2003-03-05(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 5,
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. Dennis
S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
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 Chairman, Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Katie Hobbs read a statement on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle outlining several
recommendations for the Rural Areas Advisory/Focus Group (copy of full statement is on file in the Clerk[]s
Office). Citizens recommends that the Focus Group strongly support: Natural resource conservation;
sustainable coexistence of these natural resources with other land uses; and, pro-active planning tools such
as the ACE Program.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr.
Rooker, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.7 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as
information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: August 7, October 9, November 6 and December 11,2002.
Ms. Thomas had read August 7, 2002 (Pages 18 to the end) and found them to be in order as
presented, with a few typographical errors.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes of August 7, 2002, were approved. All other
minutes will go forward to another meeting.
Book.
Item 5.2. Proclamation recognizing March 19 through March 23, 2003, as Virginia Festival of the
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved.
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and
storytelling within and outside its borders; and
WHEREAS,
our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted over
1000 writers and tens of thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA FESTIVAL
OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books
and publishing; and
WHEREAS,
businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have
contributed to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE
BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have made the
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the country;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, March 19,
2003, through Sunday, March 23, 2003, as the ninth annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide
range of available events and activities.
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
(Discussion: Mr. Dorrier read the proclamation and then presented same to Ms. Nancy Damon.
Ms. Damon said they appreciate the Board[]s continuing support as they bring the Book Festival to this area
for the education, enjoyment and economic development of the area. Mr. Dorrier asked how many people
are expected to attend this year[]s event. Ms. Damon said that last year there were 16,986 participants,
with people coming from 34 states in addition to Virginia. She invited all to attend.)
Item 5.3. Claudius Crozet Park Property Purchase.
It was noted in the staffus report that in June, 2000, the Claudius Crozet Park Board purchased an
adjoining 2.19-acre parcel for $27,000. The Park Board then notified the Parks and Recreation
Department of it's desire to sell the property in order to retire the debt incurred to purchase the property and
to direct financial efforts toward building a tot lot in the park. The Park Board offered the property for sale to
the County for $30,000 before offering the property for sale to interested adjacent landowners. County staff
asked for time to review the value of the property in consideration of future development in the Crozet
growth area.
Staff review has determined that it is critical to maintain public control of this property. The most
logical route for the greenway from Lickinghole Basin to enter into Crozet Park is through this property. The
Parks and Recreation Director is recommending the purchase of this property using funds currently
appropriated for the development of Crozet Park. While the original development plan for the park called
for two additional soccer fields, remaining funds are not sufficient to complete those fields. In addition, the
Park Board and County staff have agreed that construction of the fields and required parking would result in
overly intense development of a portion of the park which should be preserved for more passive use. Both
parties are in agreement that priority for the remaining appropriated funds should be the purchase of the
property, satisfying the site plan requirement for landscaping and the development of two tot lots.
This matter has been discussed with the members of the Property Committee and they are in
agreement with the purchase of this property. The Board of Supervisors reviewed this matter on December
4, 2002, and authorized the County Attorney's Office to develop a purchase agreement contingent on their
public approval. A purchase agreement has already been signed by the Crozet Park Board and a copy of
the draft deed provided to the Seller for its signature. Under the terms of the agreement the County will
purchase the property for $30,000 and utilize it for park and recreational purposes and community-related
activities. In addition, the agreement gives Crozet Park the right of first refusal to repurchase the property if
the County decides to sell it in the future.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the purchase of the 2.19-acre parcel and authorize the
County Executive to execute the Purchase Agreement and Deed acceptable to the County Attorney and
take other appropriate action in order to effectuate the purchase with Claudius Crozet Park, Inc.
By the vote set out above, the Board approved of the purchase of a 2.19-acre parcel from
Claudius Crozet Park, Inc., and authorized the County Executive to execute the following Agreement
for Purchase of Real Estate and a Deed acceptable to the County Attorney and to take other
appropriate action in order to effectuate the purchase with Claudius Crozet Park, Inc.
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE (the "Agreement")
made this ~ day of March, 2003 by and between CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK, INC., a
Virginia nonstock corporation (hereinafter the "Seller") and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA (hereinafter the "Buyer").
1. Sale and Description of Property. In consideration of the mutual promises
contained herein, Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to buy certain real estate located
in the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "Property"), and described as follows:
All that certain lot or parcel of land, together with the improvements
thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, situated in the
Community of Crozet in Albemarle County, Virginia, designated as
Albemarle County Tax Map 56 as Parcel 55, containing 2.19 acres, more
or less, as shown on plat of Warren F. Wade, C.L.S., dated February 16,
1970, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia, in Deed Book 495, page 626, on which plat the subject
property is identified by the name "WILLIAM WASHINGTON"; being the
same property conveyed to Seller by deed from Vivian W. Meads, Yvonne
E. Shackelford, Denton Washington and Ora M. Washington
dated June 1,2000, of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1924,
page 103.
2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property is THIRTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000.00) and shall be paid by Buyer to Seller by cash, in the
form of a check drawn on Buyer's official account, at closing.
3. Conveyance. The Seller agrees to convey the Property by appropriate
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
deed containing general warranty of title, which title shall be good, marketable and
insurable, free and clear of all liens, indebtedness, encumbrances and tenancies, and
subject only to such easements, covenants and restrictions of record that do not adversely
affect marketability and insurability of title, that do not adversely affect Buyer's intended
uses of the Property and that are approved by Buyer prior to closing. In the event Buyer's
attorney finds title to be defective, and should Seller fail to remedy any defect within 60
days of notice thereof to them, Buyer make declare this Agreement null and void, and all
funds paid to Seller by Buyer shall be refunded.
4. Uses. Buyer agrees to utilize the Property for County park and
recreational purposes and community-related activities.
5. Right of First Refusal. Buyer and Seller agree that, in the event that Buyer
ceases using the Property for park and recreational purposes and decides to sell the
Property, Buyer shall provide written notice to Seller, who shall have the right of first refusal
to purchase the Property. Once notified in writing of Buyer's intent to sell the Property,
Seller shall have 30 days to exercise the right of first refusal. Seller shall communicate its
intent regarding the right of first refusal to Buyer in writing within the 30-day period.
6. Costs and Expenses. Seller shall pay Seller's recording tax applicable to
the transfer of the property to the Buyer, its share of the current real estate taxes and its
own attorney's fees. Buyer shall pay its own attorney's fees, its prorata share of the current
year's real estate taxes when due and payable, cost of title insurance, survey, subdivision
and deed preparation and all recording costs (unless exempt) other than the Seller's deed
tax. Except as otherwise agreed herein, all other expenses incurred by Buyer in connection
with this purchase, including without limitation title examination, insurance premiums,
recording costs and fees of Buyer's attorney, shall be borne by Buyer. All taxes,
assessments, interest, rent, and escrow deposits, if any, shall be prorated as of the date of
Settlement and paid by Seller. Buyer agrees to pay any rollback taxation assessed against
the Property.
7. Closing. Closing shall take place at the Albemarle County Attorney's
Office on or before January 30, 2003 (or earlier if Buyer and Seller agree), or as soon
thereafter as title can be examined, and papers prepared.
8. Right of Entry. Buyer, its employees, representatives, agents and assigns,
shall have the right to enter upon the Property at any time prior to closing for purposes of
engineering, surveying, geo-technical investigation, soil borings and other necessary site
investigation, so long as such studies do not result in a change in the character or
topography of the Property. Buyer agrees to assume full responsibility for its actions or
those of its employees, representatives, agents and assigns resulting from such entry, and
shall pay all costs associated with such entry and any services obtained by it in the course
of such site investigation.
9. Risk of Loss. All risk of loss or damage to the Property by fire, windstorm,
casualty or other causes are assumed by, and shall be borne by the Seller until closing. In
the event of any material loss, destruction or damage to the Property by reason of fire,
windstorm, casualty or other causes prior to Closing which delays Closing, Buyer shall
have the right to void this Agreement.
10. Condition of Property. Seller warrants that the Property will be in
substantially the same condition at Closing as it is at the time of the execution of this
Agreement.
11. Construction, Benefit and Effect. This Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties, constitutes the entire
Agreement between the parties and may not be modified or changed except by written
instrument executed by all the parties.
12. Agreement Survives Closing. It is expressly understood and agreed by
Buyer and Seller that time is of the essence of this Agreement, and that all agreements,
promises, stipulations and representations contained herein shall survive closing and
shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators, agents, successors and assigns of the
parties hereto.
13. Purchase Continqencies. This Agreement is subject to approval by the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
14. Authorization of Purchase. Seller warrants that it has approved the
conveyance of the Property to Buyer pursuant to a duly authorized corporate resolution or
other authorized action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement as of the day
first above written.
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
SELLER:
BUYER:
CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK, INC.
a Virginia nonstock corporation
By: Danny Newton, President
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
THIS DEED dated this ~ day of March, 2003, by and between CLAUDIUS
CROZET PARK, INC., a Virginia nonstock corporation, Grantor and the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the total sum of THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($30,000.00), and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with
GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the Grantee the
following described property:
All that certain lot or parcel of land, together with the improvements
thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, situated in the
Community of Crozet in Albemarle County, Virginia, designated as
Albemarle County Tax Map 56 as Parcel 55, containing 2.19 acres, more
or less, as shown on plat of Warren F. Wade, C.L.S., dated February 16,
1970 (the "Plat"), of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 495, page 626, on which Plat
the subject property is identified by the name "WILLIAM WASHINGTON";
being the same property conveyed to Seller by deed from Vivian W.
Meads, Yvonne E. Shackelford, Denton Washington and Ora M.
Washington dated June 1,2000, of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed
Book 1924, page 103.
Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the land
conveyed hereby.
This conveyance is made expressly subject to all restrictions, conditions,
rights-of-way and easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other
instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the property conveyed
hereby, insofar as same affect said property, which have not expired by a time limitation
contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective.
The Grantee, acting by and through its Chairman, duly authorized by resolution of
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby accept the
conveyance of the interest in real estate made by this Deed.
This Deed is exempt from recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code. 58.1-801
pursuant to Virginia Code. 58.1-811 (A)(3).
WITNESS the following signatures.
GRANTOR:
CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK, INC.
a Virginia nonstock corporation
By: Danny Newton, President
GRANTEE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
Item 5.4. Addition of Corville Farm Road (Route 868) into State Secondary System of Highways.
Letter dated January 31,2003, had been received from Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator,
Department of Transportation, in which he stated that Corville Farm Road (Route 868) was ready for
acceptance into the Secondary System of Highways.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street described below was established in 1971, currently serves
at least three families per mile and serves from 200 to 300 cars per day from residencies
with no viable alternative; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has deemed this county's
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify this
county to recommend additions to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
33.1-72-1, Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all the property abutting this street,
this Board finds speculative interest does not exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the following
street to the secondary system of highways, pursuant to 33.1-72.1 (D), Code of Virginia:
Name of Street: Corville Farm Road
Length: 0.22 Miles
From: Route 691
To: Cul-de-sac
.AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to improve said street to the prescribed minimum standards, funding said
improvements pursuant to 33.1-72.1 (D), Code of Virginia; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1)
Corville Farm Road (Route 868) from the intersection of Route 691
(Greenwood Road), to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded
06/14/1971 in Deed Book 474, page 009; and Deed Book 499, page
376, 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 0.22 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.22 mile.
Item 5.5. Set public hearing to amend the service (jurisdictional) areas of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for sewer service to Tax Map 32A, Section 3B, Parcels 18 and 19, for Thomas P. Haught.
It was noted in the executive summary that the applicant is requesting Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) jurisdictional area designation for sewer service to two half-acre lots located on the north
side of Proffit Road (Route 649), approximately 400 feet west of Pritchett Lane. The property is located
within the designated Development Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Parcel 18 is the applicant's
residence and Parcel 19 is currently a vacant lot owned by the applicant. The applicant would like to
construct a new dwelling on Parcel 19; however, the request for a sewer permit was denied by the Health
Department due to the "presence of water table features in the shallow soil horizons." Also, the septic
system that serves the applicant's residence on Parcel 19 is marginal.
The site is located in the Springfield Subdivision, which is within the Hollymead Community. The
site is within the ACSA jurisdictional area designated for water service only. The applicant's lots are
approximately 1300 feet east of the jurisdictional areas for both water and sewer. There is a substantial
area of the Hollymead Community in the subject area that is not included in the ACSA jurisdictional area at
this time. This area is formed by the eastern side of Route 29, extending north to the North Fork Rivanna
River, proceeding east and winding along the North Fork Rivanna River to the end of Pritchett Lane,
following Pritchett Lane southwest to the Northwood Mobile Home Park. The Comprehensive Plan
recommends serving Development Areas with public water and sewer. Therefore, this quadrant of the
Hollymead Community should be designated as part of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for public water and
sewer service.
As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity be reserved to support development
of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with the public utility policy of the
Comprehensive Plan. Since this property is located within a designated Development Area, the provision of
both water and sewer service to the properties would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan public
utility policy. Therefore, staff recommends proceeding to public hearing to consider providing public sewer
service to Parcel 32A, Section 3B, Parcels 18 and 19. Staff also recommends that the Board consider
including in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for public water and sewer service the quadrant of the Hollymead
Community that is not currently included.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board ordered this matter set for a public hearing
on April 2, 2003.
Item 5.6. ZMA-2002-001. Fontaine Avenue Condos (Signs #77 & #81). To rezone 12.606 acs
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
from HC to R-15 to allow 112 units. TM 76, Ps 12A & 12G. Loc on N side of Fontaine Ave (Rt 702) approx
.25 mis W of intersec of Fontaine Ave & Rt 29. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 6.) Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
February 17 and February 24, 2003.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the public hearing on this petition was deferred until
March 19, 2003 at the request of the applicant.)
Item 5.7. Red Hill Groundwater Contamination.
It was noted in the executive summary that on February 12, 2003, County staff from Engineering &
Public Works met with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) representatives from Harrisonburg and
Richmond. DEQ staff requested assistance and cooperation from the County on a very difficult
groundwater contamination issue in the Red Hill area. DEQ has been investigating groundwater
contamination at the site since the late 1980s. Initially, the Trading Post's fuel tanks and dispensers were
the suspected source. At this point in time, five various tanks, spills and releases are under investigation.
So far, 11 wells have had petroleum products detected, and seven have had carbon filtration units (cfu's)
installed, some for many years. Over $1.0 million has already been expended on investigations and pump
and treat systems, and the plume is far from contained. To date, 2.8 million gallons of contaminated
groundwater and over 4000 gallons of free-phase gasoline have been extracted from the ground. Based
on extensive testing, the wells at Red Hill School have not been contaminated to date. However, the
topography of the area raises concerns that it may only be a matter of time.
According to Harrisonburg DEQ staff, they have investigated 2200 cases of petroleum leaks during
the history of the program, and the Red Hill case is the most difficult of all and is in the "top ten" statewide
with regard to expense and intractability.
The main reason that DEQ approached the County is that they are motivated to secure a
permanent, long-term alternative water supply for the impacted community. A couple of replacement wells
have been drilled on individual properties, but these have either become contaminated or are dry holes.
DEQ has funds, albeit limited, for the development of an alternative, centralized water supply, but would
need the County's assistance to coordinate with landowners and facilitate the process of finding a party to
administer and maintain the new system. Public water lines maintained by the Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) are miles away from the site and the cost of extending public water service to these
properties would likely be in excess of the property values.
The County has always been reluctant to approve new central well systems in the Rural Area.
These are perceived as not sustainable in the long-term, as evidenced by a steady stream of central well
systems in distress over the course of several decades. However, the nature of this case requires "out-of-
the-box" thinking. DEQ does not consider cfu's to be a long-term solution, and on-site wells do not appear
to be a promising prospect. Extending the existing public system does not appear to be feasible considering
the distance involved and the small number of households to be served. A centralized system could be
developed based on geologic studies to help ensure that the system is: (1) not in the pathway of the
contaminant plume, and, (2) fed by wells with sustainable yields.
The more difficult question is policy related. The County would have to approve the new system
under Chapter 16 of the County Code, and is being asked to help facilitate its establishment. The County
would also have to work very hard to find an entity to manage the new system, likely an existing utility such
as ACSA or a company already in the business of operating small water systems (of which there are
several in the area). It is interesting to note that the Groundwater Committee has recommended
reconsidering the County's central well policy if these systems could be designed based on scientific
information and operated under the auspices of a professional management entity. Perhaps the Red Hill
situation is the "camel's nose" in this regard. The County's motivation should also be prompted by concerns
for Red Hill School and the safety of its water into the future.
Staff asks that the Board authorize the Department of Engineering & Public Works to work with
DEQ to facilitate a long-term solution to the Red Hill contamination problem. This would entail County staff
working with DEQ on landowner contact, community meetings and the evaluation of various long-term
alternatives, including the establishment of a central water supply.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said the only question she has received is who people should call in the
County if they have questions. Mr. Tucker said DEQ is actually leading this effort, but citizens can call Mr.
David Hirschman as the local contact. Ms. Thomas said she tried to alert the School Board member for
that area. Mr. Tucker said school administration is working with staff on this effort.
(Mr. Rooker asked how many residences are affected. Mr. Tucker said staff knows of seven, but
they are looking at where the plume is moving, so there could be additional residences affected.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the Department of Engineering
and Public Works to work with DEQ to facilitate a long-term solution to the Red Hill contamination
problem.
Item 5.8. Letter dated February 5, 2003, to the Honorable Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, from
Janardan R. Pandy, Environmental Engineer Senior, Valley Regional Office, Department of Environmental
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Quality, re: Notice of a public hearing on an Application for a Major Modification under the State Air
Pollution Control Law, on a permit for the City of Harrisonburg - Resource Recovery Facility. This permit
will allow Harrisonburg to replace two municipal waste combustion (MWC) units and install a shredder.
The permit will also allow an increase in distillate oil throughput for its existing boilers. The control
technology that is being proposed for each MWC unit includes a dry-dry flue gas scrubbing system, a fabric
filter and a carbon injection system. The letter sets out the expected annual emissions of pollutants from
this source. The hearing will be held on March 6, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the conference room at the Valley
Regional Office, Harrisonburg, Virginia.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked if staff is looking at what this means for Albemarle. She has
become aware that EPA feels this is the next area in Virginia that will exceed air quality standards, and they
want to put air quality monitors here. She said the County[s neighbor in direct line of the wind flow is about
to put a lot of pollutants into the air. She thinks that putting solid waste into a combustion unit is not a bad
thing to do, but she feels it will create a lot of air pollution. She asked that staff look into this question.)
This letter was received as information.
Item 5.9. Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan (Code of Virginia. 15.2-2232) -
Albemarle County Government Operations Building, Southern Urban Area.
It was noted in the staff[s report that late in 2002, the Board of Supervisors entered into an
agreement to purchase the Wachovia Bank Operations building at 547 Old Lynchburg Road. Albemarle
County would like to use this building for emergency services and other operations. The building formerly
was used as a regional operations center for Wachovia Bank. The building would be used for the specific
County functions of Police Department headquarters and the administrative offices of Fire/Rescue and
other services still to be identified. Under the terms of the contract, Wachovia Bank will lease a portion of
the building back from the County until late in 2003 in order to continue existing functions. The County is
currently studying space needs to determine which additional department(s) would be most appropriate to
relocate to this site. The public use of the property requires a review for conformity with the Comprehensive
Plan under Code of Virginia. 15.2-2232.
The 10.07 acre property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 54P, is located at 547 Old Lynchburg
Road approximately one-quarter mile south of 1-64 in the Scottsville District. The property is zoned CO,
Commercial Office, and is designated for Office Service in the Comprehensive Plan. The property is
located within Neighborhood 5 of the designated Development Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The
parcel is at the junction of Old Lynchburg Road and Fifth Street Extended. The Wachovia property will
require some modification before any County operations can be relocated. While these modifications are
being planned, 30,000 square feet of the facility will be leased back to Wachovia for its use for up to 12
months. The surrounding area is generally suburban in character. A residential neighborhood is located to
the east and south of the site along Stagecoach Drive. Further southeast of the site is the Oak Hill Mobile
Home Park. To the west across Fifth Street Extended is the new Sterling multi-family development,
Country Green Apartments, and Southwood Mobile Home Park.
The purpose of this review is to determine if the general location is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan (see staff[s report for specific areas studied). Staff opinion is that this request is
consistent with the principles and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Transportation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that transit service be expanded
in the Urban Areas. Currently, transit service does not extend to the proposed site. The 2001
Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Transit Development Plan identifies the need to extend transit service
to Old Lynchburg Road. The plan includes a Five-Year Operating Cost Plan which makes
recommendations for phasing funding for transit improvements. The plan recommends that a new route be
funded to service Old Lynchburg Road in Year Five (FY 2005). This timing would coincide with the planned
occupation of the building by emergency services operations. Albemarle County and CTS are currently
one year behind in implementing funding recommendations. Staff recommends that the County implement
service to Old Lynchburg Road by FY 2005 as recommended in the Transit Development Plan.
It is staff[s opinion that this request is consistent with the principles and recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find this proposal consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, with the recommendation that the County implement transit service to the area as
recommended in the Transit Development Plan.
It was noted that the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 21,2003,
approved by a vote of 7:0, the County Operations Building, Fifth Street Extended, subject to the following
condition: "The County will implement transit service to the Old Lynchburg Road area by FY 2005 as
recommended in the Transit Development Plan.[]
This report was received for information.
Item 5.10. Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan (Code of Virginia. 15.2-2232) -
Relocation of Route 662 (Bleak House Road).
It was noted in the staff[s report that Virginia Code. 15.2-2232 requires that the Planning
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Commission review and approve the general or approximate location and extent of a street or public area
unless such feature is already shown on the adopted master plan. The proposed change in location of
Route 662 is not part of the County's Comprehensive Plan or any adopted transportation plan and needs to
be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Jonathan Z. Cannon and Alice P. Cannon have requested the County[]s permission to relocate a
portion of Bleak House Road (Route 662) that currently runs between the main house and the barn on their
property. The proposed project is about 1.5 miles north of the intersection of Bleak House Road with Reas
Ford Road (Route 660) in Rural Area 1. The road forms the boundary between the White Hall and Rio
Magisterial Districts. The proposed road relocation will begin at a point on the boundary between Tax Map
30, Parcel 10A, and Tax Map 30, Parcel 10, being the southwest corner 25 feet west of the center of Route
662. The proposed road will be relocated approximately 2530 feet to the west of the existing Bleak House
Road. The applicant's justification to relocate the road is to eliminate a public road that separates their
home from their barn. The applicants also request this road relocation to correct the blind curve on the
road.
The subject property is zoned Rural Areas and is designated as open space in the County Land
Use Plan. The relocated road will allow the barn and house to be on one parcel, thereby allowing the
parcel to be more attractive for agricultural purposes. The applicant has not indicated that there will be an
agricultural use.
Information from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources indicates that Bleak House is
considered potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Staff suggested that the
applicant study the site to determine its significance and eligibility for the National Register. An assessment
of the site was done by Archaeological & Cultural Solutions, Inc. A records review and on-site assessment
determined that "the only potential impact the new road may pose to historic resources could be to the
archaeological remains of the spring house that was sketched in the vicinity of the proposed alignment of
the new road. This statement refers to information the consultant reviewed from Mr. Cannon, which was a
surveyed sketch the previous owner had drawn that showed several outbuildings, including the spring
house. There is no evidence on the ground that this spring house existed.
Staff reviewed the records and conducted a site visit assessment and recommends that the
applicant institute measures throughout the duration of the project to ensure that the barn is not negatively
impacted by the road construction or construction-related activities, and if the archaeological remains of the
spring house will be impacted by the proposed construction, the applicant record the remains prior to
demolition. Staff believes these steps will protect the historical resources at this site.
The subject property is designated Rural Area (RA 1). Bleak House Road is located in the North
Fork Rivanna River Reservoir Watershed. The net long-term impact to the watershed from this relocation
project would not likely be significant since the current alignment already draws to the watershed. The new
alignment does increase the amount of impervious surface due to the increased length over the existing
alignment. The length of the proposed relocated section is 1150 feet, which will replace a section of 940
feet, a difference of 210 feet. Required erosion control measures should minimize the impact of
construction activity to the watershed. Staff does not believe the water supply watershed be negatively
impacted due to the proposed alignment of the new road.
The road currently carries 160 vehicle trips per day. The applicant indicates the road will eliminate
a blind curve. Staff has determined after a review of the plans and on-site visit that the proposed relocated
road will improve the blind curve. The applicant requested and received relief from Section 10.4, Rural
Area District Area and Bulk Regulations, in order to relocate Route 662 such that the required front setback
from the relocated right-of-way is not met for an existing barn. The applicant received approval to reduce
the front setback from the proposed relocated road from 75 to 13 feet, a variance of 62 feet. The barn is
currently about 45 feet from the edge of existing Route 662. The current road is unpaved. The proposed
new road will be unpaved as well at the request of VDOT. The adjacent sections of Bleak House Road are
unpaved. County Engineering and VDOT have commented on the proposed relocated road plans and
support approval with some modifications.
To summarize, the relocated road will correct a dangerous curve in the road and remove a public
road that separates two cultural resources. The relocated road will not negatively impact any identified
cultural resources. Staff finds the road realignment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It should be
subject to the following conditions: 1) VDOT and County Engineering approval of the road plans; 2) The
applicant institute measures throughout the duration of the project to ensure that the barn is not negatively
impacted by the road construction or construction-related activities; 3) If the archaeological remains of the
spring house will be impacted by the proposed construction, the applicant should record the remains prior
to demolition.
It was noted that the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 21,2003,
approved by a vote of 7:0, the Route 662 relocation, subject to the conditions noted above.
This report was received for information.
Item 5.11. 2002 Fourth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and
Community Development, was received for information.
Item 5.12. 2002 Year End Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Community Development, was received for information.
Item 5.13. Letter dated February 19, 2003, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to A. C. Shackelford, Jr., re: Official Determination of Parcels and Development Rights -
Tax Map 48, Parcel 19 (Property ofA. C. Shackelford, Jr., Mary L. Shackelford, et al.) - Section 10.3.1, was
received for information.
Item 5.14. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes of January 28 and February 11,2003, was
received for information.
Item 5.15. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, March, 2003, was received as
information.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Six-Year Secondary Road Plan, Work Session.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the Planning Commission reviewed the
County's Priority List and VDOT Six-Year Secondary Road Plan at its meeting on January 28, 2003, and
unanimously recommended approval of the Priority List for the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan for
2003-2009 (copies had been forwarded to the Board members with the materials for this meeting).
Mr. Benish said the Commission[s discussion focused on how to prioritize unpaved roads, giving
higher priority to those recommended by staff that are eligible for the rural rustic roads criteria. Based on
the Supervisors[] past practice of not impacting roads that are currently in the Six-Year funding cycle when
a new policy is implemented, staff created a new Priority List using the rural rustic roads criteria as the
second highest criteria for all unpaved roads after those roads that currently have an estimated
advertisement date. Several of the unpaved roads currently in the Six-Year funding cycle are also eligible
for the rural rustic road program (Gilbert Station Road, Heards Mountain Road, Beam Road, Wood Edge
Road, and Doctor Crossing Road). Because it costs considerably less to improve a qualifying rural rustic
road, additional funding would be available for other unpaved road projects.
Mr. Benish said the Commission recommended that the Board approve the Priority List for
Secondary Road Improvements, and staff recommends this approval be as amended to include the new
unpaved road priorities (inclusive of those qualifying for Rural Rustic Roads). He said that the Board is to
approve the Priority List for Secondary Road improvements for 2003-04 through 2008-09. VDOT will bring
back the actual Six-Year Plan later.
Mr. Dorrier asked why operation of the Hatton Ferry is on this list. Mr. Benish said it is the on-going
funding for operational costs of the Ferry. It has been included in the County[s construction program for
years.
Ms. Thomas said the list of unpaved road projects has been totally rearranged, and she does not
understand the reasons for some of the recommendations. All of these projects are more than six years
out, so it is not worth spending a lot of time discussing them, but she suspects that the roads for Rustic
Rural Road treatment have been moved ahead of other projects. She would like for the Board to make a
policy decision on this now, rather than just accepting staff[s recommendations. She thinks any road in the
development area should take priority, and there are several projects listed for roads in the development
area. Then, safety issues, such as school bus requests should come second if the present policy is going
to be changed.
Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation Planner, said a reason the projects on Attachment II may have
changed is that each year updated information such as traffic counts and road widths is received by staff.
That has a bearing on the priority listing of the road. If the project is outside of the Six-Year Plan, there is a
possibility the ranking of the project could change based on the information available. That is what
happened to a lot of the roads, and it would have happened even if there was not the new Rural Rustic
Roads policy.
Mr. Benish said the roads listed in the report which are shown in "bold[] and "italics[] are not roads
in the development area, they are new projects. There is only one road in the development area which is
an unpaved road project.
Ms. Thomas noted that in the staff[s report it says: "Staff recommends that rural rustic road
eligibility be added as a criterion with high priority weighting so that projects that meet these standards will
receive greater emphasis for development in the Six-Year Plan.[]
Mr. Benish said rural rustic roads are those roads which could be paved within the existing confines
of the road which staff perceived as being desired for paving. This would minimize the impact of a road
paving project. Therefore, projects meeting the rural rustic road standards would be closest to an ideal
road paving project as opposed to the standard construction project which normally takes out the existing
ditch lines and tree lines to create a much wider and more extensive road improvement. Staff felt that from
a design standpoint, it was probably the desired type of construction. The cost efficiencies of that type of
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
construction allow for projects to be constructed at a much cheaper cost than a typical unpaved road
project. By prioritizing rural rustic roads higher on the list, more projects can be completed within existing
funds.
Ms. Thomas said it also makes for more paving in the rural area. She thinks that is contrary to the
County[s growth management plan. She thinks staff interpreted the Board correctly in that it wants the
rural rustic road program to be used whenever possible, but now it gets to the question of whether those
projects should take priority over other projects in the rural area. That would be a change in the Board[s
policy, and she will argue that is not a desirable change.
Mr. Martin said the Board has been asking about the rural road issue and was told the Planning
Commission was discussing the issue and it would be coming to the Board. He had thought it would be
presented showing the old and the new formats together with more narrative than was presented with this
report. He wants to know what the rural rustic roads program will do. He said it is hard to determine from
this report what is happening. He agrees with Ms. Thomas that people who have had roads on the old list
for 20 years whose project was "bumped down[] will be upset. A lot of thought needs to be given to
keeping the old priority list in place as much as can be done, and use the new policy for roads as they move
up the list. He found the format very difficult to follow.
Mr. Tucker said with this additional guidance, staff can go back and reorder the projects the way
they were, and put the rustic roads where they would have been before staff determined they were eligible
for this new policy.
Mr. Martin said just for a discussion on the Rural Rustic Road Policy, he would like to see just a list
of unpaved roads and a narrative as to what each scenario does for each road.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Wade had pointed out there are many reasons for the changes shown other
than just qualifying for the Rural Rustic Road policy. She would like to have an explanation for each of
those roads.
Mr. Cilimberg said Ms. Thomas had said this plan would give more paved roads in the rural area.
To clarify, he wanted to say that this list contains all public requests. There will be not be any more roads
paved in the rural area under the rural rustic roads policy than there would have been without the new
policy. It is just that the road could get paved quicker.
Ms. Thomas said if there were 20 miles that could be paved in one year, and ten of those miles
were under the rustic roads policy, that means 30 miles could be paved because there is a cheaper way to
pave 10 of those miles. In any given year more pavement would be put down, even though it is in the way
desired. It still means more rural roads will get paved. She said the County has always paved the absolute
minimum. It is a longstanding policy that the County go slow on paving rural roads. Mr. Cilimberg said
these projects are listed only by public request. Ms. Thomas said she knows a lot of public requests are
made by just one person. When everyone who lives on that road is asked about the project, there are
many different answers. Essentially, the County would still end up with a paved road. For those interested
in not overly developing the rural area, she picked up in the descriptions of the rustic roads that one had to
promise that there would not be any development on that road for 15 years.
Mr. Benish said a draft resolution given to the Board for review outlines acceptable standards.
VDOT went though and evaluated these roads, and he presumes they evaluated which one of those
projects met their criteria which includes a Iow-density developed road.
Ms. Thomas said that bit about the 15 years seems to have dropped out of the description. Mr.
Davis said there is some doubt as to the meaning of the following words in the draft resolution: "... and
agrees that if further development should dictate further improvements within 15 years then future
improvements to this road will not be funded by the Department of Transportation.[]
Mr. Dorrier said these roads are proposed for paving because requests come from constituents.
He has heard Mr. Perkins say many times that a paved road is safer than an unpaved road. He thinks the
Board[s policy needs to reflect that this is being done for public safety.
Mr. Martin said in his district, his constituents want more paved roads. He is more than willing to get
more "bang for the buck[], so he disagrees with Ms. Thomas on that issue. He does agree that it is an
important policy change, and the Board needs to be aware of all of the implications. He has been opposed
to the policy of putting the least amount of money into unpaved roads. He does not want the Board to be
switching projects around on the priority list so that projects which have been on the list for a long time are
getting pushed back further.
Ms. Thomas said the draft guidelines for rural rustic roads requires a commitment from the County
that development will be limited to rural rustic roads so no further improvements are anticipated for a period
of 15 years. She thinks that people should know that if they get a rural rustic road, there is an expectation
at the State level that the County will assure that there be no further improvements for a significant period of
time. She thinks that should be added into what Mr. Martin asked for, more detail about this policy.
Mr. Martin said it only takes one person refusing to donate right-of-way to stop a project. Ms.
Thomas said that is not true for rural rustic roads because they do not need that additional right-of-way.
Mr. Jim Bryan said this is a great discussion. He looks at the rural rustic road as simply dust
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
control. It is dust control with a surface treatment. It is not what you think of as a blacktopped road. The
profile and drainage of the road does not change much.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a model of a rural rustic road in Albemarle County. Mr. Bryan said an
example of a prime candidate for this policy is Catterton Road. Reservoir Road would not be appropriate
because of safety issues. Secretarys Road is not appropriate because it would get a high volume of cut-
through traffic so speeds would increase. A road that is twisty and curvy is not a good candidate. Route
666 (Allen Road) is a dead-end so is just there to serve the residents, and has a Iow volume. Clark Road is
a good example.
Mr. Martin said after a few of these projects are done, people may say they do not want this type of
project, but want the paved road they signed up for 20 years ago.
Mr. Bryan said the criteria are there for a reason. They are very important. If the criteria are
followed closely, it will keep everybody honest so there are no unintended consequences.
Mr. Tucker said staff understands the Board[s concern and will bring back a narrative and reorder
the priority list so the Board can understand the staff[s rationale. After hearing discussion of this many
times, staff thought this was what the Board wanted to move toward. Mr. Martin said the Board is still saying
it wants to move forward, but Ms. Thomas wants to move forward for a completely different reason that he
does. Mr. Cilimberg said staff was also trying to reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff had spoken to the Rural Areas Committee about these issues. Mr. Benish
said infrastructure issues are part of the rural areas review. Unpaved roads and the provision of other
services to the rural areas will be discussed. Based on the policy to date, requests were accepted and put
through the planning process. If there is concern about the quantity of roads requested for paving, staff
needs to scrutinize and evaluate these requests in a different way.
Ms. Thomas said that during the work session with the Planning Commission later today, there will
be discussion of a policy which says "Gravel roads were desired to be kept as gravel to discourage
development along them.[] She said that has been the policy and is proposed to continue.
Mr. Benish said the draft VDOT resolution contains language stating "Whereas citizens that utilize
the road have indicated their support of this road being paved[]. He said there will still be some public
approval of the road process. Meeting the required criteria may have to be done in a different way. Staff
has recognized that public acceptance of a project may have to deviate a little on this type of project.
Ms. Thomas said in looking at the listing, she became aware that staff did not look at the School
Transportation Department[s list of hazardous roads. She has a list from several years ago, and does not
know if the Schools continue to update that list. She knows they made some specific requests because
their comments are in the narrative. She would like to ask that the staff report include what would happen if
priority were given to the hazardous roads from the school bus point-of-view. Mr. Benish said staff actually
checks with the school people, and they do furnish a list. Mr. Wade said that some years they furnish a list
which is more comprehensive than in other years. This year their focus was on Dry Bridge Road. Mr.
Benish said many of their projects can be done using Maintenance Funds so the project does not have to
be shown on the priority listing.
Mr. Wade said the list changes from year to year because some years there may be no school-
aged children living on that route. Mr. Rooker asked if the top five or six projects on their list is consistent.
Mr. Wade said he does not think so. When they gave the list a few years ago, staff tried to incorporate
some that could be done with maintenance funds, and other were integrated into the list. He can go back
and see if there are some they still want to have done. Mr. Rooker said at the rate these projects get
funded, if their priorities are built into the priority list for a few years into the future, by the time a project
works its way to the top of the list it may not be that necessary, and could certainly effect the way priorities
are decided.
Mr. Dorrier said that as roads have been paved over the last 25 years, the pressure to pave has
diminished. Mr. Wade said the County still has from 200 to 300 miles of unpaved roads. When he gets
calls, it is from only one to two people. He tells them that projects are already scheduled through 2010,
and although they are upset about it, they understand.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board could discuss the list from top to bottom. She said there is no
estimated cost shown for Hillsdale Drive. She thought this project was in the CIP. She thought the Pen
Park project could be moved up if it is to be funded by private sources. Morgantown Road residents do not
agree that it is a cul-de-sac, they want to have a taper turn lane on Route 250. A change has made in the
intersection, but they have not reached an agreement about the cul-de-sac because of safety concerns
from the Rescue Squad.
Mr. Cilimberg said Pen Park[s place in the listing is based on the rating system. The Board can
change that rating. Mr. Benish said it would require the County to obtain the right-of-way. There will be
contributions to the project, but they may not be sufficient.
Mr. Rooker said the Georgetown Road project keeps getting pushed back. It is up to 2010. It is
probably the busiest non-primary road in the County. It serves between 18,000 and 20,000 vehicle trips per
day. He is dismayed that some of these are safety improvements. There are more kids walking to school
along that road than probably anywhere else in the County.
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Bryan said part of that is the function of Truth-In-Lending, VDOT[s budgetary process. VDOT
had been promising too much with too little available funding.
Mr. Rooker said there are road projects ahead of this one that have only 4000+ vehicles per day.
He then asked where the County stands in regard to the Southern Parkway qualifying for secondary road
funding. It is mentioned in the paperwork that the project qualifies for State revenue sharing funds. He
does not know what that means. If the County decided to do that project with revenue sharing, would that
give the project priority over other projects. He thinks the Board should look at its options for that road since
the new County office building will be opening in that area. Huge numbers of housing units are being built
in that area. Depending on the amount of revenue sharing that could be obtained, while the County is
issuing a bond for the county office building, funds for the road might be considered. Mr. Tucker said the
County has already gone out for that bond. It might be considered for future issues.
Mr. Benish said staff will try to add revenue sharing funds to the Georgetown Road project this
fiscal year. That may get that project back on schedule. He said Mr. Wade is working with VDOT staff in
Richmond as to the qualifications needed for that. If the project were accepted for revenue sharing funds, it
would mean about $1.0 million a year. Right now, he understands the project does not qualify for general
construction funds.
Mr. Bryan said there is some internal confusion about that project which he will try to clear up.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be helpful if a column were added to the listing showing last
year[s priority for each project. Also, show what the advertising date for a project was on last year[s
listing.
Mr. Dorrier said this item will be put back on the agenda of April 2, 2003, for another work session.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda
Mr. Bryan said after a big event like the recent snowstorms, VDOT has an "After Action Review
(AAR)[, so they can find ways to improve service. He highlighted a couple of things on the "Issues[] sheet
in the monthly report: standards, subdivision, control of hired equipment, and, vehicle maintenance. At
some point, he would like to discuss some of these major issues.
Mr. Dorrier said he thought the snow removal was excellent. Mr. Bowerman said he had received
no complaints from citizens. All Board members agreed. Mr. Bryan said each snow event is different from
the last one. But, there are things that can be consistent, such as being ready for action. VDOT keeps
getting better on the control of its equipment.
Mr. Martin said that ten or 15 years ago, a snow of the same level would have been completely
different in terms of the people who could get to work and move around. He thought the snow removal this
time was great.
Mr. Bryan said one major lesson they learned is how they treat snow removal in subdivisions.
VDOT works on priorities, but they have learned that there is a point where they need to go to the next
phase and that is the subdivision phase so people can get to work.
Mr. Bryan said he had provided the Board members with a fact sheet on the Advance Mills Bridge
(Route 743 over the Rivanna River). He said there has been some confusion about this project. This is a
steel truss bridge with a sufficiency rating of six on a scale of 100. The bridge is ranked as the worst bridge
in the Charlottesville Residency. It has a posted weight limit of three tons and an average traffic volume of
800 vehicles per day. At the bottom of this sheet (on file in the Clerk[s Office) he explains about new
construction. The major point of new construction is that its advantages are also its disadvantages. A new
bridge can move traffic effectively and efficiently, but may not necessarily support the region[s land use
plan if it results in more traffic or unplanned development in the surrounding area. He said the bridge will
be closed six to eight weeks this summer while the repairs are made. The repairs will bring the rating on
the bridge backup to six tons.
Mr. Tucker asked if this information has been communicated to the neighboring properties. Mr.
Bryan said he answered a letter from Senator Deeds, and there have been some local calls about the
project.
(Note: At 9:58 a.m., the Board recessed in order to attend the VDOT Pre-allocation Hearing for
Primary Roads being held in the Lane Auditorium. At 10:42 a.m., the Board reconvened and continued with
the agenda.)
Mr. Bryan continued with the discussion of the Advance Mills Bridge. He said the drawing he had
attached to the fact sheet is self-explanatory. The stringers and some of the trusses will be replaced.
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Thomas said a Bridge Fund was mentioned at the Pre-allocation Hearing. She asked if that
would be helpful to Albemarle County. Mr. Bryan said it is a zero-sum game. There are no additional
funds. It might help the County to prioritize projects.
Ms. Thomas said the last time she talked with people along Morgantown Road, they agreed that
the Dry Bridge Road project should continue. If Faulconer[s decision is to have a site there, then the
neighborhood will want to rethink that position. At this time, they are pleased that VDOT is pushing ahead
with that project.
Mr. Bryan said he had just talked with his "boss[] while at the Pre-allocation meeting, and a 24-7
Pothole Project was mentioned. VDOT will be making an intense effort to treat the potholes. It is a
directive from the Governor, but he has no other information about it at this time. He said the potholes are
actually caused by drainage, so the better VDOT can treat the shoulders this summer, the less damage
there will be.
Mr. Martin asked for an update on the feasibility of turning left in both lanes from Route 20 onto
Route 250 East on Pantops. Mr. Bryan responded that he is waiting for a reply from the Culpeper office.
Mr. Bowerman thanked VDOT for the report on Carrsbrook. He does not know how he will
disseminate it, but appreciates the work. Mr. Bryan said he has promoted a peer-pressure type of approach
because it has worked in other areas. Mr. Bowerman said the residents will say the traffic is cut-through
traffic wanting to go north on Route 29. Mr. Bryan said the first step of this peer-pressure thing is to identify
where the traffic is coming from. Mr. Bowerman asked how that is done. Mr. Bryan said they can write
down license plate numbers. The Police can be helpful doing that; they were helpful on Morgantown Road.
Mr. Bowerman said the Police already have stepped up enforcement in this area. Mr. Bryan suggested if
they do two days of intensive enforcement and interview any violators.
Mr. Bowerman said there are two things the City is doing which could have a significant impact on
County roads. They are doing two bridge repairs, Locust Avenue Bridge and Park Street Bridge. Locust
Avenue will be closed for five months, and they have installed a signal at the intersection with North
Avenue. There will be some significant traffic impacts on Park Street. When they close Park Street in five
months, it will be as bad as when Rio Road was closed. In both cases, there will be dramatic impacts on
County citizens trying to get to downtown which he thinks has been underestimated by the City. He thinks
there should be some detour signs put up in coordination with the City.
Mr. Tucker said he will try to get the media to give it some additional publicity.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the City had contacted VDOT about the impact of this project on the
County. Mr. Bryan said they have not, but he will contact the City.
Agenda Item No. 7. Financial Advisors, Presentation by.
Mr. Courtney Rogers with Davenport & Company, the County[s financial advisors, was present.
He explained the rating process the County just went through to finance the Wachovia Building purchase,
and to finance the Juvenile Court renovation. He will also show the proposed CIP and explain how the key
debt ratios are projected into the future. He will give a comparison to show how Albemarle compares to
other AA and AAA rated counties in Virginia.
Mr. Rogers said they were hired by the County over three years ago to be its financial advisors. At
that time, the effort was to be on planning for the long-range CIP. They worked with County staffto develop
updated financial guidelines. Those guidelines were adopted in the year 2000. They then revised County
policies regarding debt, fund balances, etc. They worked on a formula to help the County set aside more
funds to help the pay-as-you-go capital projects in order to reduce the amount of borrowing for these
projects. In the fall of 2002, it was recommended that the lease/revenue approach was the way to finance
the Wachovia building and the juvenile court. That approach will be studied for the 800 MHz radio system
(emergency radio system) later this spring.
Mr. Rogers said that during that process they met with the two primary rating agencies in New York,
Standard and Poors and Moody[s Investor Service. In February, 2003 the ratings were received.
Moody[s took the step of giving the County the highest rating possible. He brought the Board[s attention
to Page 3 of the written report ("Current Financial Status and Effect of Long Range Capital Financing [,
March 5, 2003, which is on file in the Clerk[s office). He said both agencies look at four specific criteria
when they are giving a rating. They look at the County[s finances, its outstanding debt, the quality of its
management staff, and they look at the local economy. He said that when the financial policies were being
formulated two years ago, and what staff has been doing over the years, put the County in a position to get
this rating.
Mr. Dorrier asked the County[s rating before the present rating by Moody's. Mr. Rogers said the
County did not have a rating for a period of time because the County[s general obligation debt had been
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
retired in the mid-90's. Before the debt went offthe board, the County had a AA2 from Moody[s and a AA
with Standard & Poors. Mr. Tucker said the County had not borrowed since the mid-70s when Western
Albemarle High School was built.
Mr. Rogers said there was a good bond sale on February 25. The issue will settle on March 19,
and the funds will be available to reimburse the County for purchase of the building, and to have funds on
hand for the other project. Three firms with a local presence in the area were used to market the bonds.
The bonds were purchased by Retail Investors (individuals), trust funds, bond funds, and insurance
companies. The key was that the All-in-cost-of-money was at 4.33 percent for 20-year funds at a time
when the tax-exempt market indices are at or near their 40-year lows.
Mr. Rogers next went over a section in the report entitled []Economic & Financial Comparatives.[]
This consisted of numerous charts comparing Albemarle to other Virginia localities (see report which is on
file in the Clerk[s Office). These charts show the 10-year population growth, five-year school enrollment
growth, unemployment in December, 2002, earnings per job, five-year per capital income growth,
percentage of income earned, market value of taxable property, five-year growth of taxable property,
taxable property per capita, Fund Balance vs. revenue, cash and investments vs. revenue, tax revenue vs.
total revenue, intergovernmental revenue vs. total revenue, retail sales per capita, five-year growth of retail
sales, expenditures per capita, expenditures vs. income, real estate tax rate, debt outstanding, debt vs.
assessed value of taxable property, debt service vs. revenue, debt per capita, and debt vs. income.
Mr. Rogers drew the Board[s attention to Page 24 of the report which shows the CIP projects
through FY 2013 totaling $174.129 million which are to be financed with bond funds. He said this will be
explained in greater detail during the work session o the CIP later today. The next few pages show many
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
different versions of debt ratios with existing and proposed debt service. The Countyus current policy is to
stay below two percent of assessed values of taxable property for its outstanding debt. In order to retain the
current bond rating, the County must stay within its set guideline. If debt exceeds that guideline for an
extended period of time, that is a bad thing.
Mr. Rogers said the other current policy is that debt service as a percentage of revenues should not
exceed ten percent. He said that is one way of thinking about how debt affects the operating budget.
Another policy is that the undesignated Fund Balance, plus the designation for fiscal cash liquidity
purposes, at the close of each fiscal year should be equal to no less than eight percent of the Countyus
total operating budget, which includes the General Fund plus the School Fund. He noted that the
Countyus solid financial management has resulted in favorable credit ratings/upgrades; careful planning
vis-au-vis Capital project(s) is essential to maintaining long-term fiscal integrity; continued adherence to
County fiscal goals is strongly recommended; and during turbulent economic times, the Fund Balance is
very important.
Mr. Dorrier noted that Davenport had used a population growth figure of 2.19 percent a year for the
next six years. Mr. Rogers said they had used the five-year average projecting forward. Over the past few
years there has been very moderate growth in terms of population. There was a high of four percent in
1995, but for the ten-year average, it has been basically 2.28 percent.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Rogers for the presentation.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on a request to include Blue Springs Farm Subdivision under
Sec 4-213 of the County Code as an area where dogs are prohibited from running at large. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 17 and February 24, 2003.)
Mr. Tucker said that according to the Boardus policy, homeowners may request that the Board
designate specific areas in which dogs are restricted from running at large. Fifty-eight percent of the
residents of Blue Springs Farm Subdivision petitioned the Board to adopt an ordinance to designate the
subdivision as an area in which it is unlawful for dogs to run at large. According to the petitioner, seven
property owners signed the petition, one property owner does not support the designation, and four property
owners were unavailable. If the Board, after the public hearing, finds it appropriate to designate Blue
Springs Farm Subdivision as an area in which it is unlawful for dogs to run at large, staff recommends that
the Board adopt the proposed ordinance.
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.
Ms. Thomas asked how people were notified of this request. Ms. Carey said the hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress. Ms. Thomas said she tried to telephone the people in the subdivision who
did not sign the petition, but was not able to contact all of them. She asked how the neighborhood is
informed that an ordinance has been adopted after action is taken. Mr. Tucker said that normally the
Animal Control people put something in their mailboxes to let them know they are now in a leash law area.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter
4, Animals and Fowl, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, amending Section 4-213, In certain
areas, by adding Subsection (39), Blue Springs Farm Subdivision, as one of those areas where dogs are
prohibited from running at large.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 03-4(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs and Other Animals, Division 2, Running At
Large, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Section 4-213 In certain areas.
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE II. DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS
DIVISION 2. RUNNING AT LARGE
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Sec. 4-213 In certain areas.
A. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dog to permit such dog to run at large at
any time within the following designated areas of the county:
(1) University of Virginia grounds lying within the county. (7-19-73)
(2) Orchard Acres Subdivision, Crozet, as platted and put to record in the
clerk's office of the county: Section I, Deed Book 322, page 146; section 2, Deed Book
471, page 401. (7-19-73)
(3) Woodbrook Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of
the county: Section I, Deed Book 355, page 297; section 2, vacated, Deed Book 414, page
115; section 3, Deed Book 386, page 39; section 4, Deed Book 397, page 177; section 4A,
Deed Book 405, page 215; section 5, Deed Book 402, page 111; section 6, Deed Book
405, page 215; section 7, Deed Book 419, page 359; section $, Deed Book 459, page 209;
section SA, Deed Book 451, page 231. ($-22-73)
(4) Georgetown Green as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the
county in Deed Book 440, page 93. (9-26-73)
(5) Crozet areas, beginning at a point, a corner common to parcels 96, 46 and
45B of section 56 of the county tax maps; thence in a westerly direction and 45B of section
56 of the county tax maps; thence, in a westerly direction along the southern boundaries of
parcels 45B and 39, section 56 of the county tax maps to the centerline of State Route
240; thence with State Route 240 north to the intersection of the northeastern corner of
parcel 11 of section 56 of the county tax map; thence, in a westerly direction with the
northern boundary of parcel 11 to a corner with parcel 10D of section 56 of the county tax
map; thence, in a southerly and westerly direction with the eastern and southern
boundaries of parcels 10D, 10 and 9 of section 56 and parcel 69 of section 55 to a corner
with parcels 69 and 71A of section 55; thence, with the boundaries of parcel 71A of section
56 in a southerly, westerly and northerly direction to the corner with parcel 70F of section
55; thence, in a westerly direction with the southern boundaries of parcels 70F, 72 (13),
and 72B of section 55 to the southwestern corner of parcel 72B, a corner common with
parcels 74 and 75 of section 55; thence, with the eastern boundary of parcel 74 in a
northerly direction to the center of State Route 691 and continuing in a northerly direction
across State Route 691 and along the eastern boundary of parcel 66 of section 55 to a
corner with Orchard Acres, (section 55C); thence, with Orchard Acres in a clockwise
direction to its intersection with the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway and continuing across
the railway to its northern right-of-way; thence, in an easterly direction along the C & 0
right-of-way to its intersection with the western boundary of parcel 51 of section 55
extended; thence, in a northeasterly direction across State Route 788 to its intersection with
the western boundary of parcel 51 of section 55; thence, in a northeasterly direction along
the western boundaries of parcels 51,50, and 49 section 55 and parcel 1 of section 56 to a
corner with parcel 48 of section 55; thence, in a northwesterly and northeasterly direction
along the southern boundary of parcel 48 of section 55 and the southern and western
boundary of parcel 47 of section 55 continuing in a northeastern direction along the
western boundaries of parcels 1,3 and 5E of section 56 to a corner with parcel 5E of
section 55, parcel 17 of section 40 and Sunrise Acres (section 40A); thence, with Sunrise
Acres in a clockwise direction to the intersection with the centerline of State Route 810;
thence, in a southwesterly and south-easterly direction with State Route 810 to the
intersection with the southern boundary of parcel 64 of section 56; thence, in an eastern
direction with the southern boundary of its inter-section with parcel 66 of section 56; thence,
in a southerly and easterly direction around the western and southern boundaries of parcel
66 of section 56 to its intersection with parcel 66B of section 56; thence, in an eastern
direction along the southern boundary of parcel 66B, section 56, to a corner with parcel 58
of section 56A (2); thence, in a southerly and easterly direction along the western boundary
of parcel 58 to section 56A (2) to its inter-section with State Route 240 and continuing
across State Route 240 and parcel 60 to section 56A (2) and the C & 0 Railway to a corner
common to parcels 67 and 68 of section 56A (2) on the southern right-of-way of the C & 0
Railway; thence, with the southern right-of-way of the C & 0 Railway in a westerly direction
to its intersection with a corner common to parcel 58 of section 56 and parcel 71B of
section 56A (2); thence, in a southerly and easterly direction along the western and
southern boundary of parcel 58 of section 56 to a corner with parcel 57A (1) of section 56;
thence, in a southerly and easterly direction along the western and southern boundary of
parcel 57A (1) of section 56 and the southern boundary of parcel 57 of section 56 to a
corner with parcel 55 of section 56; thence, with parcel 55 of section 56 in a northeasterly
direction to a corner with parcel 54 of section 56; thence, in a southeasterly direction with
the southern boundary of parcel 54 of section 56 to its intersection with parcel 48 of section
56; thence, in a southeasterly and southern direction along the eastern boundary of parcel
48 of section 56 to its corner with parcel 47 of section 56; thence, in a southerly direction
along the eastern boundaries of parcels 47 and 46 of section 56 to the point of beginning.
(11-15-73)
(6) Jefferson Village Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
office of the county in Deed Book 449, page 637 and Deed Book 452, page 87. (12-19-73)
(7) Camelot Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the
county in Deed Book 450, pages 127 through 129, Deed Book 545, page 68 and Deed
Book 653, page 79. (1-23-74; 5-21-86)
(8) Sherwood Manor Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's office
of the county in Deed Book 504, page 114 and Deed Book 514, page 505. (1-23-74)
(9) Four Seasons as platted and put to record in the clerk's office of the county in
Deed Book 467, page 378 and Deed Book 481, page 417. (3-27-74)
(10) Earlysville Heights Subdivision as platted and put to record in the clerk's
office of the county in Deed Book 452, page 165 and Deed Book 491, page 3. (3-27-74)
(11) Westmoreland Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, as section 1, Deed Book 402, page 91; section 2,
Deed Book 414, page 29; section 3, Deed Book 419, page 265, and section 4, Deed Book
423, page 19. (5-22-74)
(12) Hessian Hills Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, as section 1, Deed Book 316, page 254; section 2,
Deed Book 327, page 327; section 3, Deed Book 370, page 145; Deed Book 379, page
365 and section 4, Deed Book 378, page 107. (10-9-74)
(13) Knollwood Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the clerk
of the circuit court of the county, in Deep Book 272, page 3. (Does not include Old Forge
Road or Hessian Hills Apartments.) (10-9-74)
(14) Stonehenge Subdivision as platted and put to record in the office of the clerk
of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 543, page 409; Deed Book 545, page 660;
Deed Book 548, pages 326,345,346,347,348,522 and Deed Book 550, page 320.
(1-22-75)
(15) Queen Charlotte Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 395, page 6. (3-10-76)
(16) Country Green Apartments as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk
of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 453, page 553. (12-7-77)
(17) Oak Hill Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 360, page 105; Deed Book 362, page 22; Deed
Book 391, page 483; Deed Book 396, page 291; Deed Book 398, page 317; Deed Book
401, page 228; Deed Book 405, page 433; Deed Book 441, page 299 and Deed Book 468,
page 85. (5-22-78)
(18) Westgate Apartments (County Tax Map 61, parcels 42, 42C and 42D) as
platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed
Book 497, page 636; and Deed Book 529, page 147. (5-22-78)
(19) Solomon Court Apartments (County Tax Map 61, parcels 42 and 43D) as
platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed
Book 349, page 390; Deed Book 353, page 145 and Deed Book 430, page 181. (5-22-78)
(20) Carrsbrook Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 357, page 55; Deed Book 361, page 127;
Deed Book 376, page 224, Deed Book 380, pages 249,251 and 253; Deed Book 384,
page 27 and Deed Book 387, page 469. (6-21-78)
(21) Deerwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 426, page 457; and Deed Book 455, page 16.
(6-21-78)
(22) Greenbrier Heights Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 550, page 601. (10-7-81)
(23) Huntwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court in Deed Book 728, page 377; and Deed Book 728, page 378. (5-13-87)
(24) Hollymead as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit
court for the following areas: Sections 1 and 2 in Deed Book 531, pages 309 through 313;
section 3 in Deed Book 714, page 444; Hollymead Square in Deed Book 633, page 330;
tax map 46, parcel 28G in Deed Book 418, page 440; tax map 46, parcel 26B2 in Deed
Book 741, page 304; and tax map 46B1-01-1 in Deed Book 489, page 381. (9-16-87)
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
(25) The urban area of the county, the communities of Hollymead and Crozet
and the village of Scottsville, all as defined in the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle
County, Virginia, and as shown on a map which is on file in the office of the clerk to the
board of supervisors. (11-4-87)
(26) Waverly Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 697, page 382; and Deed Book 781, pages 267
and 270. (12-16-87)
(27) Whipporwill Hollow as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the
circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 643, pages 285 to 292; Deed Book 644, pages
269 and 270; Deed Book 646, pages 220 to 221; Deed Book 657, pages 789 to 790; Deed
Book 659, pages 561 to 565; Deed Book 694, pages 544 to 545; and Deed Book 867,
page 253. (12-16-87)
(28) Key West/Cedar Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the
clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 353, pages 193 to 197; Deed Book
365, page 202; Deed Book 371, page 474; Deed Book 388, page 514; Deed Book 393,
page 417; Deed Book 410, page 577; Deed Book 420, page 259; Deed Book 505, page
607; Deed Book 530, page 351; Deed Book 543, page 114; Deed Book 661, page 44;
Deed Book 692, page 453; and Deed Book 809, page 623. (9-7-88)
(29) North Pines Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 703, pages 742,743 and 744. (1-17-90)
(30) The Meadows in Crozet as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 651, page 149. (8-8-90)
(31) Milton Heights Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 343, page 64. (8-17-94)
(32) Shadwell Estates Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 339, page 458. (8-17-94)
(33) Thurston Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 637, page 456. (12-7-94)
(34) Glenmore Planned Residential Development as recorded in the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 1074, page 203 and Deed Book
1209, page 257. (1-4-95)
(35) Peacock Hills Subdivision as recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of the County in Deed Book 589, pages 205-212; Deed Book 708, pages 286; Deed
Book 777, pages 039; Deed Book 904, pages 182, Deed Book 960, page 174; Deed Book
1025, page 610; Deed Book 1123, pages 071; Deed Book 1189, page 407; Deed Book
1310, page 128. (9-6-95)
(36) Lexington Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 564, page 088. (3-12-97)
(37) Bedford Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 365, page 212. (12-2-98)
(38) Westmont Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 1513, page 201, and in Deed Book 1617,
page 510. (5-3-00)
(39) Blue Springs Farm Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 1341, page 121. (3-5-03)
B. For the purposes of this section, a dog shall be deemed to be running at large
while roaming, running or self-hunting offthe property of its owner or custodian and not
under its owner's or custodian's immediate control. Any person who permits his dog to run
at large shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this section, and, upon
conviction, shall be fined not less than five dollars ($5.00) nor more than twenty-five dollars
($25.00). It shall be the duty of the animal control officer to enforce the provisions of this
section.
(7-19-73; 8-22-73; 9-26-73; 11-15-73; 12-19-73; 1-3-74; 1-23-74; 3-24-77; 5-22-74;
10-9-74, 1-22-75; 3-10-76; 4-21-76; 12-7-77; 5-22-78; 6-21-78; 10-7-81;5-21-86; 5-13-87;
9-16-87; 11-4-87; 12-16-87; 9-8-88; Ord of 1-17-90; Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. No. 94-4(2),
8-17-94; Ord. No. 94-4(3), 12-7-94; Ord. No. 95-4(1), 1-4-95; Ord. No. 95-4(2), 9-6-95;
Code 1988, 4-19; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-4(1), 12-2-98; Ord. 00-4(1), 5-3-00; Ord.
03-4(2), 3-5-03)
State law reference-Authority of county to adopt this section, Va. Codff 3.1-796.93.
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Agenda Item No. 9. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2002.
Mr. Ed Koonce, Chief of Financial Management of the County, was present to present The
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2002. He said he will present
four slides of the key exhibits in the statement. The statement is totally different this year due to the GAS-
B34 requirements. He apologized for the lateness of the statement, but due to GAS-B34 requirements,
both County staff and audit staff had to do a lot of extra work. They had to assign depreciation to all County
assets, they had to redo revenues on a full accrual basis from a modified accrual, and also had to do a
number of new exhibits. Even though this report is late getting to the Board, all submissions were timely
with the State Auditor of Public Accounts and also with the Governmental Finance Officers[] Association
which does the award of the Certificate of Excellence in finance reporting. Because of the GAS-B34
requirements, they basically allowed a one-month grace period throughout the country for all localities
submitting for the first time under these requirements.
Mr. Koonce said to help him with the presentation is Ms. Heather Welcher, the County[s new Chief
Accountant. Ms. Welcher said she would explain the difference between the government-wide statement,
and the fund financial statements. The main difference is that the government-wide statements are based
on full accrual accounting where the fund statements are based on modified accrual which is when
revenues are recorded where measurable and verifiable. Expenditures are not recognized unless they are
normally paid with spendable financial resources. Full accrual is reporting of revenues when earned, and
expenses and liabilities are reported when financial resources are available. With modified accrual,
revenues collected during the 45 days after the fiscal year ends are reported as receivables. With full
accrual, everything levied over the year that had not been collected would be recorded, less an allowance
for anything it is felt is not collectable.
Ms. Welcher said that changes in general to the report can be seen in Exhibit 3. The report is now
separated into major funds and non-major funds. Previously, under general governmental funds there
were listings for special revenue, debt service and capital projects, etc. Those are now lumped into one
column entitled "Other Governmental Funds[] which are considered non-major funds. The component unit
of the School Board is not shown with the governmental funds, but in supplementary information. GAS-B34
did not concentrate on the component unit so it is not required to be put on the front of the statement.
Mr. Dorrier asked the definition of non-major funds. Ms. Welcher said they are the smaller funds
such as special revenue funds, courthouse maintenance fund, the tourism fund, those with a small amount
of dollars compared to other funds.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it is local money. Ms. Welcher said "yes.[]
Mr. Rooker asked if these funds are actually segregated, or are they maintained in one account.
Ms. Welcher said they are separated in the accounting system, but for reporting purposes, they are lumped
together. Mr. Rooker asked if they are segregated into separate investment accounts, or is that all one
pool. Ms. Welcher said that is correct.
Ms. Welcher said the fiduciary funds are not reported on the front of the statement, but are reported
in separate statements at the back of the report. She said the only other change is that some of the
wording has been updated throughout the report. She said Exhibit 5 is a statement of revenues,
expenditures and changes in the Fund Balance.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any way to compare this year[s statement to that of the previous
year. Is the bottom line the same as it would have been if this report had been done in the old way. Does
this report make it look as if the County had a much bigger budget than it had before? Ms. Welcher said
Mr. Koonce will go into detail on that question in a few minutes. She said there are some changes to the
"Notes to the Financial Statement[] which are more detailed than in the past. There is a discussion of GAS-
B34 and its implications to the financial statement. Note 8 on page 52 deals with capital assets. That is
broken down into governmental activities and the component unit of the School Board. It shows greater
detail than it has in the past especially with the addition of depreciation. Assets are no longer broken out by
function. Note 24 on page 68 details accounting changes and shows how the audit got from last year[s
Fund Balance to this year[s beginning net assets for GAS-B34, and the governmental wide statements.
The changes were made basically because of the accrual basis change and the debt asset reclassification
with the School Board which Mr. Koonce will explain.
Ms. Welcher said in the required supplementary information section, there is a big difference
between the budgetary comparison schedules which were added. They now show the original budget, the
final budget, and then the actual revenues and expenditures. The majority of the statements in the required
supplementary information section are similar, although there may be some change in the groupings. The
component unit School Board Fund statements are included there, as well as reconciliations for those
statements. The schedule of the Director of Finance[s accountability is no longer required to be put into
the audit so that information is not included this year. The statistical and compliance sections of the audit
are basically the same as they have been in prior years.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any one page of the audit that could be used for a quick summary. Ms.
Welcher said "no.[]
Mr. Koonce said this audit has changed drastically. Reclassifications have somewhat moved the
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
comparison of one general type of fund to another. It will be harder to compare the audit with last year[s
audit. In the County[s accounting system there are nearly 200 funds that are used for an internal control
basis for tracking all operations. All of those are basically rolled into this one statement.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many checking accounts the County has. Mr. Koonce said there are a
number of them, but they are in one controlled master account. They are pooled together for utilization and
maximization of earnings. He said the three new main areas of GAS-B34 are in the first section of the audit,
pages 3 through 19. The one section that would give a good overview of the County[s activity, or financial
status, is the totally new section entitled "Management Discussion and Analysis.[] It is a written discussion
of all the activities and highlights of the financial area of the County.
Mr. Koonce said Exhibit 1 on page 17, Statement of Net Assets, is a totally new statement. One of
the thrusts of GAS-B34 was to consolidate all of the entity[s activities into one statement. It is harder for
most readers to understand, but from the financial side and the accounting area, this is where the thrust of
GAS-B34 is. It rolls all activities into two columns (governmental activities and component unit-School
Board). He said these two columns are the capital assets of the County, which as a whole has buildings
and assets, and the School Division have buildings and assets. Normally, when debt is issued to build a
new school, all the debt is recorded under governmental activity. There is no debt recorded legally under
the School System. But, when the assets are recorded, the component unit picks ups the assets. One of
the major changes in GAS-B34 is that it has shifted capital assets related to any debt over to the
governmental side to basically offset the debt that is on the governmental side. For this year in this
statement, there was about $52.0 million shifted from the component unit column to the governmental
column just for the presentation of this statement, and to move the assets over in relationship to the debt
the County is carrying.
Mr. Koonce said one other area he wants to mention is the bottom line "Total Net Assets.[] This
number for the first year is a significant number, but the true meaning of the number will be measured in the
years to come. The focus will be on the actual change in this number from one year to the next.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a page in this report that will show the change. Mr. Koonce said there
will be in the future.
Mr. Dorrier asked the difference between "Net Assets[] and "Assets.[] Mr. Koonce said everything
owned by the County are the Assets. Taking away from that everything that is owed by the County gives the
Net Assets.
Ms. Thomas asked if depreciation is figured on a public building. Mr. Koonce said they used basic
financial standards depending on the life of an asset. There are a number of schedules that apply to
different assets. Staff had to go back and pick up assets that had not expired and reapply depreciation to
those to bring them up to a certain point in time.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are guidelines which advise when to get rid of things that have
depreciated. Mr. Koonce said "yes.[ Mr. Dorrier asked if the total assets include everything owned by the
County and the Schools. Mr. Koonce said "yes.[] There is an explanatory note on Page 8.
Mr. Koonce said Exhibit 2 on page 18 (Statement of Activities for the Year Ended June 30, 2002) is
a new GAS-B34 requirement. In the past, in some of the supplemental data used to break down the
different departments and their budgets, activities were grouped together. Now, total expenses are taken
and any external revenue source assisting that activity is removed. That includes state or Federal grant
funds, supplemental revenues, reimbursements for the Sheriff[s department, park fees, etc. The column
entitled "Net (Expenses) Revenue and Changes in Net Assets[], shows the true cost of those activities. For
example for Health and Welfare, it shows a $15.0 million expenditure, but taking away grants, it comes
down to a total cost to the County of $5.9 million for all activity under that category.
Mr. Dorrier asked if that column shows only local money. Mr. Koonce said this statement will
clearly show what it is costing local government for these activities. He said this has been a fast
presentation, but they wanted to point out a few of the main highlights of the report.
Mr. Rooker said the $67.0 million for the Schools must be less State money. Mr. Koonce said that
$67.0 million is what it is costing the County for education. Under the line "Component Unit - Albemarle
County Public Schools[] it shows the total costs.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Koonce for the report, and asked if either Mr. Breeden or Mr. Farmer would
like to add anything.
Mr. Jack Farmer, with the firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, was also present. He said it
was a major undertaking to develop the new financial statements, and he would like to thank staff for their
support. He said it will take some time in order to work through these statements, but he thinks the section
on "Management Discussion and Analysis[] is integral to understanding the overlay of the new financial
statement. He said there is a clean opinion on the financial statements. Neither, the Government Auditing
Standards Report nor the Single Audit Act, had any findings or questions on management. He
congratulated the Board for the bond rating. He said that makes a fine statement for the management of
the County and the fiscal responsibility that has been in place during his association with the County. As a
Board, and as management, the Board is doing an excellent job.
Ms. Thomas said she has been very critical of GAS-B34 all along feeling it was a make-work thing
for the accounting profession. She wonders how much more expensive it was to go through this procedure
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
than through what was normally being done. Mr. Breeden said he does not know what that figure would
be, but the Audit Committee is aware that staff is putting out an RFP for a new auditor or a continuation of
the same auditing firm. There have been no additional costs incurred to date, only additional staff time.
There will be a difference in cost in the next proposal.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Breeden thinks this audit is better for citizen review than the old format. Mr.
Breeden said in a couple of years good comparisons will be possible. It will be a little tough in the
meantime.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2002-016. Old Trail Golf Club (formerly Bucks Elbow Golf Club)
Amendment (Signs #44, 76 & 93). Public hearing on a request to allow public golf course w/clubhouse in
accord w/Secs 10.2.2.4, 13.2.2.4 & 16.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ord. TM 55, Ps 84C, 84E, 102, 103, 103F, 83 &
71 contains 207 acs. Loc on Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Rt US 250) approx 0.5 mis E of intersec of US 250 &
1-64. Znd RA, R-l, R-6 & EC. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on February 17 and February 24, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is proposing to build an 18-hole golf course (with a food service
area, pro shop, and driving range) on rural land on the western border of the Crozet Development Area.
The property contains 453.015 acres and is located on Rockfish Gap Turnpike. The property is zoned RA,
R-l, R-6 and EC. The remainder of the property within the Crozet Development Area is expected to be
converted to urban residential or mixed-use development at a later date. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the western portion of the property as Rural Area. The eastern portion is located in the Crozet
community and is currently designated for neighborhood density development (three to six dwelling units
per acre). The neighborhood master planning process which is now underway in Crozet may lead to
changes in the designation of this portion of the property.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Open Space Plan in the Comprehensive Plan identifies Important Farmlands
and Forests in this vicinity. Lickinghole Creek and Slabtown Branch are identified as Important Stream
Valleys. There are critical slopes and stream buffers on the golf course site. "Mountain View[], a historic
house originally built in the early nineteenth century, stands on the property.
Mr. Cilimberg said the primary issue staff dealt with is its relation to the Development Area and
particularly to the master plan work on potential transportation facilities and roads between Route 250 and
Jarmans Gap Road. Conditions have been recommended that will address that particular matter.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on February 25, 2003, by a vote of 5:0, the Planning Commission
recommended approval subject to 18 conditions.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Gaylon Beights said he is one of the owners of March Mountain Properties, LLC. The other
owners are also present today; Jerry and Judy Kamis, Jay Jessup and Susan Staton. He thanked staff for
doing a great job. The applicants have agreed to 16 conditions. This petition has been before the Planning
Commission twice. He offered to answer questions.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Dick Grant said he is an adjacent neighbor. He believes this is a most attractive addition to the
Crozet Community. He thinks it will be a good buffer between the high density growth area and the open
space rural areas to the west. This will ultimately reduce the potential for rural high growth development.
He thinks the developers have held up their golf course planning for over a year in order to buy sufficient
land so they could place it outside of the growth area. He hopes the extra cost and planning time will not be
extended further.
Mr. John Savage said he lives in Cory Farms Subdivision. He sees this golf course as a private
investment that results in enhanced recreational facilities for all residents of the County. He thinks its
location may draw in residents from other counties, thus giving enhanced revenues. He said Mr. Bates and
Mr. Kamis participated in the Crozet master planning process to listen and get input as they moved forward
with the project.
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 had the privilege of being given a tour of the facility. As a non-golfer, even
she could see what a marvelous experience this would offer to golfers. She assumes that when the
applicant said he was happy with 16 conditions, that he actually meant 18. She then offered motion to
approve SP-2002-016 with the 18 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Rooker said this petition was delayed for almost a year while the Crozet master planning took
place. He thinks the development team should be complimented for their participation in that master
planning.
Ms. Thomas said Condition #7 requires that the clubhouse be located within the Albemarle County
Service Authority jurisdictional area. She asked if that jurisdictional area could be moved to include that
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
clubhouse. Mr. Cilimberg said the boundary can be adjusted if necessary. What the Planning Commission
endeavored to do was to include that part of the facility within the Development Area.
At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
The facility shall be in general accord with the plan titled "Old Trails Golf Club",
prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., dated October 21,2002, and
revised December 16, 2002, subject to these conditions;
The applicant shall construct a road to serve the golf course, built to public road
standards and running from Route 250 to the property line at the northern edge
of Tax Map 56, Parcel 14. The road shall follow an alignment consistent with the
Crozet Master Plan, once adopted;
Private club memberships shall not be required for access to or play on the
course;
There shall be no outdoor lighting of the course or of the practice area/driving
range;
No new residential development shall be permitted within the "Limits of Golf
Course indicated on the plan titled "Old Trails Golf Club", prepared by
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., and dated October 21,2002, and revised
December 16, 2002;
The existing house known as Mountain View shall not be demolished;
The clubhouse, restroom building, and maintenance facility shall be located
within the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area;
No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than fifty (50)
feet to any residential or rural district. No parking area or loading space shall be
located closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural district;
All landscaping around the clubhouse, restroom building, maintenance facility,
parking area and other facilities shall include only native plants identified in the
brochure "Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping:
Piedmont Plateau," published by the Virginia Department of Conservation &
Recreation;
Vegetated areas of the facility outside the tees, greens, fairways, roughs, cart
paths, and access road shall remain in their current states (if wooded) or be
revegetated and maintained in native plant species. These species shall be
selected from the brochure "Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and
Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau" and/or "Native Plants for Conservation,
Restoration, and Landscaping: Riparian Forest Buffers," published by the
Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation. Species identified in the
"Riparian Forest Buffers" brochure as being native only to the Coastal Plain
region shall not be used. Management of these areas shall maintain them in
native plant species. Non-native plant species shall be diligently removed from
these areas. The applicant shall submit a letter from the Thomas Jefferson Soil
& Water Conservation District stating that these plantings required have been
established to the District's satisfaction;
The applicant, upon the request of the County, shall provide verification to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development that the site
is in compliance with the specifications contained in Conditions 9 and 10
regarding the landscaping plan;
Stream buffers in pasture at the date of this approval shall be revegetated in
accordance with the schematic titled "Minimum Standard for Hole Crossings in
Existing Pasture Areas", dated January 15, 2003, and prepared by Jerry Kamis.
The design of the stream crossing on hole twelve (12) shall be deemed to be in
general accord with the plan titled "Old Trails Golf Club", prepared by
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., dated October 21,2002, and revised
December 16, 2002, and shall use a minimal sight line subject to a mitigation
plan to be approved by the Department of Engineering and Public Works;
Irrigation water for the golf course shall come only from surface water
impounded on existing ponds on the site;
The dams and outlet structures on the two (2) ponds on the site shall be repaired
and upgraded to the satisfaction of the Department of Engineering and Public
Works;
The course shall secure Department of Engineering and Public Works approval
of a natural resources management plan. This plan shall address wildlife
conservation and habitat enhancement, waste reduction and management
(including hazardous material storage and spill containment), energy efficiency,
water conservation (including water-use reporting and efforts to protect stream
flow in Slabtown Branch), water quality management (including runoff
management for the clubhouse area, monitoring, and reporting), and integrated
pest management. The applicant, upon the request of the County, shall provide
verification to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Public Works
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
16.
17.
18.
that the site is in compliance with the specifications contained in the plan;
Grading shall be carried out in general accord with the conceptual grading plan
titled "Preliminary Grading Plan," prepared by Gene Bates Golf Design, and
dated January 9, 2003;
Cart-path stream crossings shall be built in general accord with the drawings
titled "Wooden Cartway Crossing Plan" and "Wooden Cartway Crossing
Elevation;" and
Neither the green for hole fourteen (14) nor the tee boxes for hole fifteen (15)
shall be located less than twenty-five (25) feet from the property line.
Agenda Item No. 11. FY 2003-04 Budget Briefing.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has already seen most of the information he will present this morning,
but he will give the Board a different perspective on some issues.
Mr. Tucker mentioned the challenges facing the County: growth and urbanization of the County -
infrastructure and service needs continue to grow; citizen expectations, i.e., education, fire/rescue services
and recreational needs must be addressed; there is uncertainty about the Federal, State and local
economy; State mandates are a major issue; and, security issues post September 11 must continue to be
addressed.
Mr. Tucker said the County[s response to this are long-range issues. There is no []quick fix.[]
Staff is using the customer survey which was completed in 2002 to determine resident needs and wants.
The Strategic Planning which began last year is focusing on high quality education, protecting natural,
scenic and historic resources, enhancing the quality of life in the County, and providing effective/efficient
services for citizens. With those goals in mind, staff will endeavor to become a High Performance
Organization.
Mr. Tucker said the budget for FY 2003-04 will focus on meeting obligations and mandates. A lot
of things were put on hold, and some reductions had to be made in this budget request.
Mr. Tucker said the County will be focusing on strategic priorities of: promoting high quality
education, protecting the County[s rural character, providing a superior quality of life, and exceeding
customer expectations (all of this is set out on a hand-out which is on file in the Clerk[s Office).
Mr. Tucker said that in order to move forward, staff will continuing with the strategic plan, will
continue to provide the highest level of customer service, continue to improve business processes and
programs for efficiency and effectiveness, and remember to put reduced revenues and budget gaps in
perspective.
Mr. Tucker then explained five-year revenue trends, and revenue changes over FY [03. He
explained the allocation of increased local tax revenues as $2.7 million to the School Division, with $1.8
million going to Local Government. The problem occurs in that there are decreased revenues expected in
Other Local Revenues, State and Federal Revenues, bringing that figure to $1.022 million for Local
Government. Total obligated expenditures amount to $2.046 million which makes a shortfall in expected
revenues of $1.024 million. In order to balance the budget, eight positions were frozen, department
baseline budgets reduced, on-going capital expenditures reduced, all community agencies were level
funded, and no funding for new or expanded requests was included. These things amount to $1.3 million.
Mr. Tucker next explained expenditures for General Government operations. He said the category
of "Administration [ shows an increase of 2.3 percent. This is basically because the County share of the
Human Resources Department will increase from about 23 percent to 25 percent. This is due to the added
employees at the Jail, the added employees at the Juvenile Detention Center, and the added employees
for Fire/Rescue. The other major category is for Engineering/Public Works which shows an increase of
24.2 percent, which is due to the landfill remediation costs. The overall increase is about 2.3 percent for
General Government, while the Schools have almost a four percent increase.
Mr. Tucker said local funding for the Schools increased 8.2 percent, their State revenues are
expected to increase by 2.6 percent and their Federal revenues are expected to increase by 5.3 percent.
He does not have the expenditure side of the School budget yet, but the bottom line is $116.9 million where
their revenues are at $115.1 million. That budget is out of balance by $1.8 million. Mr. Rooker said the
School Board has several million dollars in its Fund Balance. Mr. Tucker said they do have about $2.0
million in that fund balance.
Mr. Tucker next showed charts outlining revenues and expenditures for the FY 2004-08 Capital
Improvements Program. That total is $112.7 million and there is a work session scheduled to review the
CIP later this month.
Mr. Tucker said this is not a good year financially, but there have been difficult years in the past. He
met with all staff yesterday to go over this same information. He told them that there is an attempt being
made to cover all health care insurance needs, and he is proposing a two percent salary increase in this
budget. But, the goal is to fund in January, 2004, the full 3.8 percent that market indicates is necessary.
Hopefully, revenues will improve in the fall.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is a different recommendation than that of the School Board. Mr. Tucker
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
said that is correct. Because their revenues are stronger than those of General Government, they plan to
make salaries a priority and will fund the 4.0 percent for their teachers, and the 3.8 percent for their
classified employees on July 1. During work sessions, the numbers usually change, but he does not
believe they will do so this year. If the Board decides they want to stay with Commonality with the Schools,
staff will try to make changes and find the other $380,000 which would be needed to make the increase
effective July 1 for General Government employees.
Mr. Dorrier said he believes a two-percent increase is better than what most employers are giving,
although some localities are giving a larger increase. He said this will be the third year that State
employees have not received any increase. The County has not had to face that same thing for these three
years, and he reminds employees that things have to be kept in perspective. But, if salaries drop behind
market, there would be a much bigger increase needed later.
Mr. Rooker said he has talked with a number of State employees who are looking elsewhere for
employment. Three years without any salary increase is demoralizing.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this is a good recommendation.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to thank staff for excellent work on the budget. Also Mr. Breeden
and his employees, Mr. Tucker and Ms. White, for the Triple []A[] bond work. It certainly will accrue to the
County[s financial benefit over future years.
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:25 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; and, under Subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of property for a public use
finding that a discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating
strategy of the County. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:52
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman 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. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
(Not Docketed: Mr. Dorrier said the Board held a public hearing and approved SP-2002-16, Old
Trail Golf Club, this morning. He understands that a member of the public wished to speak at that time, but
did not.
Mr. Rooker said the Board took action on this request this morning, but could make a motion to
reconsider that action if it heard anything that would change that vote.
Mr. Dorrier said he would allow comments now because the speaker misunderstood the time the
petition would be considered.
Mr. Paul Grady said the advertisement in the newspaper gave the hearing time as 1:30 p.m. He is
a resident of Crozet. He spoke to the Planning Commission several weeks ago saying the residents of
Crozet and the surrounding area are going to be asked to absorb about 10,000 new residents in the next 15
or 20 years. He thinks they deserve something for their troubles. He said this golf course would create a
great natural buffer at the western end of the growth area and virtually eliminate the possibility that growth
will ever jump the golf course and continue westward. But, what about traffic in 15 to 20 years. There are
not enough solutions in the consultants Crozet Framework Plan to keep downtown Crozet from reaching
traffic gridlock quickly. If that happens, the traffic on Half-Mile Branch could increase dramatically. That
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
road is on the County[s long-range highway plan for improvement, but he thinks there would be an outcry
from the citizens if the road were improved in its present location through Yancey Mills.
Mr. Grady said he presented his idea for relocating the southern half of Half-Mile Branch to the
Planning Commission. They asked the applicant if this road could be built, and he gave numerous reasons
why it could not be built. Mr. Grady went on to list in detail things he had done to satisfy himself that this
road could be built. He said the applicant intends to sell two residential lots on an unused corner of the
property southwest of the course. Since this road would be the dividing line between the golf course and
the two lots, he does not think the loss of 30 feet or so would be a hardship on the developer. He is not
suggesting that the applicant build the road or even donate the right-of-way, only that they reserve the right-
of-way. He believes donation of the right-of-way would enhance their standing in the community. He asked
that the Board look 15 to 20 years in the future and imagine what the quality of life will be like for the
residents of Yancey Mills as they are inundated with an unacceptable amount of traffic caused by the
growth in Crozet. If the Board does not ask that right-of-way be reserved as part of this project, in 15 years
it will be too late.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Grady spoke to the Planning Commission and he thought it was an interesting
idea, but was not recommended by staff. The Commission did not recommend it, and he does not think
this particular alignment of this road is in the Crozet Framework Plan. He disagrees with Mr. Grady on one
thing he said. The applicant never demonstrated a desire to get in and out of here as quickly as possible.
He deferred his plan for about a year to work with the Crozet community on its master planning which he
thought demonstrated good faith. Also, the 18 conditions placed on the petition during its approval were
accepted by the developer. He said he neither agrees or disagrees with Mr. Grady because this route has
not been recommended by anyone else. It is difficult to request a developer to reserve an area for a road
that County staff does not recommend, and that the Planning Commission did not recommend after
hearing the presentation.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Grady often comes to MPO meetings and brings up items which have not
been recommended by anyone previously. She said there is already regret about not picking up on one of
his ideas having to do with the Catholic School on Rio Road, and the Eastern Connector. She always
listens to him very carefully. One good thing about a golf course is that it does not preclude some other use
of the property in the future. She said the applicant has provided a north-south connector in that area.
VDOT recommends that it come in where the Western Albemarle High School road comes onto Route 250
so there can be a light and a control point for traffic. VDOT thinks that is the preferable place to have the
traffic come in, and it is more internal to Crozet. She will stick with what staff and VDOT are
recommending.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Grady for his comments, but said the Board made a decision this morning
to approve the request. He apologized for having advertised the hearing giving the incorrect time.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments.
Mr. Rooker moved to make the following appointments:
Reappoint Mr. William Harvey to the Advisory Council on Aging, with said term to expire on May 31,
2005.
Reappoint Mr. Nickolas J. Sojke to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART)
Advisory Committee, with said term to expire April 3, 2005.
Reappoint Mr. Edward Jones and Mr. Hovey Dabney to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (T. J.
Planning District), with said terms to expire on March 31,2005.
Appoint Mr. Richard Lindsay to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (T. J. Planning District), with said
term to expire March 31,2005. Mr. Lindsay replaces Gene Smith whose term expired on March 31,2003.
Reappoint Mr. Peter Sheras to the Region Ten Community Services Board, with said term to expire
June 30, 2006.
Reappoint Ms. Karen Lilleleht to the Housing Committee, with said term to expire December 31,
2005.
Appoint Mr. Kevin O'Connor to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens[] Advisory Committee,
with said term to expire December 31,2004. Mr. O[Connor replaces Mr. Leslie Reed whose term had
expired.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Agenda Item No. 15. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker mentioned an article he had seen regarding the West Nile virus.
sure the County has an on-going communication program concerning this matter.
He just wants to be
Ms. Thomas mentioned a letter from Central Virginia Health Services, Inc. She would like the
Board to adopt in principle a supporting resolution and then have staffword it and bring it to the next Board
meeting. She said this is an entity that provided care to 1700 patients in the Esmont area in 2002. They
use a sliding scale for payment of fees, about one-third of their patients are at 200 percent below the
poverty line. Many of these patients are uninsured, on Medicare or Medicaid. Central Virginia wants to add
a facility and a dentist. Unlike almost everything else in the health care world, this seems to be a popular
idea with Congress right now, so there is money. No local money is being requested. They want letters of
support from many people and agencies in the community. She said this entity was approved by the
Planning District Commission in the early 70s, and they fought over this for a long time because it was
regarded as being socialized medicine.
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Rooker will be meeting with Mr. Butch Davies regarding the Meadow
Creek Parkway. They will explain to him the design process the County went through so he understands
about the importance of the parkway design and the parkland.
Mr. Rooker said there has been some problem in getting back from VDOT designs that match the
design of the County[s consultant, and the design that the City has. They want to be sure the County[s
design fits with the City[s design and is a parkway type concept. The things that are called for in the
County[s design are less expensive than the things shown in what VDOT has been sending back to the
County. For example, they want to put in curb and gutter, and there is no curb and gutter in the City[s
design, and it is not a parkway concept. The County is asking for a path system that is separated from the
road.
Ms. Thomas said VDOT wants a drainage detention system which does not match what the City
has in its plan. They have curves which are poorly designed.
Mr. Rooker said it is a meeting with City people, Mr. Maurice Cox, Ms. Meredith Richards, Ms.
Thomas and himself to meet with Mr. Will Rieley to make certain the County[s design matches with the
City[s design. Also, Mr. Jack Kelsey from the County[s Engineering Department will be present. Mr.
Tucker asked if engineers from VDOT will attend. Ms. Thomas said they decided not to have them attend.
Mr. Rooker said the head of VDOT[s Location & Design Team has been asked to attend. He has been
more sympathetic to the design concerns for the road.
Ms. Thomas said she is going to call residents in Blue Springs Subdivision to let them know about
the dog leash law adopted by the Board earlier in the day. She did not realize that the Board does not notify
people that these things are adopted. It has been suggested that the petitioners bring in something that
every landowner has signed to say they know about the issue, or the public hearing date.
Note: At 3:15 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened in Room 235 at 3:30 p.m. for a Joint
Meeting with the Planning Commission.
Agenda Item No. 16. Call to Order. The meeting was called back to order at 3:30 p.m. by Mr.
Dorrier. The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Mr. Rieley, Chairman.
Planning Commission members present: Mr. William B. Craddock, Mr. William Edgerton (arrived
at 3:40 p.m.), Mr. William Finley, Mr. Will Rieley and Mr. Rodney Thomas. Also present were Mr. Greg
Kamptner (Attorney), Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, Ms. Joan McDowell, Planner,
and Ms. Lee Catlin, Title, acting as facilitator.
Agenda Item No. 17. Rural Areas Section of Comprehensive Plan, Work Session on.
Mr. Benish said staff had forwarded two different staff reports to the Board and Commission
regarding this matter. He said the report outlines the Rural Area Strategies that staff proposes to include in
the draft of the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. These strategies were developed from
staff analyses and from speaking with individual citizens and organizations. They also met with the Rural
Area Focus Group, an ad hoc group of citizens representing several established organizations in the
County.
Mr. Dorrier asked the meaning of "ad hoc group.[] Who made the appointments and how were
these people chosen? Mr. Benish said the appointments were made at the suggestion of Mr. Bob Watson
to formulate a group to represent many types of organizations.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many people are members of this group. Mr. Benish said there are 10
people. The group is helping staffwith discussion of issues. It is being used as a springboard and conduit
for certain areas. Meetings were also held in adjacent communities and counties to discuss issues of
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
common interest. Then, staff held four public meetings around the County on this issue. Staff worked with
the Planning Commission to develop guiding principles. Those principles are guiding the Commission and
staff through the review process. Also discussed with the Commission was the Groundwater Committee
Report and infrastructure issues.
Mr. Rooker asked if there are any guiding principles in the existing Rural Areas plan. Mr. Benish
said there are none for the Rural Areas at this time because that section has not been updated with the rest
of the Comprehensive Plan. (Note: Mr. Edgerton arrived at 3:40 p.m.) Staff worked with the Planning
Commission to develop guiding principles, and those will be forwarded to the Board in the near future. He
said the rural areas are very important to the Board, Commission, staff and citizens. That was reflected in
the County survey last year. Water quality, protection of streams, reservoirs and wells, preservation of
natural resources and open space, and preservation of farmlands and forest lands were highly rated
issues. He said the Countyus new Strategic Plan establishes a community vision which says the
community is visualized as one which balances natural and built environments, and has a vital urban core
surrounded by a rural area that remains predominantly green and open. The Growth Management Policy is
long-standing, and it encourages the protection of resources in the rural areas and indicates that the rural
area is not intended to be a residential district. He said that as development continues to occur in the rural
areas, it is a struggle to meet the visions established for the rural areas. Comments coming in through the
process support protection of the rural areas, but how it can be accomplished has elicited a lot of debate
often with conflicting viewpoints.
Mr. Benish said the staff report for this meeting provides an early assessment of the strategies felt
to be important to address rural area issues. The purpose of this meeting is to get directions from the
Board and Commission regarding these potential strategies since they will require a lot of work by staff.
They are ones which could create concerns in the community. During the review process they could create
reactions that could be detrimental to the rural areas. It is important that staff use its resources efficiently
and focus on the areas the Board and Commission feel are important.
As an example, Mr. Benish said one major issue concerns the potential recommendation for
central water and sewer systems for PRDUs or other types of rural development. It has been a long-
standing policy that these systems not be allowed, but some work by the Groundwater Committee indicates
that there may be of some benefit to groundwater. Another major issue relates to rural crossroads
communities. The County has struggled in the past with how to locate strategic services in the rural areas,
and how to identify existing services in the rural areas. The Countyus efforts have not been well-received,
but it seems it is something in which the public is interested.
Mr. Benish said staff has identified a number of ways to deal with development densities in the rural
areas. Alternatives to reduce development in the rural areas could be achieved through reduction of
assigned development rights, increasing the size of non-development right lots, or through other zoning
approaches (e.g., large-lot zoning, sliding-scale zoning, etc.). Staff is considering a number of different
types of ordinances to address resource protection and development in the rural areas. These are
significant issues, and staff needs as much direction as possible before it spends time and effort
considering these things. He said this will be a facilitated meeting by Ms. Catlin to help guide the discussion
through these issues. There are many staff members present who can answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier said there are a lot of subdivisions already platted in the rural areas, and he asked if that
will be looked at in this process. Mr. Benish said staff has furnished some information on development
trends, and will be assessing that impact. The County is getting consistent growth in the rural areas, and it
will have to be decided if that is meeting the vision which has been established for the rural areas.
Ms. Catlin said the purpose of this meeting is to establish guidelines or parameters within which
staff should focus its efforts for the Rural Area Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board and
Commission will not be setting policies or determine any exact strategies today. Staff is just asking for
comments on the types of things the bodies want fleshed out and further reviewed. Set out in the report are
topics, strategies and major issues. All comments will be scribed, and before the meeting ends, those
comments will be read back so everybody is clear as to what staff is being directed to do from this point
forward.
Mr. Rieley said he would like to make an observation about the overall organization of this process.
During the Commission us discussion of the guiding principles, it decided it was important to elevate
Natural Resource Conservation and Preservation to the same level of importance as Agriculture and
Forestry. He thinks that should be reflected in all the documents. In looking at the staffus report, under the
Agriculture section there are a list of strategies to be explored in the Comprehensive Plan, and then there
are major issues such as establishing a dedicated staff position to focus on Agricultural/Forestal/Rural
Area initiatives. There is no mention of natural preservation. Then there is a section on Forestry, but at the
end of that section it stops and there is no mention of natural resource protection. That is only found where
there is a discussion of natural resources and cultural assets. There is a statement in that section that
these goals already exist in the Comprehensive Plan. That is not reflective of the discussions by the
Commission. That relates to the organization of the material, and throughout the document there are
references to agriculture and forestry without regard to the other things the Commission felt were important.
Several Commission members concurred with Mr. Rieleyus statement.
Mr. Rooker said that is one of the reasons he asked when these guiding principles were talked
about at the Commission level. It actually goes back two years when he was a member of the Commission.
If one reads through the RuralArea Public Input Summary (which is on file in the Clerkus Office), one of
the most consistent comments made was that there should be preservation of natural resources in the
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
plan.
Ms. Catlin said she understands that this report is not in priority order at this time. It does not reflect
a priority list, and some of the items were fleshed out in earlier studies, so there may be more content for
those items. That does not mean that further content is not needed for the things Mr. Rieley mentioned.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has not dealt with the issue of natural resource protection.
Mr. Cilimberg said he did not think staff needed to ask whether that should be done or not. It is a
given, and will be done. They need guidance on the things which have not received a lot of focus.
Mr. Catlin asked if there is an issue which the Board or Commission is not interested in having staff
consider as a viable strategy.
Mr. Rooker said there is a Rural Area Focus Committee, and he wondered if that Committee
disagreed with any of these strategies.
Ms. Joan McDowell said it is not a committee, just a focus group. For the first couple of meetings
they talked more about rural preservation development then any other topic. They have not developed a
consensus, only helped staff to look at a lot of different issues and viewpoints.
Ms. Catlin said the first topic to be discussed today is Transportation. The major issue there is that
there needs to be a balance between the safety of rural roads and maintaining the rural character. Staff
will evaluate the need to establish rural road design standards to help articulate expectations for road
design that meets this balance.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think the County needs to get into rural road standards. She said it
has been the County[s growth policy that no County resources will be put into anything that entices growth
into the rural area. She suggests that the focus be on safety and maintenance of present roads, railroad
crossings, bridges, bikeways, i.e., maintain the present infrastructure without enticing development by
expectations of increased road capacity. She does not think there needs to be any staff work on something
called "rural road design standards.[] That will not lead any citizen to believe that road capacity will be
increased.
Mr. Martin asked what Ms. Thomas wanted to change. Ms. Thomas said she wants to eliminate the
second sentence under major issue -"Staff will evaluate the need to establish rural road design standards
to help articulate expectations for road design that meet this balance.[]
Mr. Rieley said he thinks there is an important distinction between road improvements to increase
capacity and road improvements to address safety concerns. One thing the rural road design standard
could do is to make that distinction. He is in favor of the statement as it stands.
Mr. Edgerton said in spite of any statement, there will continue to be growth in the rural areas. He
was thinking of this in terms of the standards of the roads that would occur. If the County defers to
VDOT[s traditional standards, it creates a lot of overbuilding. It would be nice to be able to scale back
some of that and give people permission to build less road.
Ms. Thomas said she has spent a great deal of time trying to get the State to change its Subdivision
Street standards. She does regard that as the same argument.
Mr. Martin said most of the "bullets[] under the title of Transportation lend themselves to the
second statement "Staff will evaluate the need to establish rural road design standards to help articulate
expectations for road design that meet this balance.[ If one agrees with the wording of the bullets talking
about Rural Rustic Roads and the Pave-in-Place Program, then the second sentence would need to
remain. He agrees wholeheartedly with the bullets, so agrees wholeheartedly with keeping the second
sentence.
Mr. Rooker said that from time-to-time there will be rural roads built, so the issue is "to what
standards should they be built?[]
Mr. Martin said he sees this as pushing toward rural rustic roads and the pave-in-place program.
Mr. Dorrier said VDOT has a new policy dealing with rustic roads, and it is probably more in line
with what the County wants. He thinks staff could come up with new standards consistent with the new
VDOT policies.
Ms. Catlin asked if there would be a way to word that to emphasize safety and maintenance versus
creating no new capacity which is what Ms. Thomas wants.
Mr. Dorrier said safety and maintenance is an issue which involves the type of road, the amount of
traffic, trees, potholes, etc. He thinks it is important that somebody look at that.
Mr. Rieley asked Ms. Thomas if it would address her concern if the sentence began "Although it is
not the intention of the County to increase rural road capacity, there needs to be a balance between safety
and rural roads.[]
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Ms. Thomas said as long as it is clearly understood that increasing capacity is not what the County
wants. She does not think staff needs to reevaluate the Pave-in-Place Program because it is pretty much a
dead program. The Rural Rustic Roads Program is the new thing that both VDOT and everybody else is
pushing. The Board has just gone through a preview of what the budget situation is, and it leads one to
realize that choices will have to be made as to where to put resources, and putting County resources into
anything that looks like it is increasing development in the rural area is not where the Board wants to put
resources.
Mr. Finley said the rural citizens want safe and well-maintained roads. The statement says "... and
maintaining the rural character.[] But, it is really to serve rural people.
Ms. Catlin asked if it is the consensus that the Rural Rustic Roads Program deserves more focus
and energy than Pave-in-Place at this time, and the major focus should be carefully framed so it is not
about increasing capacity, but about serving the needs of the rural areas in a safe and well-maintained way.
Mr. Dorrier agreed.
The next item discussed was Water and Sewer. Ms. Catlin said the major issue in this section is
"Central water and sewer systems are to be considered for RPD[s or other types of rural development.
Staff will be re-examining current County policy which discourages use of central systems, particularly for
use with RPD[s and possibly other types of rural development.[]
Mr. Finley said the words "where feasible[] should be added so the first sentence would read
"Central water and sewer systems are to be considered where feasible for RPD[s or other types of rural
development.[] Otherwise, the sentence would require that all RPD[s have central water and sewer
systems. In some places, it would not be feasible.
Mr. Rooker said this is an idea that he thinks should be abandoned at this point. There have been
discussions about this at Board meetings, and the consensus of the Board was against that idea. There
have been a number of bad experiences over the years with these systems failing, and the County having to
come in and take the systems over. The County then ends up using public resources to provide water
infrastructure in areas where it is not desired. He believes this idea came up during discussion of the
Groundwater Study. He thought it was the consensus of the Board at that time not to pursue this idea.
Mr. Martin said this statement only says "are to be considered.[] One of his greatest concerns
about this entire document is its effect on affordable housing. Right now, the only affordable housing is in
the rural areas. The County is trying to attract people into the Growth Area using the Neighborhood Model.
Hopefully, that works, but so far everything that happens in those growth areas is expensive. He said the
goal is to preserve as much of the rural area as possible, and part of that is by having RPD[s, etc. If staff
wants to look at what is feasible so there might be more of the clustered communities which preserve rural
space, he thinks that would be okay.
Ms. Thomas said all the experience in the last 20 years has been with the systems which have
failed. She thinks there has been experience, so she will be hard to convince.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the County wants to preserve the rural preservation type lots in the
rural area. To the extent that those are feasible, it may require some type of central sewer or water system.
He does not want to rule out simple technologies that would allow that to happen, technologies which he
does not know about.
Mr. Dorrier asked for an example of a central water and sewer system in existence at this time. Ms.
Thomas said Peacock Hill and Earlysville Forest have both been trucking in water. The system at Key
West failed. Then, there was West Leigh which had to have public water brought to it.
Mr. Bowerman said this time, the Board has no way of pursuing this idea with cluster development.
He thinks that discarding the idea would be making a mistake.
Mr. Rooker said he does not have a strong opinion about this. He thought when this was discussed
the last time, Mr. Martin was the most outspoken against this idea. As a strategy, and with past experience,
he is not sure it is a wise investment of resources.
Mr. Martin said what came before the Board last time was an idea which staff had not thoroughly
investigated. But, staff is now asking that they be allowed to investigate the idea to get more expertise as to
what might be good or not good. Under those circumstances, he is willing to move ahead. However, later,
he might not agree.
Mr. Rooker said in terms of affordable housing, the goal is to provide the most affordable housing
in the development areas. Jack Jouett is probably the most densely populated district in the County, and he
thinks there is more affordable housing in that district than in any other. There are many mobile homes,
numerous apartments and subsidized housing.
Mr. Martin said none of those housing types are going to end up in the Neighborhood Model. There
will be no mobile homes in a neighborhood model. No simple, three-bedroom, ranch-type homes will be in
a neighborhood model. Those are the ones which provide the affordable housing in Mr. Rooker[s district
now.
Mr. Rooker said that, hopefully, the County will be able to provide for affordable housing in one of
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
the formats.
Mr. Edgerton said as a designer he has been frustrated in the past because there was not the
ability to do any kind of central system. About 18 years ago, he designed something which was denied by
the County because the people sitting at the time said they were afraid of such a system. He felt that was
too bad because if development is clustered, it forces the development into some kind of a centralized
system.
Mr. Rooker disagreed. He said clustering still requires two-acre lots. There are many lots which
have a well.
Mr. Rieley said that is another item on the list to be considered.
Mr. Edgerton wondered if there would be a way to place a bond on projects to give the County
some security against failure, but keep it open to the idea of good engineering. With the drought of last
summer, and with the strain on the Rivanna System, he just wonders if the door should be closed to solving
these problems in the future.
Mr. Dorrier said that is an excellent point. The drought focused everybody[]s attention on water.
He thinks it would be irresponsible to pull this out of the plan now.
Ms. Catlin said the Board and Commission would not be saying this is an endorsed strategy, but
would be saying this is not absolutely "off the table.[] Staff should move forward with exploring this idea
with new technologies, etc.? Or, should this idea be scrapped?
Mr. Rooker said this statement says "Staff will be re-examining current County policy which
discourages use of central systems .... [] He is not interested in looking at a change in the policy, but a
change in technology if there has been a change.
Mr. Edgerton said the current policy is very clear.
Mr. Rooker said instead of saying "Staff will be re-examining current County policy which
discourages use of central systems....[] he would rather say "Staff will examine the current state of
technology to determine the alternatives for central systems that might be more reliable, and financial
measures that might make them workable over a longer period of time.[]
Ms. Catlin asked if the direction to staff is that the Board is not implicitly condoning or rejecting this
item, only that there be investigation into new technology before making a blanket decision about this.
Mr. Martin said there needs to be other ways of making it financially stable and fiscally sound.
Mr. Dorrier said there should be some soil analyses to be sure that the land will perk.
Mr. Rooker said when there is cluster development, there is still a concern. Nobody is even
proposing central septic systems. Mr. David Hirschman said central septic systems are possible. Mr.
Rooker said there would still need to be a way to dispose of the waste. Ms. Thomas said everything the
Board has discussed so far is enticing growth into the rural area. It is also putting resources into the rural
area study.
Mr. Benish said there was no intent on the part of staffto allow for additional growth. A lot of this
came from the Groundwater Committee. In a cluster development that might have 19 lots, is it better to
have 19 wells, or one well strategically located that might be more efficient and not create failure of those
19 wells because they are not best located to maximize the underlying groundwater. The intent is not to
allow an area that could not otherwise have 19 lots to have 19 lots. If there is a concern that this is fostering
development, that is not the intent. The intent was to find a better alternative to drilling 19 wells.
Mr. Martin said that is the way he sees it. The only way this could encourage growth in the rural
areas is if it is assumed that there are no development lots in the rural area now and this will increase it.
There are lots in the rural area and in order to make the best use of those development lots in a way that
the rural character is preserved. That leads to talking about PRD[]s and that leads to talking about
centralized well systems, but that does not increase development rights for that property.
Ms. Thomas said they must be usable lots, and if no water can be found on two out of the twenty
lots, with a central well system all twenty lots could still be developed.
Mr. Benish said the intent is to be sure the systems don[]t create additional development that could
not otherwise occur through the private system or individual wells. That was the staff[]s intent. He does not
think there is enough available information about groundwater at this time to strategically direct growth
areas. That is not even a consideration.
Mr. Hirschman said he would like to state the philosophy of the Groundwater Committee which has
a lot to do with the cluster or RPD option. As lot sizes are reduced individual well and septic become more
suspect as a reliable alternative. Not every RPD needs this because groundwater is variable across the
County. Philosophically, the idea the Groundwater Committee is pursuing on the overall Land Use Plan is
to focus on utilities for development in the Development Areas. To make that successful, development in
the Rural Area has to be self-sustaining on groundwater. The object is not to have an extension of water
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
and sewer lines in a spider web under the development areas to serve the rural areas. Nobody wants that.
What a lot of people have missed is how to make development areas sustainable on groundwater. The
Committee thinks the best available technology should be used and the best available tools to
accommodate development and try to make it as sustainable as possible. In some cases that will be
individual systems, and in some cases, clustered or centralized systems. The overall objective is to create
communities in the rural areas that will be sustained by groundwater and not come in the future with
demands for utility extensions.
Ms. Catlin said with the understanding that that is the intent, is the Board and Commission
comfortable with staff continuing to explore those possibilities?
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the focus should be on the technology that might be available.
Ms. Catlin said the next subject for discussion concerns Crossroad Communities. There are
several major issues. 1) Establish the concept of, and identify rural crossroad areas in the Comprehensive
Plan; 2) Staff will identify the types of uses that should be permitted in crossroad
communities; and, 3) Staff will consider the scale and scope of uses in crossroad communities that would
be consistent with the Rural Areas.
Ms. Thomas said the Historic Preservation Committee is a little behind schedule, but they are
coming up with a policy they think will supplement this section. She asked if this is directed toward new
crossroad areas. If so, that would make a difference to her. She supports this only if it is directed toward
presently existing villages. Mr. Steven Biel, Planner, said that is the interest. Ms. Thomas said she thinks
the County should know that when doing things in the rural area, they should be done in the crossroad
areas, so bookmobile, post office, and public safety offices would be located in the historic crossroad areas,
when possible.
Mr. Finley asked if it has to be linked to existing buildings. He thinks the crossroads would be
centers for rural communities. If everything limited to existing buildings, a lot of those buildings are in such
poor shape, that nothing could be done. Ms. Thomas said it is the crossroad that is historic, not every
building.
Mr.
The school
there might
they should
Cilimberg said an example is Free Union where expansion of a school there was requested.
has been expanded several times, so not allowing further expansion was discussed. Where
be revitalization or new construction associated with those types of services, in the rural area
be oriented to these historic crossroad locations.
Mr. Rieley suggested adding the word "existing[] so that the sentence would read: "Establish the
concept of, and identify existing rural crossroad areas in the Comprehensive Plan.[]
Mr. Finley said the next sentences says "staff will identify and consider[]. He thinks the community
should be involved, and staff should not have to do everything.
Ms. Catlin asked if Mr. Finley wanted community input into the identification of uses. Mr. Finley said
"yes. []
Mr. Edgerton said there is the opportunity to celebrate how special the rural communities are. The
last sentence says: "Staff will consider the scale and scope of uses .... [] He wonders if another statement
should be added saying particular care should be taken to define how far the crossroad community can
expand.
Ms. Catlin asked if that should be "scale, scope and limits[]? Mr. Edgerton said "yes.[] He thinks
the crossroads community will lose its flavor as a community at a certain point.
Mr. Rooker said the limits of the community are geographic ones, so that does not apply to uses.
He suggested adding the words "and their boundaries[] to the end of the first sentence.
Ms. Catlin said the next subject relates to Alternative Uses. Major issues here are: 1) Staffwill
consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to make it easier to establish certain home occupations and other
uses in the Rural Areas, such as farm sales, certain types of commercial recreation and special events,
and, 2) Explore strategies that could provide alternative uses in the Rural Areas to help farmers maintain
their farms rather than subdivide.
Mr. Martin said the Historic Preservation Committee was looking at allowing visitations to historic
homes in order to increase revenues. Instead of saying []commercial recreation and special events[], he
would add something about historic tours, or historic cultural events.
Ms. Thomas said arts and crafts is an event that many communities have found does not change
the physical layout of the rural area, but changes the fact that people can make a living in their houses.
Ms. Catlin said the "purpose[] in that action should be revisited.
Mr. Rieley said in Bullet #1, it may be redundant, but if the word "temporary[] was inserted before
'"special events[] it would make some people feel better. The thought was that events could take place
that did not leave a permanent mark in the rural area. In Bullet #2, instead of saying "to help farmers
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
maintain their farms[] it should say "to help rural landowners maintain their land.[]
Ms. Catlin said it has been suggested that the sections on Agriculture and Forestry be skipped at
this time, and the conversation go to Land Use Patterns, Density and Development. She said that under
Density and Development, major issues are: 1) Staff will pursue alternatives that reduce the development
potential in the Rural Areas, potentially through reduction of assigned development rights, increasing size of
non-development right lots, or through other zoning approaches (e.g., large-lot zoning, sliding-scale zoning,
others), and 2) Staff will explore reducing size of development-right lots to reduce consumption of land for
residential uses.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the size of the lots being considered now are two-acre lots and five-acre lots.
Mr. Benish said locally, Albemarle County is restrictive, but from a State standpoint it is reasonably
restrictive. Staff toured several counties. It is very specialized, and from county-to-county, they are very
different. Rural lots tend to be five to ten acres in areas which are easy to subdivide. For very restrictive
lots, it can be anywhere from twenty to fifty acres. There are sliding scales which focus on larger residues
with a clustering concept.
Mr. Finley asked if a special use assigns development rights. Would there be a taking away of
some development rights? Mr. Benish said essentially it would be a comprehensive rezoning of the rural
areas that would affect the density of the development permitted. Staff is not advocating anything yet, but if
there is concern about the holding capacity in the rural areas, then the most obvious way to deal with that is
to change the density of development.
Mr. Martin said he would like to strike that thought from this document. Put that into the "forget
about it[] category.
Ms. Catlin asked if the words "potentially through reduction of assigned development rights[]
should be struck.
Ms. Thomas said most of the development in the rural areas is not taking place in the 21-acre
category, but in the 121-acre category. She thought the County was on the path to suggesting that the
large acreage size be enlarged, and that small lots be made smaller.
Mr. Martin said he has no problem with that thought. He does not have a problem with reducing the
size because it also reduces the price. When talking about getting rid of development rights, he thinks that
part should be deleted.
Ms. Thomas said if the 21-acre lots are increased to 40 or 50 acres, then any given 200 acre plot of
ground will have fewer development rights. Mr. Cilimberg said this was intended to be reflective of
development rights that exist in the ordinance today, which is five based on the parcel of record in 1980. It
was not intended to address the changes that would occur with the non-development-right lots. That would
be a separate action.
Ms. Thomas said she is always confused by the difference between "development rights[] and
"division rights. []
Mr. Edgerton said the reason there is a two-acre minimum is because of the amount of land usually
needed for a secondary septic site. He said there is technology available now to do centralized septic
systems using "living machines[] which instead of putting all the waste in the ground is actually used to feed
plants. If this was allowed, any developer in the community would go to a smaller lot size. Nobody needs
two acres for a home site. For a parcel of 100 acres, instead of using up 20 acres in development, it is
possible to only use ten acres leaving the rest in rural land. Of course, it would be necessary to figure out a
way to satisfy the concerns with the septic system, and there would need to be a centralized water system.
At this time, two homes can share a well, but after that, there has to be a central system. If a way could be
figured out to allow a landowner to develop less of the land, overall the County would benefit.
Mr. Rieley said the one issue Mr. Martin raised is with the phrase "the reduction of assigned
development rights[]. He asked how everybody felt about pulling out that phrase and leaving the rest of the
statement as it is.
Ms. Thomas said those are the five, two-acre lots.
Mr. Rieley said he does not think it is necessarily a sacred cow, but he does think there would be a
firestorm over any such change.
Mr. Rooker said he would be in favor of Mr. Rieley[]s suggestion. He thinks it is unlikely that the
County will take away assigned development rights. To have staff spend a lot of time on that is a mistake.
He thinks the other strategies should be looked at to see if they will work.
Ms. Catlin said she understands that everybody is willing to keep the rest of the issues as they are,
but the part about reduction of assigned development rights should be deleted.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that when going to less than two-acre lots is discussed, the
appropriateness of that may be limited to PRD[]s or RPD[]s where there is some infrastructure.
Mr. Dorrier said there should be some incentives to encourage clustering. Essentially that would be
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
a water system.
Mr. Edgerton said there is an incentive now in the Rural Preservation Development where a
minimum of 40 acres is set aside and put into a perpetual agricultural use. In that event there can be
clustering.
Ms. Thomas said there has been a change in state law which will allow clustering by right.
Mr. Rooker said that on July 1,2004, whatever is permitted by way of clustering will be allowed by
right.
Mr. Bowerman said he has heard it argued by some that the by-right development is the
development that should require a special permit and what is allowed by special permit now should be
allowed by-right. He is excited by what Mr. Edgerton has said today that developers would look to having
smaller than two-acre housing sites if they had some incentive. It seems to keep going back over and over
to the cluster provision. Wherever it is used, it becomes the rule rather than the exception, and it is the
easiest to do of all rural developments.
Ms. Catlin said before closing the discussion on this session, she wants to be sure the Board
understands that some of these lot size strategies might result in a reduction of building rights.
Mr. Benish said by increasing the size of non-development right lots, that theoretically effects
development potential because instead of 21 acres, it would go to a larger size. That has been left in for
staff to consider.
Ms. Thomas said she is interested in phasing. She knows some neighboring counties do that. It is
Bullet #2 (Development rights [reduce number or establish time release-phasing.]) but is not listed as a
major issue. She wants to be sure it is not excluded by it not being specifically mentioned. Mr. Benish said
staff plans on looking at that idea.
Ms. Catlin said time is running short, so suggested that the conversation move to Rural
Preservation Developments. Major issues listed are: 1) Attempt to make RPD[s the standard form of rural
development as opposed to an option, and, 2) Permitting central water/sewer systems in RPD[s and
creating rural utility districts to maintain central systems.
Mr. Rooker said he believes both of these issues were covered during the previous discussion.
Ms. Finley asked about the bullet which states: "Establish a percentage for the preservation tract in
relation to the overall acreage of the development (i.e., at least 75 percent of the parcel being developed
must be in the preservation tract).[] He said that sounds unfair to him. Mr. Benish said that is just an
example.
Mr. Rieley said since this is moving toward by-right status, he thinks it is important that the first two
bullets in this section be addressed. The first bullet reads: "Establish a maximum lot size for RPD lots that
is lower than the current six-acre average lot size and require a larger preservation tract.[] He said there
have been RPD[s come to the Planning Commission which were virtually identical to by-right
developments.
Ms. Catlin turned the conversation to Residential Desiqn Standards. The major issue listed here is:
"Staff intends to establish development-design standards for residential uses permitted in the Rural
Areas. [
Mr. Martin said he does not like this idea at all. Mr. Finley agreed.
Ms. Thomas asked if this is the same sort of thing which will be done for the RPD[s.
Mr. Benish said the current Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan is silent as to what type
of development the County would like to see in those areas. For residential development, how does the
County want to orient development toward streets, what guidance does the County want to give people
about what it would like to see in the rural areas. Mr. Cilimberg said it is done with rural preservation
developments now.
Mr. Martin said during the years the DISC committee worked, people said it was too hard to attract
people to the growth area, that what needed to be done was to make the rural areas as expensive to live in
as the growth area, and then people would move to the growth area. When he sees this, it scares him into
thinking this might end up being a road by which some people will travel to make the rural area as
expensive as the growth area, so that it forces more people into the growth area. That is why it scares him.
Mr. Rooker asked if RPD[s become a matter of right, to what extent does the County have to deal
with any of these issues if standards are not established? He also does not want to drive up costs, but does
believe there must be some standards if there are going to be RPD[s with smaller lots size. Some things
like lot arrangement and water protection measures could be very important if talking about allowing more
cluster development in the rural areas.
Mr. Martin said if talking about RPD[s, he could say let staff pursue it, but when it is just talking
about residential uses permitted in the rural area, he does not think staff should waste time looking at it.
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Davis said that because of the change in State law, after July 1,2004, any clustered subdivision
in the rural areas has to have design standards which are approvable by staff, they cannot even be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. There will either have to be design standards the Board and
Commission are comfortable with, or existing provisions for clustered subdivision standards have to be
repealed in their entirety.
Mr. Rieley said the recommendation then is essentially to move the residential design standard
section up under the rural preservation developments, and make that a sub-set rather than making it
county-wide.
Mr. Martin said in the second and third bullets in this section the word "requiring[] should be
deleted. (Water conservation measures - requiring and/or encouraging designs that reduce consumption of
groundwater, and, Water protection measures - requiring and/or encouraging home designs, land-
management tools, and subdivision layouts that protect groundwater and surface water from contamination,
plus incorporating stream buffers and groundwater infiltration areas into designs.)
Ms. Thomas said having the community decide whether it wants to have the houses on the best
soil, or have something else protected should be addressed.
Mr. Dorrier said the fifth bullet reads: "Mountain Protection Plan - developing standards to reflect
this portion of the Natural Resources & Cultural Assets Plan.[] He said the public hearing on this plan is set
for March 26, and the Board has received a notice from the Mountain Landowners Protection Group asking
that it be considered as part of the rural area plan. He thinks the issue should be discussed because it
concerns a number of people.
Ms. Thomas said there is already a Mountain Protection Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
The question before the Board is whether it will adopt an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to have
residential design standards in the RPD reflect the Mountain Protection Plan. That is a different issue from
the one in the bullet Mr. Dorrier just read. Mr. Cilimberg said this bullet is talking about development
standards.
Mr. Martin said he can see both of those bullets as being very helpful. At this point the Board is not
trying to see if it will require something or not, so he thinks staff should be encouraged to come up with
some suggestions.
Ms. Catlin asked if it is the consensus that the Residential Design Standards should stay as they
are but become a sub-set of the RPD section rather than be a stand-alone piece.
Next, Ms. Catlin referred the Board to the section entitled Fiscal/Tax Tools, and said the major
issue here is: "Staff proposes to explore taxation and incentive programs to ensure that they support Rural
Area goals, and to recommend changes as necessary.[]
There were no comments on this section.
The last section is entitled Consistency with Natural Resources & Cultural Assets Plan. There is no
major issue listed for this section.
Mr. Rieley said he thinks this section needs to be "beefed
Ms. Thomas said a lot has been learned about water resources and is about to learn more about
the County[s biological resources. There are recharge areas that staff did not know about previously, and
there is the silting in the Reservoir the Board committed the County to decreasing. She did not see that
specifically mentioned.
Mr. Rieley said with all of the significant and difficult issues listed in the bullets in this section, at the
end it says there are no major issues. He thinks they are all major issues.
Mr. Scott Clark said staff was trying to indicate that these issues have already been accepted in
policy.
Ms. Catlin suggested that the topics of Agriculture and Forestry, which were skipped earlier in the
meeting be discussed now. Major issues for both Agriculture and Forestry are: 1) Reduce the
fragmentation of land, and, 2) Consider establishing a dedicated County staff position to focus on
Agricultural/Forestal/Rural Area initiatives.
Mr. Rieley said he would prefer that it refer to "Agricultural/Forestal/Natural Area protection.[]
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are not already County staff members who are well-versed in these
areas.
Ms. Thomas said she has been pushing this idea. Some other counties in Virginia have done this.
In the past, it was done by the county extension agents, but the State keeps cutting those positions each
year. To have people help farmers with which crops are viable as alternatives to the usual crops that do not
do well in Albemarle, to help them with the marketing, to set up a farmer[s market, to teach people about
viticulture, is a lot of stuff which used to be done by the extension agents.
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Dorrier said he is not saying it is not a good idea, but he was thinking that the Grape Growers[]
Association and the Farm Bureau already do these sort of things.
Mr. Benish said as far as staff is concerned, it has about enough time to promulgate policies and do
development review. It does not have time to do strategic, pro-active implementing of some of these things.
Mr. Martin said the Board would still have to make a decision based on the budget. If there were a
person hired this year, that would mean that person would stay for another year. He does not see harm to
considering the idea.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it is a good idea in concept.
Mr. Rooker said part of the staff[s report should list what services are already available in the
community. He is not sure the County would need a full-time staff person if it is found that most of these
things are available. If they are not, maybe the County needs to fill that void.
Mr. Dorrier said before developing this position, staff should talk to the Farm Bureau and the Grape
Growers[] Association, all the groups that are available to support these people.
Ms. Thomas said this is the sort of thing for which the County can obtain a grant.
Mr. Benish said this is not a budget request, but is to emphasize that staff is needed to do a
particular function.
Mr. Rieley said he is enthusiastic about the idea with the caveat he mentioned earlier.
Ms. Catlin said she will recount what has been said so directions to staff are clear. From the
beginning, on Page 3 under Transportation the items there are not to put an emphasis on Pave-in-Place
reevaluation; focus on maintenance and safety issues and not on issues that would develop new road
capacity. On the Water/Sewer issue, eliminate the part about re-examining current County policy which
discourages uses and focus more on technology changes, financing options, and things like that which may
make these more attractive or viable for the RPD areas talked about. Under Crossroads Communities,
emphasize that this is about existing crossroads communities, the historic ones, that some sort of
geographical boundary be established to the crossroad communities, and also look at community
involvement when trying to develop scope, type of uses, and things like that.
Under Alternative Uses, that more types of uses be articulated in the first bullet (historic, cultural,
artisan activities); special events be qualified with some sort of temporary designation; and, the uses being
considered toward the goal articulated earlier be revamped to support the rural area preservation.
Mr. Rooker said in the last bullet the word "farmers[] is to be changed to "landowners.[] Ms. Catlin
said it should state "rural landowners maintaining land[] rather than "farmers maintaining farms.[] Mr.
Cilimberg said there was a clear agreement that there should be some exchange built into this for what the
County would be giving rural landowners in the way of opportunities, for example, giving up some type of
subdivision, or joining A/F Districts, etc. Mr. Rooker said there should be some kind of corresponding
commitment to protect the rural areas.
Ms. Catlin said for the Agricultural/Forestry section, the idea is that the staff position would be
broadened to include natural resource protection and other open space issues. This action would include
an inventory or canvas of what resources are already available and what kinds of things the County could
tie into. Mr. Finley said this document does not mention "family divisions.[] Was it purposely left out, or
does it need to be here? It should be under the heading of Agriculture.
Mr. Rieley said he would support an initiative to scrutinize that one carefully.
Mr. Martin said since everybody had advanced copies of this, at another meeting could the Board
get a quick analysis from staff and then discuss it. Ms. Catlin asked if staff is to bring back some
reconsideration of family subdivisions.
Mr. Benish said this report can be updated with all the changes made at this meeting and sent back
out to these two bodies. It can be scheduled for a day meeting.
Mr. Martin said he did not want staff to spend a lot of work on it if this group wants to put that issue
aside. He believes that before that can be done, there should be some kind of discussion.
Mr. Dorrier asked for statistics on the number of family division requests and whether the trend is
going up or down.
Ms. Catlin said that for Density and Development, under the first major issue, the reduction of
assigned development rights was eliminated, the lot size issues were left with the understanding that that
could result in changes in division rights. She said Mr. Dorrier wanted to add something in there about
incentives. Also, the phasing issue in the second bullet should be emphasized.
Ms. Catlin said that under Rural Preservation Developments, the only thing done there was to
amend the second issue to reflect what was said earlier about the central water and sewer systems to
(March 5, 2003 - Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
make that consistent. Ms. Thomas said it was changed to say that there should be more technical
information. Ms. Catlin said under residential design standards, make that part of the RPD section with the
exception that water conservation measures and water protection measures bullets could apply more
broadly to all rural development.
Mr. Rieley asked whether the Mountain Protection Plan should also be with those other two bullets
that are more general.
Ms. Catlin said under Fiscal/Tax Tools there was no change. For the section on Consistency with
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, there should have more emphasis. There should be attention
given to siltation of the South Fork Reservoir and groundwater recharge.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there should be another meeting. Mr. Benish said staffwill update this report
and mail a copy back to the Board and Commission members.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 5:09 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date
Initials