession that could address Mr. Koleszar's second request relating to the requirement, "The minimum
number of parking spaces required for a school shall be reduced by the percentage of dwelling units
served by the school within one-quarter mile of the school." By changing "shall" to "may", it would be left to
the applicant (including the Schools) and Zoning Administrator to determine when the parking reduction
should apply. If NOT applied, the minimum number of spaces required for any given school would be
greater. There are other alternatives available for decreasing parking if a particular school needs to reduce
required parking. The third concern expressed in Mr. Koleszar's letter is about relegated parking, a
principle of the Neighborhood Model. Staff opinion is that this can be addressed in a particular case
through the proposed ordinance provisions, the same as any other developer would be required to do. The
proposed ordinance allows the Director of Planning and Community Development to consider public health,
safety and welfare and whether or not, in granting a waiver or modification of the relegated parking
requirement, the proposed parking areas would be the dominant feature seen from the street or other
adjacent areas. Since most of the County's schools have a drop-off circle for buses directly in front of the
school, it may not be difficult to design with parking on the side of the school.
Ms. Sprinkle said this comprehensive Zoning Text amendment is consistent with the
recommendations of the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee (DISC) and the Neighborhood
Model. This is the result of significant staff work with the Commission and the community. This draft text
will meet multiple goals, such as reducing required parking and, therefore, impervious area, in addition to
providing substantially more flexibility in terms of the number, location and design of parking spaces. As
with any new ordinance, staff will be monitoring its application and will recommend amendments as
needed.
Ms. Sprinkle said the Planning Commission has recommended approval of Attachment A to the
executive summary, "An Ordinance to amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II,
Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia." Staff also recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance as advertised for a public
hearing this date. She offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks she should apologize to the School Board. When they were before
this Board last month, the Board cut off the conversation by saying the ordinance had already been
adopted, when it had not been adopted. She asked Ms. Sprinkle to explain what the process would be if
the following requirement were changed. "The minimum number of parking spaces required for a school
shall be reduced by the percentage of dwelling units served by the school within one-quarter mile of the
school."
Ms. Sprinkle said by changing the word "shall" to "may", it would be left to the applicant (including
the Schools) and Zoning Administrator to determine when the parking reduction should apply. If the Zoning
Administrator did not rule in their favor, the School Board could file an appeal with the Planning
Commission, and if the Commission's ruling was not in their favor, they could appeal that ruling to the
Board of Supervisors.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Dorrier asked if the parking requirement is just a standard requirement for the number of
square feet in the facility. Ms. Sprinkle said it is in the schedule in Section 4.12.6 for various uses. For
schools, it is based on the capacity of the schools (number of students as opposed to square feet) or it
could be based on an assembly area. It is an either/or situation for schools.
Mr. Rooker asked how staff came up with the figures in Section 4.12.6. How does this compare
with parking at existing schools? Ms. Sprinkle said staff did not change any standards. Kindergarten
through Grade 5 has always been one space per 12 pupils. The have added language to the effect "or one
space per 75 square feet of the largest area of indoor assembly, whichever is greater."
Mr. Rooker said this standard is not more restrictive than what has been applied in the past. Mr.
Tucker said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker noted that in Section 4.12.6 for the "Offices, business, administrative and professional
(including medical offices, but not dental clinics) uses, it requires one space per 200 square feet of net
office area. "Net office area" is then defined as 80 percent of the gross floor area, or the actual net office
floor area as shown on floor plans submitted by the applicant .... "This is an either/or situation. He asked if
staff had a set of plans in hand where this standard would apply. Ms. Sprinkle said that typically staff only
has a site plan showing the building's shell. There are no interior plans, so on a site plan they would use
the 80 percent requirement. However, if a tenant decided to use some of the space for purposes other
than offices, staff could consider that and look at the actual floor plan.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Davis if that explanation is clear to him. Mr. Davis said he assumes the 80
percent "maxed out" the usable space of a typical office.
Mr. Rooker said he has seen some buildings maxed out at 85 percent. He feels there could be a
conflict because of the determination which is actually allowed. Mr. Davis said the 80 percent may be Iow.
Ms. Sprinkle said staff typically looks at 80 percent, and does not ask for floor plans. If someone wants less
than 80 percent then they do not present floor plans. Mr. Davis asked what staff does if the use requires
more than 80 percent. Ms. Sprinkle said staff does nothing in that situation.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be better to just have one standard, or say "at the request of the
applicant." Ms. Sprinkle said that would make it clearer.
Mr. Rooker asked how staff differentiates "Over-the-counter-sales" from "Offices, business,
administrative and professional (including medical offices, but not dental clinics)." He said it may be just an
interpretation, but there is a different parking standard for one than the other. Ms. Sprinkle said staff often
uses this standard for something like a print shop where there is only a small area the public can get to, or a
dry cleaning business.
Mr. Rooker said over-the-counter-sales is not defined in this ordinance. Ms. Sprinkle said that is
true, but she cannot remember there ever being any problems.
Mr. Rooker said if there is a retail use there are generally over-the-counter-sales. Are the retail
sales considered predominant, and does this standard apply? Ms. Sprinkle said it could be in retail sales.
Staff has used it for take-out pizza places where there is no seating. Mr. Tucker said the Zoning
Administrator has some discretion in that matter.
Mr. Rooker said if staff is comfortable with it that is okay, but he thinks there could be over-the-
counter-sales taking place in a lot of places where there are actually retail sales. Maybe over-the-counter-
sales should be defined in a way so it is clear where it is being defined.
Mr. Dorrier said Ms. Sprinkle said it has never been a problem. If it's not broken, don't fix it. He
then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Buddy Humphrey said he has been a real estate appraiser since 1975. He has discussed the
Parking Ordinance with a number of developers. A member of the Blue Ridge Home Builders' Association
asked him to come today if he had a strong view about any part of the ordinance. He wants to address
Section 4.12.5 which deals with location of parking. As he reads Paragraph (c) it appears to him that the
ordinance will require that all parking for any new development in the Development Areas, will either have
to be on the side or to the rear of the building. This is the only section of the ordinance that concerns him.
In his opinion it is the "kiss of death" for retail property. He is not saying that this configuration would never
work, but he does not think it will always work for every type of property. He knows there are alternatives to
the standards, and he thinks the most logical would be two store fronts. He believes the additional cost of
constructing an additional store front would be prohibitive. Retails operate on a small profit margin. Such
an additional cost would keep many from locating in the Charlottesville area, particularly when there are
existing centers and some infill development in the City where they would have the alternative of using a
standard configuration.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Humphrey if it is his contention that a parking lot should be in front of a store.
Mr. Humphrey said his contention is that this section should be changed from "shall be to the side and to
the rear" to giving the Zoning Administrator the option to review, but not require in every instance that
parking be to the rear or to the side. He thinks that is too onerous for most retail development. He can
think of many examples other than big boxes or big shopping centers that would be negatively impacted.
He does not believe every convenience store will be required to have parking to the rear or the side, or have
two store fronts. He thinks it may work in the Neighborhood Model District. He suggests that in Paragraph
(c) the wording should be changed to allow some flexibility, and not make it an absolute requirement.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Ms. Thomas said there is a significant escape clause built into the language, which is that the
owner can have the parking in the front as long as it does not become the dominant feature seen from the
street. Mr. Humphrey said the intent is to place the parking to the side or to the rear. He said the language
"not be the dominant feature" is open to a wide interpretation. If he were looking at the feasibility of a
project and was not sure the project would be approved without side and rear parking at a major retail
center, he would have a hard time, in many cases, concluding that the project was feasible.
Ms. Valerie Long said she represents a variety of commercial clients in real estate matters in
Albemarle County. She commends staff for being receptive to suggestions over the past year from the
legal community. She thinks this is a workable document with a few exceptions that may outweigh all the
benefits it provides. She appreciates all the round table discussions, e-mails, and feedback staff took. She
shares the concern of Mr. Humphrey regarding Section 4.12.5c. which she also interprets to require that all
development in the Development Areas contain relegated parking. The escape clause Ms. Thomas
referred to imposes a high burden of proof for making the finding required. She also questions how that
would be interpreted and the reality of those interpretations. She thinks this issue could outweigh all of the
benefits of the ordinance. In addition, she thinks this could be inconsistent with a new provision in the
Comprehensive Plan which states that "All of the neighborhood model principles may not be equally
applicable to any specific proposal. All proposals will need to be considered in a more global context,
particularly as they relate to a mix of uses. It is recognized that there are multiple applications of the
principles of the Neighborhood Model and balanced rationale and reasonable application of those
principles is expected." She thinks that is a wise approach to this issue. She fears that this provision in the
new ordinance is inconsistent with that statement because it will require relegated parking for even non-
Neighborhood Model projects.
Ms. Long said she represents Martha Jefferson Hospital. They have filed an application to relocate
and establish a health care campus in the County. The issue that impacts them is Section 4.12.4 which
provides that a use may not exceed the maximum number of spaces by 15 percent. Staff originally
proposed a 20 percent figure which the development community and the legal community supported. She
requested that the Board reinstate the 20 percent level to provide the maximum flexibility that is important to
the medical community. She offered to answer questions.
Ms. Jo Higgins said she does not represent any retailer, but in the category of 20,000 to 25,000
square feet, there are many retailers in the community who would be stressed to try and meet the
conditions of the relegated parking. They want safe and convenient access, and they need it at their front
door. Inconvenient parking discourages shopping for small stores. Their idea of a secure building does not
include two doors, and it does not include the employees needed to monitor two doors. The safety of their
patrons is primary in their mind. Well-lighted, and convenient access is the epitome of safe access. When
employees park behind the building, they are usually monitored when the store closes. She has been
involved with pharmacy access, and they were very clear about adequacy of parking, that it be well-lighted
and be convenient to their front door. If there is a compact parking lot in front of the store, it will still
dominate. The wording in the clause does not give enough flexibility.
Ms. Higgins said there are plans which are more traditional in nature because of the needs of the
retailer who may need an avenue that is not subject to Section 4.12.5. They could meet all the standards
which were previously in place. Maybe there is some way to segregate the retailer with more than 25,000
square feet from the retailer with less than 25,000 square feet. Second, there is a provision in the
ordinance about making a specific submittal to the Zoning Administrator to get a reduction in parking based
on a unique category. The one that was questioned was a drive-through for a pharmacy. There is a
provision in the ordinance to get a reduction in parking for banks with drive-through lanes. There is no
provision for a pharmacy. She said that across the nation pharmacies are moving out of strip stores, and
moving to drive-throughs because of the age of many of their customers who want 24-hour service, and the
pharmacies want more secure locations. She said the clause will probably provide some flexibility to ask
for a reduction. One thing that has not been addressed in the ordinance is a way that a small shopping
center in HC or C-1 zoning that has a mixture of uses can come up with set parking spaces and let their
tenants change without going through a burdensome process with staff to determine if there is space
available. There are vacant stores in Albemarle County now which cannot be rented because parking
spaces are not available. There is no way to set spaces, and let the tenants change. Each time a tenant
changes they need to count up stores in each category. She does not think that can be put into this
ordinance, but said staff may be able to come up a solution in the future.
Mr. Rooker said it is based upon a variety of uses, so if the uses change in a particular space it gets
into a different number of parking space requirements. Ms. Higgins said she has two examples. At Ivy
Commons on Route 250 West, there are stores which are not rented because the restaurant used all of the
parking spaces. However, 90 percent of the time those parking spaces are empty. There is no way to
prove a store will not have patrons at other than meal times. Before, they were allowed to share parking
spaces at "off" times. Every time a tenant changes, that tenant cannot be replaced unless the new tenant
can use the same or fewer number of parking spaces.
Mr. Rooker asked if the waiver of the minimum requirements solves that problem. Ms. Higgins said
it does not. Mr. Rooker asked if this has been discussed with staff. Ms. Higgins said she does not think it
has been in specific context for unique situations. It has gotten "out of whack' with certain uses. Mr.
Rooker asked if Ms. Higgins had any specific language to suggest to deal with that problem. Ms. Higgins
said she did not.
Mr. Tucker said the Zoning Administrator has the ability to waive the minimum percentage that Ms.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Long mentioned earlier. Mr. Davis said that is in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Rooker said Ms. Higgins said
that poses an administrative burden for someone in a leased space in a small center. He said this is
something the Board could consider for an amendment at a later date.
Mr. Davis said that Section 4.12.2(c) allows a waiver, but it does not do exactly what Ms. Higgins
was discussing. It does require that the person come to the Zoning Department to request the waiver when
the use changes. But there is a provision which allows that waiver to happen if they can demonstrate that
there is an adequate number of parking spaces.
Mr. Martin said this is a public hearing, and he would suggest that the Board hear all of the public's
comments before discussing the ordinance.
Mr. Don Franco with The Kessler Group said the shopping center they manage is about 22,000
square feet. On the Rio Square project they have done a number of parking lot counts and with the
exception of the time around Thanksgiving and Christmas, the parking lot is used only at about 60 percent
of it capacity. With a shopping center of that size, when they make the initial guess of retail uses, they get
one space per every 100 feet for up to 5000 feet. Unless he brings in a user of 6000 square feet, he gets a
higher rate for the second 5000 feet applied to every user. That is why there is a complex issues, and there
is no simple way for him to get a reduction for a particular user.
Mr. David Phillips said he represents the Charlottesville/Albemarle Association of Realtors. They
represent all realtors including those oriented toward commercial uses. They are concerned about the
issues being raised here today. If this many business people are concerned about the ordinance, CAAR is
scared that there may be something in it that needs further examination. He said a lot of jobs have been
lost over the past few years so the County can ill afford to do anything to discourage other employers from
coming into the area. He urged the Board to be cautious in adopting something the business community "is
up in arms about." They agree with what has been recommended in the letter from the Home Builders'
Association to refer this ordinance to some ad hoc committee made up of representatives of the business
community as well as staff and engineers to come up with a plan acceptable to all parties.
Mr. Timothy Hurlbert from the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce spoke next. He
reinforced the extensive comments sent to the Board electronically, as well as through the mail. He said a
number of the Chamber's 1200 members have contacted him in the last few days regarding two of the
items. Those items are in the "Orientation" section (Section 4.12.5(c)). He said that almost everyone
shares the goal of not having parking be the dominant feature of a property, but this section should be
written as more of a guideline as opposed to having such power invested in the Planning Director. That
seems to be the definition of an inflexible regulation. He does not think that is what is wanted. The same
thing applies to shared parking. It is a complex calculation trying to figure out what is happening in the real
world. Other than that, this is an excellent work product. He said those two sections need to be more of a
guideline approach rather than the hammer approach. By speaking against the ordinance as it is, he
encourages the Board to take a half step back and get the whole thing in an order that is good for all.
Mr. Steve Blaine said he represents a number of builders and property owners in Albemarle
County. He will echo a lot of the comments made today and speak about the issue of the location of
parking. He thinks the "opt out" option does not provide much of a real option. The dominant feature seen
from the street or adjacent area sounds like an aesthetic standard. He does not know what an aesthetic
standard is doing in a parking ordinance since there are ordinances that can deal with that matter. This
morning there was a lot said about flexibility being the incentive for the Neighborhood Model District. This
would be counter to that notion of flexibility where there is a bias requiring relegated parking unless it can be
shown that it is not visible from the street. It is unclear in interpreting this which street the visibility would be
determined from if there is a rear street and a front street. He thinks it is possible to "blue pencil" this
ordinance and move it forward because on the whole it is a grand step forward. He acknowledged the hard
work of staff and others to get to this point. He said this particular problem with the ordinance has been
repeatedly brought up in the committees and work sessions by those who have experience in actually
developing property, yet it remains. He asked that it be removed.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin said he was present for Great Eastern Management Company. He
complimented and expressed their appreciation to Ms. Jan Sprinkle who did a remarkable job on this
ordinance through a lot of meetings. He said that originally there were about 33 issues and they are now
down to just a few. These are issues which were not resolved at the Planning Commission level. Since the
Parking Ordinance is in essence an overlay ordinance that applies to all zoning districts, its adoption with
the relegated parking requirement which is the Neighborhood Model criteria, in effect means that all
commercial development in all zoning districts will have to comply with the Neighborhood Model form. That
is an outcome that was not anticipated by the supporters of DISC, nor does he believe, by many members
of this Board.
Mr. Rotgin said that for much of the last two years, Great Eastern has traveled the East Coast in
search of new successful development ideas that could be imported to this market. A member of the
County's Planning staff accompanied them on two of those trips. They saw successful examples of neo-
traditional, new urbanism, and residential development. They saw no successful examples of commercial
development of the same style in a market that even remotely resembles the outlying areas of Albemarle
County and its demographic. However, they did see a number of failures.
Mr. Rotgin said there are three fatal problems associated with the relegated parking requirement in
the Neighborhood Model type commercial development. First, they have been dealing with many large
retailers for 20 years and have been told that they will not locate in a center with relegated parking. In
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
addition to store formatting and merchandising not working with side or rear entrances, there are safety and
security concerns both internal to the store and in the parking lots which appear to be insurmountable.
When women come out of a store, particularly at night, they want straight access to their vehicle. Second,
the idea of small retail shops or boutiques with offices and residential uses certainly has merit, and they
currently have plans to incorporate such a design into one of their major pending communities. They are
do so with trepidation because their experience has shown that in other areas there are very few "mom and
pop" type store operators willing to commit the time, the energy, the money, or who have the ability to
operate successful small retail shops.
Mr. Rotgin said that third, financing these mixed-use type developments is difficult. Lenders don't
understand them, and based on their considerable experience in the financial market, that is not likely to
change. Even to be able to incorporate some the criteria of the Neighborhood Model into a commercial
community it is necessary to have larger scale retail customers as the draw. He said the County needs the
larger retailers in order to protect and expand its important retail tax base against continued leakage to
Richmond, Fredericksburg, Northern Virginia and Harrisonburg. He said the citizens of Albemarle and
neighboring counties should have the benefit and convenience of retailers offering a wide variety of goods
at competitive prices such as Krogers, Kohls, Cosco, Giant, Target and BestBuy. As the Board has seen
from all three of the larger commercial developments currently under review, each incorporates mixed
uses. It is necessary to have large retail stores as draws for Neighborhood Model type stores. These
retailers will not locate where parking must be relegated. He encourages the Board to remove the
relegated parking requirement and incorporate the other suggested changes into the final ordinance, or to
refer this ordinance to a small group to work out the remaining details. He then handed to the Board a copy
of a letter from a major retailer which speaks to the issue.
Mr. Steve Runkle said the language "shall" seems to require that it be relegated parking, as
opposed to being in less desired locations. He said there are reasons other than those which relate to large
retailers. As an example, at the Hollymead Town Center, it is adjacent to what will be a greenway and
stream. It may be worth considering putting the parking in front of the units in that case in order to protect
the greenway. That is the kind of choice where hopefully judgement can be used. He said this is a
transitional time, and they have been developing with one pattern of development for some time, and they
are trying to change that direction. They have many sites where the infrastructure is already in the ground.
To require him to put parking behind the buildings means that he will have to tear up existing infrastructure
on some sites when that infrastructure was put in place in good faith. To tear up that infrastructure to use
up that site as a requirement of relegating the parking, either diminishes the site by 50 to 75 percent, or
requires a great deal of infrastructure costs that otherwise would not be required. Also, if they are in-filling
and there is parking along a street which is in front of properties and there is a vacant lot, aesthetically is it
more appropriate to "max" the street or flip the parking as development proceeds along the street?
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dorrier said
the Board is already one-half an hour late for its meeting with the Planning Commission. He asked the
Board's preference as to deferring the ordinance to another time.
Mr. Martin said he would not mind making a motion to pass the ordinance with the exception of
those two points. Then, the Board could have a work shop because he thinks it is such a small issue that
the Board could work out the issue.
Mr. Perkins suggesting asking staff to do the work.
Ms. Thomas said she believes the community does not want parking to be a dominant feature.
Several speakers agreed with that concept today. However, there could be real life situations where that
would be difficult to achieve. Someone, in an e-mail, suggested that having parking on the side of the
building might be more environmentally damaging on some sites. If parking is not the dominant feature
seen from the street, would it be less harmful to the environment, or would it require destruction of existing
infrastructure, and if the Board agreed it wanted to continue to emphasize that parking should not be the
dominant feature, more clauses could be added to 4.12.5(c). Staff might come up with some language to
that effect. If that is not how the other Board members are thinking, then the Board needs to do something
different.
Mr. Martin said he wants to have discussion of this suggestion, and it could be done by e-mail. He
is not sure that he agrees totally with what Ms. Thomas is suggesting. He is thinking about convenience
stores, and he does not think it would ever be appropriate to put parking to the side of such a business.
Ms. Thomas said she was thinking about convenience stores where one could walk to it and feel
comfortable doing so. In that case, the store is the dominant feature and not the parking lot.
Mr. Rooker said screening might be considered. One way to prevent parking from becoming the
dominant feature is to screen it properly. He then read some recommended language which he has just
written. He said it is not clear in the suggested ordinance language what is being protected. On which side
of a facility can parking be the dominant feature? He thinks appropriate screening is one way to minimize
visibility of parking and should be considered in this part of the ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said if there are lots of suggestions as to how it could be done, if the Board chose to
adopt this ordinance with the exception of those items brought up today, it could do so and ask DISC II to
look at the ordinance and suggest some rewording. The orientation of a building does not need to be in the
ordinance.
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Ms. Thomas said she does not think the ordinance needs to go to DISC.
Mr. Rooker said he is not comfortable voting on the ordinance without those parts. He does not
think it is such a broad problem that it needs to go to DISC.
Mr. Bowerman said to send it to staff and let them bring back suggested changes.
Mr. Martin agreed and suggested that staff bring to the Board next week a few choices to look at.
He feels the Board would be able to put something together that would work.
Mr. Dorrier said the public hearing is over, but the public has entered into a dialogue with the Board,
and he thinks they should be kept informed. Mr. Tucker said there is no urgency to adopting this ordinance.
It can be deferred until the February 5 day meeting.
Ms. Thomas said the other issue which has not been dealt with has to do with small shopping
centers. She thought that could be taken care of using Section 4.12.10a. But, it must not work so she
thinks there needs to be a discussion of "aggregate parking." Ms. Sprinkle said that was discussed by staff,
but they wanted to use "shared parking" regulations instead.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to defer this matter until February 5. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Note: At 4:08 p.m. the Board recessed, and reconvened in Room 235 for a Joint Meeting with the
Planning Commission.
Agenda Item No. 29. Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission. Present at this time were
Planning Commissioners: Mr. William Edgerton, Mr. William W. Finley, Mr. William D. Rieley, and Mr.
Rodney S. Thomas.
The Supervisors' meeting was called back to order by Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 30. Crozet Master Plan Framework Plan, Discussion of.
Mr. Dorrier said Ms. Lee Catlin would be making this presentation.
Ms. Catlin said that on December 16, 2002, the Board and Planning Commission held a joint work
session on the Framework Plan for the Crozet Master Plan. This included a presentation by the
Renaissance Planning Group (Mr. Ken Schwartz and Mr. Warren Byrd, the technical consultants), followed
by a question and answer period for Board and Commission members. That discussion needs to be
finalized today so that action can be taken on a proposed Resolution of Support for the Framework Plan.
Ms. Catlin said there are a couple of points which need to stay in front of this group as the
discussion continues. The Framework Plan has been developed as a preliminary conceptual guide to
provide direction and general parameters within which the more detailed Master Plan will evolve. The
Framework Plan will not serve as the basis for decisions regarding proposals which may come before either
the Commission or the Board prior to adoption of the actual Master Plan. The Framework Plan will serve
as a broad outline with concepts and principles that will provide general direction for the specifics of the
Master Plan that will emerge as the process continues throughout the Winter and Spring.
Ms. Catlin said staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors pass the Resolution of Support
today acknowledging the Framework Plan as a preliminary guide and foundation from which future Master
Plan activities, products and policies will proceed. She then invited questions.
Mr. Rooker asked when the Board and Commission can have a copy of everything that constitutes
the Framework Plan. Ms. Catlin said she understands it is the map, but she will defer to Susan Thomas for
clarification.
Ms. Susan Thomas said there is some documentation, but it primarily shows the steps gone
through by the community, and the product of every step. She has a short explanatory narrative. The full
narrative will be developed in the second half of the project. Efforts have focused on the land use
component without the full body of the text because there are a number of steps to be taken over the next
few months that will fill in the details.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board only needs to approve the framework today which includes the
maps. Ms. Catlin said this will clarify the milestone the process is at now. Staffwants to be sure everybody
is going in the right direction. The resolution of support does not adopt a plan or a map, but will give
approval for the direction this process is taking.
Mr. Rooker said he likes what he saw at the last meeting. The proposed resolution says the Board
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
accepts the Framework Plan. There were a number of maps presented last time which staff and the
community looked at. He asked if the Plan posted on the wall in this room today is the plan the Board is
accepting.
Mr. Perkins said there are three things posted on the wall. He asked if they constitute one plan.
Mr. Ken Schwartz said he would give a brief orientation. He said the consultants solicited feedback
from the general community, and also from the development community. Through that they developed
what the Board sees before it now. It is an amalgam of the three alternatives that were part of the public
process in November. It is what the Board and the Commission saw in December. Significant development
areas to the west of Crozet Avenue are recognized on the map. To the east of Crozet Avenue, the
importance of downtown is recognized. Also, a number of issues heard from the community about
maintaining as much as possible of the scenic characteristic of Route 250 and the eastern portion of Route
240 are recognized. Those elements were used in constructing the map displayed today. There are two
connections north/south which are necessary, one to the east of Crozet Avenue (Route 240), and one to
west. Those are issues which developed over several months prior to December. A transportation
interconnection was brought up by the community as being important to a successful master plan.
Mr. Perkins asked if this is just a conceptual map which can be changed. Mr. Schwartz said that is
exactly correct.
Mr. Rooker asked for a smaller copy of the map. Ms. Thomas said it is on the web site with all of
the supporting documentation. Mr. Rooker said he waited for an hour and a half, and still did not have it off
of the web site.
Mr. Dorrier asked if any one wants to make a motion to adopt the resolution of support.
Mr. Rieley said at the last meeting Mr. Perkins raised a couple of pertinent points. In particular was
the way in which issues in this study are drawn so crisply that it leaves out half of the downtown. It seems to
be an inappropriate planning effort when that is done. There was a lot of discussion about needing to
expand the boundaries of this, not necessarily for this phase, but to make it clear that idea might go into the
next phase. At that time, Mr. Perkins pointed out that there is a very good library site which was a lot closer
than the ones which showed up on the plan. The second issue is that at least three people in this group
expressed misgivings about the nature and location of several of the development areas along Route 250,
and the importance of maintaining existing character along Route 250. He wondered if this is passed over
to the next stage, if it should go with stronger recommendations.
Mr. Rooker asked if this is the appropriate state to talk about the character of Route 250. It is an
entrance corridor, and has a designation which needs to be honored as the master planning proceeds. He
asked if Mr. Rieley was suggesting that the resolution be changed to add language to that effect. Mr. Rieley
said there are some areas of pink and purple on the map which he worries about if it goes to the next stage
without a caveat. Some is new zoning proposed next to the school complex. He has heard misgivings
about some of that. Maybe the resolution should make it clear that this is not the project for that type of
specificity.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Perkins mentioned lines on the north which cut off part of the downtown are,
and which do not leave a site for a library, etc. He thinks the question is whether the study with the
consultant is so defined that it cannot look beyond the growth area boundary.
Mr. Schwartz said the map is deceptive in that regard. As a map, it is correct, but as part of the
process undertaken with the community, they looked beyond that boundary line. A number of the larger
scale depictions that they included in the presentation in December for the community, and the Board and
Commission, did show relationships within the Growth Area across the boundary into downtown. His point
is that the work undertaken considered these fringe areas. They made a strategic decision to highlight the
areas within the designated Growth Area while at the same time recognizing that part of their responsibility
is to figure out an appropriate way to address the various fringe areas. They have a Community Design Day
coming up on February 15 and one of the several areas they will look at then will be downtown. They will
look beyond the growth boundary to see at what can be done with the community's input to understand
better the interconnections across that Growth Area boundary line. Their team met this morning to talk
about the fringe areas. They went through the locations around the periphery of the growth area one by
one to test some initial thoughts. That will be part of the discussion as this process goes forward.
Mr. Rooker said based on that statement, he is comfortable that when talking about the Framework
Plan, it is something that includes a study of the fringe areas.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it would be good to say that Route 250 will be maintained as a scenic
highway because that is a "done deal."
Mr. Rieley said he was only suggesting that a caveat be added.
Ms. Thomas said this is a good time to express concerns. Whichever road is chosen to at be the
north/south connector has to be west of the school complex or traffic will get tied up there. That was a
conclusion by the Route 250 West Task Force a couple of years ago.
Mr. Rooker said there were a series of guiding principles behind this study. He is uncomfortable
picking out specific things in the resolution. He asked if protection of the Route 250 corridor is one of the
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
underlying principles.
Ms. Catlin said this resolution of support stays above the details of some of the specifics mentioned.
If the Board is comfortable that by supporting this, plus what has been heard from the consultant about
what their future studies will incorporate, the planning can move forward in this general direction.
Mr. Cilimberg said in the "whereas" sections of the resolution, there is no reference to the guiding
principles. He said there might be a "whereas" added that makes that reference.
Mr. Rooker said the words "guiding principles" might be added to the paragraph which states:
"Whereas, the Framework Plan is intended to reflect the existing conditions, community's vision and the
general direction for the forthcoming, more detailed Master Plan for the Crozet community."
Ms. Thomas read the titles from what seemed to be chapter headings and said Route 250 is not
mentioned. It is the Board's job to say that for the County as a whole this is the right direction, without
overruling what the residents are working on. It should be stated that this Board has said Route 250 will not
be four-laned or expanded beyond its present width, and that the Board wants people to use 1-64. This was
done by the Board a few years ago, but maybe it needs to be reemphasized.
Mr. Rooker suggested putting in another "whereas" to cover the situation.
Ms. Catlin said instead of putting detail into the resolution as to what the Board wants to happen to
Route 250, just add something that recognizes the importance of its protection and the need to recognize
that as the process moves along.
Mr. Rooker suggested adding language at the end of the last paragraph of the resolution
acknowledging that the next level of planning will include the fringe areas around the Growth Area.
Ms. Thomas asked if it should be "expanded downtown" or "fringe areas." Mr. Rooker said Mr.
Schwartz described fringe areas but the level of detail to be included in those fringe areas has not been
determined yet. He thinks there will be some level of planning in those fringe areas to transition them into
the more intensely-planned areas.
Ms. Catlin said there is an appropriate place to add "guiding principles" in the second to last
paragraph of the resolution so it will say "Whereas, the Framework Plan is intended to reflect the existing
conditions, community's vision, guiding principles and the general direction for the forthcoming, more
detailed Master Plan for the Crozet community." Also, the suggestion is to add two new paragraphs, one
will say "Whereas, the County recognizes the need for the final Crozet Master Plan to address the
protection of Route 250 West." The second will read "Whereas, the next phase of master planning will
devote significant attention to the fringe areas of the Crozet Development Area."
Mr. Rooker agreed with that language.
Mr. Edgerton said Ms. Thomas was concerned about getting in a reference to using Interstate 64.
Ms. Thomas said she was not sure that in mentioning Route 250 that will address the concern
about getting traffic onto 1-64.
Ms. Catlin asked if adding the words "and the provision of safe and efficient access to Interstate 64
as critical priorities" to the language addressing protection of Route 250 West would be sufficient.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that is sufficient.
Ms. Catlin asked if adding all of that language makes the resolution sufficient for adoption.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a motion to adopt the resolution as amended. Mr. Rooker offered motion to
adopt a Resolution of Support for the Crozet Master Plan Framework Plan, as amended, and set out in full
below. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Resolution of Support for
Crozet Master Plan Framework Plan
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on May 16, 2001,
adopted The Neighborhood Model: Building Block for the Development Areas as an
amendment to Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Model calls for development of a Master Plan for
each of the Development Areas, said Master Plans to be adopted as a part of the County's
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on October 17, 2001,
selected the Community of Crozet as the first Development Area to be master planned;
and
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
WHEREAS, an essential component of the Crozet Master Plan has been a
comprehensive, inclusive, and on-going public involvement process with the residents of
Crozet working in partnership with the Renaissance Planning Group, Nelson-Byrd
Landscape Architects, Christensen & Associates, and County staff; and
WHEREAS, this community partnership among the residents, consultants and
County staff has produced a preliminary conceptual guide referred to as the Framework
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the County recognizes the need for the final Crozet Master Plan to
address the protection of Route 250 West and the provision of safe and efficient access to
Interstate 64 as critical priorities; and
WHEREAS, the next phase of master planning will devote significant attention to
the fringe areas of the Crozet Development Area; and
WHEREAS, the Framework Plan is intended to reflect the existing conditions,
community's vision, guiding principles and the general direction for the forthcoming, more
detailed Master Plan for the Crozet community;
NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors accepts the
Framework Plan, acknowledging it as a preliminary guide and foundation from which future
Master Plan activities, products and policies will proceed.
Agenda Item No. 18. County's Strategic Planning, Work Session. (This item had been skipped
earlier in the meeting.)
Ms. Thomas said before the Planning Commission members leave she wants to remind everybody
that one of these strategic plans deals directly with determining what infrastructure is needed for the Urban
Area.
Mr. Dorrier asked if any member of the Commission had comments.
Mr. Edgerton said he thought there might be some discussion of the letter from the Blue Ridge
Home Builders' Association.
Mr. Rooker said the Board had a long work session on the Parking Ordinance this morning. Staff is
to make some revisions and bring those back to the Board next month.
Mr. Martin said the issues are not big issues.
Mr. Rooker said they are really focused.
(Note: Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board take a short recess before continuing the meeting.
The Board recessed at 4:21 p.m. and reconvened at 4:45 p.m.)
Mr. Tucker said in the Spring of 2002, the Board initiated the County's strategic planning process.
The Board developed the County's Vision, Mission and initial Goal Statements. Since that time, staff has
developed a framework for the County's Strategic Plan and a timetable for its development. Cross-
departmental teams, consisting of staff members and representatives from other agencies, reviewed the
Board's Vision, Mission and Goal Statements, and developed strategic objectives that were reviewed and
discussed by the Board in October.
Mr. Tucker said staff has made minor modifications to the strategic planning document,
incorporated changes suggested by the Board at its October work session, targeted eleven priority
objectives, and developed strategies which outline specific efforts that will be needed to achieve these
priority areas. Staff chose these eleven priority objectives for further attention based on their level of
importance to the County and other important timing considerations. Areas of focus include customer
services, water resources, funding County services, solid waste and environmental management, public
safety, affordable housing, and the implementation of plans which are designed to protect and preserve the
County's rural character.
Mr. Tucker said staff will begin implementation of the strategies over the next several months, and
will keep the Board updated on the progress of these efforts on a quarterly basis. Staff encourages the
Board to consider scheduling annual retreats on an on-going basis to review the County's progress and
make adjustments to the strategic plan as needed. Staff recommends that the Board review the
information forwarded, provide additional guidance for staff and then approve the staff's selection of the
eleven priority objectives. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier suggested going through each of the strategies.
Mr. Tucker said No. 1 is "By December 2003, the County will have a strategy in place to ensure the
implementation of completed "neighborhood master plans."
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Ms. Thomas said she was told that DISC II focused on that strategy at its meeting yesterday. She
asked if DISC II will actually be working on that strategy. Mr. Cilimberg said they are going to talk about
implementation activities and advocacy.
Mr. Rooker suggested adding "within each development area" at the end of that strategy. Mr.
Tucker said that was the intent.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned 2.1.2 "By December 2003, the County will have an implementation plan in
place that identifies the actions and resources necessary to carry out the County's newly revised rural area
policies." He asked if it is intended that it take a year to have an implementation plan for the rural area
policies.
Ms. Thomas said she circled that one because what the Board just got today in the packet
suggests that it will be November, 2003 before the Board gets the rural area policy. She asked if that policy
will come with an implementation plan. Mr. Cilimberg said in the Comprehensive Plan amendments, staff
provided an action agenda. There may be more work needed, but if that time frame is kept, by the end of
the year, staff will have that for the Board, along with recommendations.
Mr. Rooker said that in 2.1.1.4. "Insure the provision of county services that are adequate to meet
the needs of the master-planned neighborhood" there should be an "s" added to the word "neighborhood."
In 2.1.1.5 "Insure that county decisions, actions, policies and long term commitments are consistent with the
priorities identified in the master plan" there should be an "s" added to the word "plan."
Mr. Tucker said 2.2.1 deals with the integrated water resource plan with the County working
cooperatively with the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority.
Ms. Thomas said 2.2.1.1 ends with the word "affected agencies." She asked if the words "and
citizens" could be added. Mr. Tucker said that would be fine. She said a lot of communities which have
done this have used citizens.
Mr. Dorrier asked why this strategy needs until December, 2004 for implementation. Mr. Tucker
said it will take a lot of time, and the County will be working with other agencies who may be working on a
different time table.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned 2.6.1 "By July 2004, the County working in cooperation with Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority will have a long-term solid waste strategy in place that emphasizes the importance of
waste reduction, reuse of materials and recycling." Mr. Rooker said he would like to change this sentence
to add the words "provides reasonable solid waste disposal options for County citizens and business and
that .... "between the words "that" and "emphasizes." He thinks the most important thing is to have a place
for solid waste to be taken by the citizens.
Ms. Thomas said "no", she thinks "reduce, reuse and recycle" need to be emphasized before those
words. Mr. Rooker said the main job of the RSWA is handling the waste problems in the community. He
does not care if the words are added after or before that point in the sentence.
Ms. Thomas said if those words are added at the end of the sentence she will agree.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned 2.6.2, "By July 2003, the County will have an environmental management
system in place that ensures environmentally sensitive County government operations."
Mr. Bowerman said the County is already two years behind on this strategy. Mr. Tom Foley said
this will not be an issue since staff has been working on it for several months.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned 3.1.1 "By June 2004, the County will establish a strategy to insure that its
public safety systems meet the demands of the growing County." Mr. Tucker said this strategy deals with
public safety systems and standards. The Board heard a little about this earlier in the day from the Police
Department. Staff feels this can be done since it has one and one-half years to complete its work.
Next was 3.3.3 "By December 2003, the County will develop policies and on-going programs that
increase affordable home ownership options for households with incomes below 80 percent of median
income." Mr. Tucker said this also deals with things the Board heard about this morning, and it deals with
affordable housing. The Housing Committee is presently working on this strategy. As Mr. Ron White
mentioned, that Committee will have recommendations for the Board in the very near future.
Mr. Martin said along with what he said this morning about at-risk kids, a lot of the time when
$12,000 to$15,000 a month is being spent on one juvenile, that juvenile will be at the Joint Security
Complex for a year. A decision has to be made at what point the spending stops.
Mr. Rooker said it was mentioned this morning that there is a committee which looks into the
amount being spent.
Mr. Martin said that is part of it, but it is partly because it is a state mandate. Less expensive by
definition means less secure. The reason the numbers at places like The Pines are so high is that not only
is there a psychologist, a psychiatrist and a teacher, but they also have a guard at every corner, and a fence
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
around the facility. Most of these kids, when they turn 18, end up at the Joint Security Complex. Hundreds
of thousands of dollars have been spent by the County just because the State mandated that these dollars
be spent on a kid when it is known that the treatment will not be effective.
Mr. Bowerman said the County has no choice because it is a state mandate.
Mr. Martin said it is an unfunded mandate. He is for rehabilitation, but this mandates that the
County pay $13,000 a month to take care of a kid who will be at the Joint Security Complex when he turns
18.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Martin is suggesting that there be something different done at the local
level.
Mr. Martin said the Board needs to get a committee organized to look at these mandates and come
up with solutions that can be passed to the General Assembly. There should be a point where the County
can say "we can't." Mr. Tucker said Ms. White will take this strategy to the Commission on Children &
Families for them to discuss.
Mr. Martin said the mandate about kids having to be 18 before they can quit school costs the
County hundreds of thousands of dollars because it is trying to educate a kid who is completely out of
control.
Mr. Rooker mentioned 3.2 "Provide an effective and responsive human services system that
emphasizes prevention and fosters self-sufficiency." He asked if the County is going to do something other
than what has already been done. Mr. Tucker said he does not think there will be much change from what
has been done. Also, that is not one of the eleven objectives selected by staff for work at this time.
Mr. Dorrier next mentioned 4.1.1 "By July 2004, each County department will establish and
implement standards for superior customer service." Mr. Tucker said 4.1.1.1 "Develop and implement a
County Customer Service Academy" is a new idea.
Next Mr. Dorrier mentioned 4.1.2 "By June 2005, County citizens will have access to new customer-
friendly ways to receive County services." He asked why people have to wait until June, 2005 to get this
service. Mr. Tucker said if you read all the strategies listed, they will take some time to implement. Ms.
Catlin said this does not mean that nothing will happen until 2005. As strategies are completed, they will be
put into place right away.
Mr. Rooker suggested that 4.1.1 be amended to read ""By July 2004, each County department will
establish and implement revised standards for superior customer service." Mr. Tucker agreed.
Next Mr. Dorrier mentioned 4.1.4 "By June 2005, the County will be recognized as a quality place of
employment with a workforce of employees who continuously provide high quality, customer-focused
service to its citizens." He said that is self-evident. Mr. Tucker said it is mainly to insure that people who are
interested in working for the County see the value in becoming an employee.
Ms. Thomas said Albemarle County is the second largest employer in the area. She thinks the
County should show leadership in this area. She is always thinking about ways to help people get to work
without impacting the roads too much. She would like for the County to work on plans to help people buy
houses closer to work, or have satellite parking lots for people who live further away, and shuttles, etc.
There are a lot of transportation things that are not usually tied in with a discussion of employment because
it is not what the Human Resources office talks about.
Mr. Tucker said that is part of a transportation strategy for all employees and not just for Albemarle
County.
Ms. Thomas said employers usually take the lead in this or it does not get done. That is why State
Farm has a van service. They took the lead as an employer.
Mr. Martin said along those same lines, the County needs to build a bathroom facility in this building
so that people can run or jog to work. They can't do that now because they can't take a shower.
Mr. Bowerman asked if these eleven strategies will be returned to the Board in an amended form.
Mr. Tucker said "yes."
Mr. Dorrier asked if anyone had a problem with 4.2.1 "By June 2004, the County will establish
criteria defining fair and efficient revenue sources, recovery of the costs of services, and fee schedules for
beneficiaries of special enhanced or targeted County services."
Mr. Tucker said staff will make a quarterly report on the progress on these strategies.
Agenda Item No. 28. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board had received a schedule of work sessions on the budget. Mr.
Tucker said "yes."
(January 8, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Perkins said he would like to comment on what Ms. Barbara Shifflett said this morning about a
site for the Albemarle County Fair. He said it is in the Comprehensive Plan that the County will promote
agricultural and forestal activities, and the Fair ties into that, but it is a matter of money.
Mr. Martin said if they pay that much rent, why can't the County go into some sort of partnership
where the Fair would pay 50 percent less rent and rent from the County if the County purchased the land,
and the County then used their 50 percent rent to defray that cost.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the County needs to look at something like that.
Mr. Tucker said some thought should be given to this matter, and then it be sent to the Building
Committee for discussion.
Agenda Item No. 31. Adjourn to January 15, 2003, 4:00 p.m., for Joint Meeting with School Board.
With no further business to come before the Board, at 5:09 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Martin,
seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn this meeting until 4:00 p.m. on January 15, 2003.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 05/07/2003
Initials: EWC