Loading...
1996-11-06November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 6, 1996, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Jim Bennett, a landowner along the Moormans River in Sugar Hollow, spoke concerning the proposal by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to replace the last two bridges across the Moormans River. He does not disagree with the necessity to replace the bridges, but has doubts about VDOT's ability to carry out this task in an environmentally responsible manner and to keep as its first priority the best interests of Albemarle County citizens for this special area. Mr. Bennett continued by reading into the record a summary of events that had taken place in the area in the last two years (statement is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board). He proposed that the last three miles of Sugar Hollow Road below the dam be designated as a County scenic area with a special sign at the entrance indicating slower speeds and reminders to drivers of the diversity of traffic on the road. He said this will in no way interfere with the use of Sugar Hollow road by vehicular traffic. Rather, it will enhance its use by all citizens and will encourage those who are not fortunate enough to live there to visit often and experience its special, addicting magic. Mrs. Humphris said she recently saw in the newspaper the notice of a public meeting on this project. She asked the date of that meeting. Mr. Bill Mills from VDOT said it is December 4, 1996. Mrs. Humphris said she was surprised at how quickly that is happening. She did not realize the process was coming forth so quickly for a design public hearing. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was made by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.10 and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Absent: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Marshall. Item No.5.1. Appropriation: General Fund (Attorney's Fees), $6,923.50. It was noted in the staff's report that §15.1-19.2:1 of the Code of Virginia gives the Board discretion to reimburse all or any portion of attorney's fees expended defending a criminal charge against an employee that has been dismissed and which arose out of the exercise of that employee's official duties. Mr. John Baber, an employee in the County Police Department, had been charged with reckless driving while on duty and driving an official vehicle. These charges have been dismissed with no other criminal charges pending against Office Baber. This dismissal makes the payment of his legal fees eligible for his reimbursement under the code section listed above. Staff recommends that Mr. Baber's attorneys fees in the amount of $6~923.50 be paid from an appropriation from the General Fund balance in November 6, 1996 (Regular Day M~ti~g> 000~ (Page 2) recognition of Mr. Baber acting in his official capacity at the time of the accident, which then generated these charges. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96041 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR ATTORNEY FEE RELATED TO EMPLOYEE ACCIDENT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100031012312100 ATTORNEY FEES $6,923.50 TOTAL $6,923.50 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 GENEPJtL FUND BALANCE $6,923.50 TOTAL $6,923.50 Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Circuit Court Records Preservation Grant, $11,202, (Form #96036). It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on June 19, 1996, the Board approved the receipt and disbursal of funds for the Circuit Court Records Preservation Grant from the Library of Virginia to repair and preserve books and records in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office. The grant proceeds were received during FY 95/96, however, all expenses related to this project were not incurred until FY 96/97. These funds need to be reappropriated from FY 95/96 to FY 96/97 so that the expenses related to this grant can be paid. This project is bein~ administered by Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk to the Circuit Court. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96036 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION OF CIRCUIT COURT RECORDS PRESERVATION GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1155421060331000 REPAIRS & MAINT. $11,202.00 TOTAL $11,202.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2155451000510100 GRANT Fl/ND BALANCE $11,202.00 TOTAL $11,202.00 Mrs. Thomas asked if this will carry over in the future as an increase to the County in keepin9 up that office. Mr. Tucker replied, "yes". Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: School Division, $34,287 (Form #96037). It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on October 14, 1996~ the School Board approved the following grant appropriations: Appropriation of $7,658.00 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. The Virginia Commission for the Arts has awarded grants in the Artists- November 6, 1996 (Regular Day M~ti~) (Page 3) In-Education Residency Program (Pre-K-12) category to Hollymead Elemen- tary School in the amount of $2,573.00, Stone Robinson Elementary School in the amount of $1,707.00, Stony Point Elementary School in the amount of $2,328.00, and Murray High School in the amount of $1,050.00. These grants will center upon activities that develop awareness of African arts that have influenced and will continue to influence culture in America and develop an awareness of and value for poetry that can reflect the inner eye and express the inner voice of children. These funds will provide opportunities and encouragement through training in creative writing and poetry workshops for the students. Re-appropriation of $26,629.00 for the Improving Vocational Education through Community Based Organization Grant. At the June 10, 1996 meeting, the School Board accepted funds for this grant in the amount of $26,629.00. Since this grant was not expended in the 1995-96 fiscal year, it is requested that the grant funds be reappropriated for the 1996-97 fiscal year. The grant will provide pre-vocational, basic skills development, and work-based learning experiences to selected students to facilitate their completion of vocational educational programs or their entrance into the local work force. Collaborative partners for this grant are MACAA, CATEC and Charlottesville City Schools. Staff recommends approval of the appropriation and re-appropriation in the total amount of $34,287.00 as detailed on Appropriation #96037. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96037 FI/ND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SCHOOL GRANTS EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1310460601312500 PROF. SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL $2,573.00 1310460602312500 PROF. SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL 1,050.00 1310460603312500 PROF. SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL 2,328.00 1310460604312500 PROF. SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL 1,707.00 1320861311312700 1320861311312701 1320861311380100 1320861311420100 1320861311550100 1320861311580500 1320861311601300 1320861311800710 PROF. SER. CONSULTANTS DATA PROCESS CONSULTANTS PUPIL TUITION-OTH. SCHOOLS FIELD TRIP MILEAGE TRAVEL-MILEAGE STAFF DEVELOPMENT EDUC. & RECREATION SUP. DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE TOTAL 10,629 00 800 00 3,600 00 1,675 00 1,000 00 4,225 00 4,500 00 200 00 $34,287 00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2310424000240295 2310424000240296 2310424000240244 2310424000240298 2320833000330108 GR3LNT #97-0246 GRANT #97-0241 GRANT #97-0244 GRAlqT ~97-0250 COMM. BASED VOC. ED. TOTAL $2,573.00 1,050.00 2,328.00 1,707.00 26,629.00 $34,287.00 Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Dixie Little League Field, $36,000 (Form #96038). It was noted in the staff's report that at the October 4 meeting, the Board approved County funding in the amount of $36,000 for a Dixie League Field at McIntire Park. The appropriation form authorizes the transfer of $36,000 within the Capital Improvement Fund from unused ADA structural improvement funds for parks and recreational facilities to the Dixie League Field. 000254 November 6, 1996 (Regular Day M~e~ing) (Page 4) Mrs. Thomas said the Board wanted to have some say about lighting of this field. That idea seemed to cause consternation in the City, but proba- bly, all to the good. Mr. Tucker said that matter will be handled separately. At this time, just' an appropriation of funds is needed. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96038 FUND: CIP-GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING OF DIXIE LEAGUE FIELD EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1901071000950045 DIXIE LEAGUE FIELD $36,000.00 1901071000800665 ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGES (36,000.00) TOTAL $0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 Item No. 5.5. Appropriation: EMS Recruitment and Retention Mini-Grant, $3,470 (Form ~96039) . It was noted in the staff's report that the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has approved a mini-grant. The grant provides funds to purchase brochures and other supplies to inform the public about fire and rescue agencies. The mini grant will be funded by a $1,735.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant and a $1,735.00 local match. The local match is funded from current operations. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NI3MBER: 96039 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES NEWSLETTER EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1155551050350000 PRINTING & BINDING $3,470.00 TOTAL $3,470.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2155551000512004 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND $1,735.00 2155524000240425 CATEGORICAL AID-STATE 1,735.00 TOTAL $3,470.00 Item No. 5.6. General Fund (Commonwealth Attorney's office), $26.740 (Form #96040). It was noted in the staff's report that the Albemarle County Common- wealth Attorney has requested and received approval from the State compensa- tion Board for an additional prosecutor position effective January 1, 1997. This request also included funding for office and computer equipment totaling $6~612.84, of which only the computer equipment in the amount of $1,990.00 was approved. The Commonwealth Attorney has requested that the County fund the remaining office expenses and fringe benefits that are not funded by the State (health and dental insurance). The total cost of this position for 6 months, plus the one-time cost is $26,740, of which the State will be funding $20,255, November 6, 1996 (Regular Day M~eti~g) (Page 5) leaving a balance of $6,485.00 to be funded locally. 000255 The appropriation form also includes an adjustment of $1,000 to reflect actual State funding for office expenses which was less than projected in the original FY 96/97 budget. Mrs. Thomas asked if this funding will carry into the future as in- creased cost to the County both for that position and for keeping up that office. Mr. Tucker said "yes". The bulk of the salary is reimbursed by the State Compensation Board, but fringe benefits and other costs associated with the position must be paid by the County. Mrs. Thomas asked if this item should not have had a little more discus- sion by this Board than just having it appear on the consent agenda. Mrs. Humphris said it is actually an unfunded mandate. When the State Compensation Board approves the addition of a position in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office, the County automatically has to fund its portion of the costs. It does not show in the budget that the County is putting more local tax dollars into this position without the Board's consent. Mr. Tucker said he believes Mr. Camblos requested this position earlier and it is just being funded by the State, so it did not get into this year's budget requests. Mrs. Thomas asked if this is the position the Board dis- cussed over a year ago. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Camblos had indicated that he wanted to get another position, but he did not know if the request would be funded. Mrs. Thomas said if another agency wanted to have a major addition to its staff, the request would be going through additional channels and be the subject of some more discussion, and the Board would n~t just have the request on the consent agenda. Mr. Tucker said that normally these requests do come forward through the budget process. Mrs. Thomas said she would like to have an explanation from the Commonwealth's Attorney as to the need for this position. Mrs. Humphris said she has felt for many years that the County's Planning Department is understaffed, and yet it is very difficult for this Board to find the funds to enlarge the Planning Department staff. That is difficult for the Board to do for the County, but so easy for the Common- wealth's Attorney to do. Mr. Martin said he has no problem in asking the Commonwealth's Attorney to come and justify the position. He had not heard about it before, and suddenly it is on the consent agenda. Mrs. Thomas suggested the Board ask for the courtesy of an explanation. Mr. Tucker said he would ask Mr. Camblos to come to the December meeting. Mrs. Humphris said she did not know if it is the process in this case, but she feels the Board should have known about the request before this time. Mr. Tucker said it is unusual for the State Compensation Board to approve any additional position so staff is happy to pay the County's share. It is seldom that the County gets any new positions approved for any officer. Mrs. Humphris said the Board still needs to know the process, as this does put additional responsibility on County taxpayers. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96040 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL POSITION IN COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100022010110000 1100022010210000 1100022010221000 1100022010231000 1100022010232000 1100022010270000 1100022010520300 1100022010800200 1100022010800700 SALARIES-REGULAR FICA VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSUR3LNCE WORKER'S COMPENSATION TELECOMMIINICATIONS FURNITURE & FIXTURES ADP EQUIPMENT TOTAL $16,375.00 1,255.00 1,475.00 870.00 30.00 100.00 450.00 2,985.00 3,200.00 $26,740.00 November 6, 1996 (Regular Day M~eting) 000~56 (Page 6) REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100024000230101 STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-SALARIES $18,265.00 2100024000230102 STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-OFFICE (1,000.00) 2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE 9,475.00 TOTAL $26,740.00 Item No. 5.7. Resolution to take Weston Lane in Weston Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County Engineering Department, and by the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution was adopted: The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vir- ginia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of November, 1996, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street in Weston Subdivision (SUB-93-173) described on the attached Additions Fprm SR-5(A) dated November 6, 1996, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion to add the road in Weston Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated November 6, 1996, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease- ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: (1) Weston Lane from Station 0+08, the right edge of State Route 789, 757 lineal fee to Station 7+65, the rear of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plats recorded 11/30/94 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1443, pages 243-246 with a 50 foot right-of-way, with additional plat recorded 10/9/96 in Deed Book 1569, page 111, for a total length of 0.15 mile. Item No. 5.8. Resolution to take roads in Willoughby Subdivision, Section V, Phase I, II and III into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, and by the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution was adopted: The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin- ia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of November, 1996, adopted the following resolution: November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Willoughby Subdivision, Section V, Phases I, II and III (SUB 12.69) described on the attached Addi- tions Form SR-5(A) dated November 6, 1996, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the roads in Willoughby Subdivision, Section V, Phases I, II & III as described on the attached Additions Form SR- 5(A) dated November 6, 19.96, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Depart- ment's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease- ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: (i) Harris Road from Station 2+42.09, end of previous dedication, 1781.91 lineal feet to Station 20+24, back of the cul-de-sac, as recorded by plat dated 3/15/88, in Deed Book 983, page 277 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, with a right-of-way width of 40 feet; additional plat re- corded 6/19/91 in Deed Book, 1160, page 409, for a length of 0.34 mile. (2) Royer Drive from Station 10+13, right edge of pavement of Harris Road 1000 lineal feet to Station 20+13, back of the cul-de-sac, as recorded by plat dated 3/15/88, in Deed Book 983, page 277 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, with a right-of-way width of 40 feet; additional plat re- corded 2/15/90 in Deed Book, 1087, page 549, and on plat recorded 9/27/96 in Deed Book 1566, page 267, for a length of 0.19 mile. (3) Olton Place from Station 10+13, left edge of pavement of Royer Drive 212.35 lineal feet to Station 12+25.35, back of the cul-de-sac, as recorded by plat dated 2/15/90, in Deed Book 1087, page 549 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, with a right-of-way width of 40 feet, for a length of 0.04 mile. (4) Landin Circle from Station 10+13, left edge of pave- ment of Harris Road 533 lineal feet to Station 15+46, back of the cul-de-sac, as recorded by plat dated 6/19/91, in Deed Book 1160, page 409 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, with a right-of-way width of 40 feet, for a length of 0.10 mile. Total Mileage - 0.67 mile. Item No. 5.9. Authorize destruction of paid tax tickets in accordance with the Library of Virginia's Retention and Disposition Schedule. 000 8 November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) It was noted in the staff's report that the Library of Virginia's Record Retention and Disposition Schedule requires paid tax tickets to be retained by the locality for a period of five years after audit. At that time, after approval from the Library of Virginia and the Auditor of Public Accounts, tax tickets can be destroyed but only after authorization from the governing body. Approval has been received from the Library and Auditor of Public Accounts to destroy approximately 55 cubic feet of distribution records, which include paid tax receipts, for the period of July 1, 1988 through June 30, 1991. Staff requests authorization from the Board of Supervisors to dispose of the records as indicated above. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the disposition of the paid tax tickets in accordance with the Library of Virginia's Retention and Disposition Scheduled. Item No. 5.10. Appointment of Ms. Katherine A. Ralston as the Acting Director of Social Services. It was noted in the staff's report that Ms. Karen Morris, Director of Social Services, recently retired with 25 years of service to Albemarle County. With Karen's departure, staff recommends the appointment of Ms. Kathy Ralston as Acting Director of Social Services. Ms. Ralston is currently Deputy Director of Social Services. By the recorded vote set out, the Board approved the appointment of Ms. Katherine A. Ralston as the Acting Director of Social Services. Item No. 5.11. Letter dated October 16, 1996, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, responding to transportation matters that were discussed at the September 4 and October 2, 1996, Board meetings, was received as follows: "We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the September 4 and October 2, 1996, Board meetings. A meeting has been scheduled for October 16, 1996, with the Department of Soil and Water Conservation to review environmental controls on the Route 682 project. An update of this meeting will be provided at the November 6 Board meeting. Additional pavement markings, including turn lane arrows, will be installed along the recently paved section of Route 240 in Crozet. NO PARKING signs have been installed along the Davis property at Millington Bridge on Route 671. The request for PLAYGROU1W-D signage, in lieu of CHILDREN PLAYING signs, is being reviewed for conformance to applicable standards. If warranted, these signs will be installed on Route 797, near the church, in Yancey Mills. We are reviewing the suggestion for a restricted NO RIGHT TURN ON RED BETWEEN THE HOURS -- at the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29. ~ We have discussed the need to replace the exclusive right turn lane on Route 29 southbound into Hilton Heights Drive at Walmart as soon as possible during construction. It appears that this additional lane may be possible by December 1 this year to be coordinated with the next traffic switch. "Puppy tracks" are scheduled to be Placed through the intersection of Routes 29/649 within the next 30 days. A signal study has been requested for the intersection of Route 678/250 in Ivy. A speed study to review the Route 250 corridor for a possible reduction in speed to a legal posting of 35 mph has also been requested for the Ivy area. Trimming around signs along Route 250 West is currently underway. We have advised the November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) ( Page 9 ) ~ . .... ~.~.~..~..: Culpeper District Office of the Ivy.community's desire to partici- pate in the Route 250 West corridor study. We will work with the County Planning staff to prioritize improvements to Route 250 at Route 678 within the Secondary Six Year Plan. The project to construct an acceleration lane off 1-64 eastbound onto Route 20 southbound was advertised in September. Construc- tion should begin around December 1, 1996. We have requested a review of the Greenbrier Drive/Route 29 intersection for clarification of the RIGHT TURN ONLY lane and signage currently in place. This intersection is also being reviewed for conflicting turning movements on green arrows for left turns northbound Route 29 onto Greenbrier Drive and right turns eastbound Greenbrier Drive onto Route 29 southbound. If there are any questions regarding the above issues, Mr. Bill Mills or Mr. Charlie Williams will be prepared to discuss them at the November 6 Board meeting. All items under review will be discussed with the Board after studies are complete. I will begin an extended personal leave through February, 1997 within the next two weeks. Thank you for sharing this information with the Board. (Signed) A. G. Tucker" Item No. 5.12. Notice from the Federal Communications Commission that the Cable Services Bureau has extended the time to file comments on the proposed resolution for Adelphia Communications Corporation, was received for information. Item No. 5.13. Notice of an application filed with the State Corpora- tion Commission by CCI Telecommunications of Virginia, Inc., for certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide local exchange and interex- change telecommunications services, was received for information. Item No. 5.14. Notice of an application filed with the State Corpora- tion Commission by Alternet of Virginia, Inc., for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide local exchange telecommunications services and to amend its interexchange certificate of public convenience and necessity, was received for information. Item No. 5.15. Letter dated July 25, 1996, from Ms. Betty L. Newell, Executive Director, Charlottesville Free Clinic, to Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, expressing appreciation to the Board for its contribution to the Free Clinic, was received for information. Item No. 5.16. Copy of letter dated October 17, 1996, from Mr. Andrew J. Winston, Chairman, Board of Corrections, to Mr. Albert A. Tumminia, Superintendent, Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, regarding the Jail's Compliance Audit Report, was received for information. It is noted in the letter that the Jail was placed on Probationary Certification pending review by the Department's Certification Unit of those practices at the facility that relate directly t© the deficiencies noted in the most recent Compliance Audit Report. Mrs. Thomas said she would like to have a fuller explanation of what is going on at the Jail than what she has read in the newspaper. Mrs. Humphris said that in regards to this letter, everything had been brought into compli- ance before the letter was written and before the sanction was implemented. ThiS was disappointing to the Jail Board and its staff because they had been led to believe that everything was in good shape, and yet, possibly, politics got in the way of what the people who did the inspecting said, and what the Board of Corrections said. Mr. Martin said he would also like to hold such a discussion. Mrs. Humphris said that because of the personalities involved, some of the report might have to take place in Executive Session. Mr. Tucker said he believes O00 GO November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) ' ~he report would best be made in Executive Session. Otherwise, there would be nothing more to discuss than what has been set out in the minutes of the Jail Board. Mrs. Humphris suggested that this discussion be added to the scheduled Executive Session for later today. Item No. 5.12. Copies of minutes of the Planning Commission for October 6 and October 15, 1996, were received for information. Item No. 5.18. Copies of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for August 15 and September 19, 1996, were received for information. ~ Item No. 5.19. Copy of Piedmont Court Appointed Special Advocates, Inc., (~ASA) 1995-96 Annual Program Report, was received for information. Item No. 5.20. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Bond Program Report for September, 1996, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: August 2 and December 12, 1995; January 3, August 14 and September 18, 1996. Mrs. Thomas read the minutes of January 3, 1996, (pages 15 - end) and handed the Clerk some typo that she said were not substantive. Mr. Bowerman read December 12, 1995, and September 18, 1996, and found in order. Motion by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Absent: Mr. perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. None. Mr Marshall. Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters: Mr. Bill Mills was present on behalf of VDOT. He announced that Angela Tucker had given birth to a baby girl. He would respond to any questions about the October 16th letter from VDOT. Mr. Mills said a preconstruction meeting is being held today, November 6th, on the project to construct the acceleration lane off of 1-64 eastbound onto Route 20 southbound. Construction should begin soon. Mr. Mills said VDOT sent a notice concerning the design public hearing for the proposed improvements to the two bridges on Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road) to the County (the Clerk noted that the letter had not yet been re- ceived). VDOT plans to meet with Mr. David Hirschman, County Water Resources Manager, and members of the Moormans Scenic River Committee prior to the public hearing to address some of the environmental concerns. Mr. Tucker asked if the actual design of the bridges will be available for this meeting. He thinks the Board is interested in a design similar to what was done for the Millington bridge so VDOT will be sensitive to the Sugar Hollow area and the Moormans River. Mr. Mills said VDOT is trying to put back a structure that will fit within the scenic provisions; wooden floors, rustic type of rails, etc. Mr.'Mills said a public hearing has been scheduled in mid-December on the relocation of the entrance to Bellair Subdivision. Mrs. Thomas said several plans have been mentioned, but one concerned moving the Bellair Road to align with the exit from the Route 250 Bypass. Mr. Mills said VDOT is considering alignment with the road which comes out from under the railroad 00026 November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) structure and also installation of a signal. Mrs. Thomas asked if the signal would be installed at the same time. Mr. Mills said "yes". Mrs. Thomas said she attended a meeting about the Route 250 West intersections in the village of Ivy and there were a lot of questions from citizens about the warrants needed for signals. Since she wants to understand the warrant system better, she is setting up a briefing with VDOT staff. Mr. Bowerman said a representative from VDOT is supposed to be attending the Raintree Homeowners' Association meeting on Friday to discuss the warrant system for signals at Old Brook Road and Rio Road. He asked that whoever attends the meeting set up for Mrs. Thomas provide that same information to the Association members. Mr. Perkins said in reference to the comments of Dr. Jim Bennett earlier today, he thinks the County should look at designating the Sugar Hollow Road, from the intersection of Route 614 to Route 676, as some sort of a special road with a reduced speed limit. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board had any authority to designate a road for a lower speed limit. Mr. Tucker said there is enabling legislation in zonmng ordinance provisions for scenic highways. Mr. Davis said that legisla- tion does not have any effect on speed limits. Mr. Tucker said he had thought the Board might look at more than just the road, and look at the entire area as a natural resource area. That will take longer. Maybe that could include the road. Mr. Perkins asked the posted speed limit at this time. Mr. Mills said VDOT staff has looked at the road with their Traffic Engineer and their Sign Foreman has been putting up signs. They did not want to put up a posted speed limit, although curves are posted for safe speeds. Normally, on very curvy roads there is more success with speed warning signs than with speed limit signs. Drivers sense the danger ahead and will slow down to a proper speed for a curve. VDOT wants to try this suggestion of their Traffic Engineer. Mrs. Humphris said she also thinks the Board should give some special designation to that road or to the area. She asked how the Board should proceed from this point. Mr. Tucker said if it is the consensus of the Board, he will ask staff to look at the best way to consider something for the road. The stream is already designated a scenic stream. He thinks staff should look at the broader area and what that might entail to protect that area. Mrs. Humphris suggested that any other areas in the County that are comparable or significant in some way to justify a special designation also be considered. Mr. Cilimberg said Planning Staff, while reviewing the Rural Areas, will look at what additional kinds of protection might be available for areas like this. However, that study is way off into the future. Mr. Martin again asked VDOT to consider a "RIGHT TURN ON RED" sign at the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29 North. It is noted in the letter that the request is being reviewed, and he asked what the review entails. He thinks that if VDOT has the authority to do it, it should not require a lot of review to realize that during any hours other than from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and afternoons from 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. it does not make sense to say there can be no right turn on red. Mr. Mills said he will speak to the Traffic Engineer to see if there can be a change. Board members offered congratulations to Mrs. Angela Tucker on the birth of her daughter. Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation by Bryan Elliott on Long Range Plans for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Mr. Elliott said he was present to give an update on the status of the Airport and long-range projects. A~out two and one-half years ago, the Airport Authority adopted an update to its overall Master Plan and made a presentation of that to this Board. Today, he would like to report on current November 6, 1996 (Regular Day. Meeting) (Page 12) air service trends, market demographics, status of current projects, and the conceptual layout of the proposed improvements to Airport Road (Route 649). In terms of market demographics and passenger statistics, currently there are 32 flights each day on five airlines. Recently, Colgan and Conti- nental Express began servicing this market. U.S. Air Express, ComAir and United Express continue to provide service also. Ten flights access the New York Metropolitan market which is one of the largest markets served. People who use the Airport come from an area from as far north as Culpeper, as far west as Rockingham County, as far east as Louisa County, and as far south as Nelson County. Forty percent of the passengers originate from Albemarle County. An additional 12 percent come from surrounding counties in close proximity, with 15 percent coming from areas such as Augusta County and Waynesboro. Twelve percent of the people parking their cars at the Airport have out-of-state license plates, which shows the strength of the University of Virginia and the role it plays in this market. Eleven percent of the passenger base comes from the City of Charlottesville. Passenger boardings this year should be up three or four percent last year (145,000). Mr. Elliott said that since 1972, passenger movements have increased more than 165 percent. This is one of 47 small airports across the United States which has experienced growth this large. This is the fifth largest commercial service airport in Virginia. In terms of general aviation, the airport maintains a fleet mix of approximately 60 aircraft. Total aircraft operations are about 85,000 per year. The general aviation service provider sells approximately 1.2 million gallons of fuel in a year. Mr. Elliott said that when he was before this Board in 1994, he talked about the Master Plan, capacity needs, the forecast of growth for the Airport for the next 20 years, and short-term and long-term projects. Today, they are in the process of finishing a major pavement, rehabilitation project. They are in the final phases of site preparation for an area to allow for construc- tion of additional hangars. Recently, an option agreement with a local developer was initiated, Aviation Hangar Concepts, Inc., for a 25-year land lease in order to provide the hangars. The developer is currently marketing that space and has about six potential tenants for that space. It is hoped that this project will be completed in late 1997. Modifications to the terminal building were recently completed to include an escalator system off of the U.S. gate area off of the second floor, and installation of an elevator to link the parking lot to the front of the building. Mr. Elliott said that in terms of the next 18 months, Congress passed a bill last month approving a two-year funding program for airport improvement projects nationwide. Projects for the next 24-month period were recently filed, and this includes rehabilitation of the taxiway. Expansion of the air carrier parking area is proposed because of the addition of the two new airlines. In that expansion, an aircraft de-icing, collection pad will be installed. The Airport currently meets all of the Federal environmental regulations in terms of aircraft de-icing, but they would like to have a place to collect all that material so it can be recycled and used again. Those improvements will cost about $2.6 million with the bulk of that being funded through the Federal government. Mr. Elliott said as there is a need to lengthen the safety area over the south end of the runway. The Federal government has changed its priority ranking system for Federal funds, and that project does not have the high priority it had a few years ago. Because of that, the project was deferred in lieu of the projects he mentioned earlier. The project is probably still three to five years in the future. That project does involve the relocation of Route 606 south of the runway, and maybe, even Route 743. The environmen- tal assessment on that project continues. Mr. Elliott said as the Route 649 project goes forth over the next 12 to 18 months, there will be a number of items to be studied. There are a significant number of people involved in this project other than the Airport Authority. A primary goal is to insure adequate access for Airport passen- gers, but Route 649 also serves people and businesses north of the Airport, south of the Airport, and residents who l%ve west of the Airport. It is a critical transportation link in the nor~thern part of the County. With all of the property owners involved, and considering the traffic volume on the road, there are two critical pointsi the Route 29 intersection with Route 649, and the Rodte 649 intersection with the Airport. A conceptual November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) O00, u3 plan drafted so the Airport Authority can begin to study funding of the project. They already have about 80 percent of the funds needed through funds in the County's Six-Year Road Plan and the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The Airport Authority will soon change procedures in order to be able to use its passenger facility charges for funding the project, as well as trying to secure Department of Aviation funding from the State. This conceptual plan is not in any way the final design, but is only a proposal to be used in securing funding, and in getting an overall idea of the total cost of the project. Mr. Martin asked what the process will be to move from this conceptual plan to an actual plan. Mr. Elliott said that the Airport Authority must finalize agreements between the Virginia Department of Transportation, the County, and the Airport Authority, whereby the Authority would contract with the County to do the design and follow VDOT requirements for location, design, etc. Once those agreements are in place, the Authority will sign a contract with its consultants to begin the design. What they propose is a four-lane divided roadway with a raised median all the way from Route 29 to the Airport, moving the current intersection of Route 649/Route 606 and the Airport. They also want a signal light at the new intersection. At this time, the critical element is the intersection of Route 29 since they understand VDOT has a consultant already working on the widening of Route 29 from Airport Road to the River. Since the Airport Authority sees this road as the "front door to the community" they would like to have landscaping incorporated. The County has expressed a desire to provide bike lanes along Route 649. The Authority would also like to have some lighting along Route 649 so it is an attractive entranceway and an extension of the whole notion of the Airport being the "front door of the community" and the first and last impression visitors and residents have of the community. The Airport Authority has to be fiscally responsible, and wants to be sure there are adequate resources to provide a road system that works. After all agreements are reached and signed, the design will take about one year. There will need to be right-of-way acquisition, and that could take a year, with ultimate construction beginning in 1998. Mr. Martin said Mr. Elliott had mentioned that the consultant to be hired will follow VDOT requirements for getting a final design, and he believes this includes the way VDOT holds public hearings on a project. He said that when the consultant has been hired, there should be some means for the people living in the community to have input into the project, rather than waiting for the typical public hearing after the design ms basically final- ized. He said there will probably be less opposition to acquisition of right-of-way or whatever is necessary if the people are involved in the process. Mr. Elliott said he has met individually with several landowners in the vicinity and showed them the concept and talked about the project. He knows the County's Planning Department has had input from some landowners, so that opportunity will be provided. Mr. Martin said he believes that in this particular area, the public could be invited to a meeting even before the sketches are finished because there is an involved group in the area. Mr. Elliott said that in his meetings with VDOT officials in Richmond, they presented an alternative on how the intersection might be treated, and several property owners along Route 649 have presented concepts to the Planning staff. All of those comments and suggestions have been presented to their engineers. Mr. Martin said he believes this should be a part of the RFP on the project. Mr. Elliott agreed. Mrs. Thomas noted that the Albemarle County Service Authority Board has plans to extend the sewer line mn this area, and they have talked about how the reconstruction of the road will influence what they do. Mr. Elliott said there are numerous utilities along Route 649 that will have to be dealt with. The Board requested that community input be included in the RFP as part of the consultant's charge for the proposed upgrade of Route 649. The Board recessed at 10:09 a.m., and reconvened at 10:22 a.m. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Request to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County ServiCe Authority to add water service to VDOT Headquarters on Route 250 East. November 6, 1996 (Regular Day ~eetin~) '' 0002G4 (Page 14) Mr. Cilimberg said the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has requested an amendment of the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdic- tional area in order to provide for water service to their property. This would require access to the existing 16-inch waterline which crosses the applicant's property and runs along Route 250 East. The applicant states that they are experiencing water quality problems (bad taste and corrosiveness), however, their tests have not shown the water to be health threatening. The applicant also states that they lack water for restroom facilities during power outages. The applicant's property is located outside of the designated Develop- ment Area off of Route 250 East in Rural Area 2, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The applicant's property currently is located outside the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) jurisdictional area for "water and sewer" service. With the development of Glenmore in the Village of Rivanna, a water line was installed along the Route 250 East corridor from the Urban Area to Glenmore. Subsequently, the Stone Robinson School received jurisdictional area designation for water, and a water line was constructed to serve the school from the main line on Route 250. Regarding the Village of Rivanna, the Comprehensive Plan states the following recommendation: ~Water capacity shall be reserved for a potential new school in the Village until such time as determined that the school is not necessary." Regarding provision of public utilities, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and under what circumstances public utilities should be made available. The Comprehensive Plan states: Strategies for Defininq Public Water and Sewer Service Areas: Follow the Boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas. Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health or safety is endangered." The Comprehensive Plan also warns that ~such utilities are not to be extended to the Rural Areas as these services can increase development pressures." (p. 146) Public water service to this parcel is not consistent with this intent and could set a precedent for allowing water service to other parcels along this corridor. No information has been provided that indicates that public health or safety are endangered, nor have any steps to solve the poor taste, smell and corrosiveness problems been documented. The ACSA indicates that it can provide the service, and that an onsite pressure reducing valve will be required. No other significant improvements will be required to provide water to the property. The Virginia Department of Health indicates that as a result of a history of problems with water quality and aesthetics of the drinking water supply, they would be supportive of an extension of water service to serve this site. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board of Supervisors has considered and denied two requests for water only service for nearby parcels along this stretch of 250 East (Booth/Exum (GOCO Oil) and Allen G. Dillard). The Booth/Exum request (TM 79, Parcels 18 and 19) was based on concerns with groundwater contamina- tion. The Dillard request (TM 79, Parcel 4P) was based on a need for fire suppression. The Board has also considered and approved one request for water only service to Clifton, The Country Inn (TM 79, Parcels 23B, 23C, 23F). However, the circumstances for Clifton distinguishes it from the VDOT request now under consideration, as well as the Booth/Exum and Dillard requests. The applicant in the Clifton request made well-documented efforts to solve the health and safety issues related to water on their site while working closely with the Virginia Department of Health and a private well-drilling company. It is staff's opinion that Clifton had exhausted all reasonable avenues for addressing water quantity and quality concerns. Mr. Cilimberg said this request is not consistent with the strategies of the Comprehensive Plan for the provision of sewer service outside of the designated Development Areas and is not consistent with prior Board decisions in this area regarding the provision of water service. No verification of endangerment to public health and safety has been provided. Based on this information, staff does not recommend approval of this request and, therefore, November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 000265 does not see a necessity for this to proceed to public hearing. Mrs. Humphris asked for questions from the Board.' Mr. Martin said the Board has a policy about such requests that has be~n followed strictly. Mrs. Humphris said based on the staff's recommendation there is no need to hold a public hearing. Mr. Martin agreed, unless VDOT gives more information concerning public safety or health. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board should have a motion to dispense with the request. Mr. Davis said "no", as long as there is a consensus of the Board not to set a public hearing. Mrs. Humphris said that hearing no negatives, and based on its stated policy, the Board will not go forward with the request to set a public hearing. (NOTE: The Board recessed at 10:09 a.m., and reconvened at 10:22 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Staff response to Albemarle Neighbor- hood Association Growth Management Proposal. Mr. Cilimberg said the presentation of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association's proposed Growth Management Plan was made at the September 4, 1996, meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Since then, staff has studied how they might pursue some recommendations, and also obtained an opinion from the County Attorney's Office on the legal aspects of the proposals. Recommendation No. 1 was "Limit Speculative Development." Mr. Cilimberg said staff has gathered information regarding the inventory of existing zoned land. For Comprehensive Plan (Plan) amendments, an analysis of need and existing availability of land is already a part of that review process. The Plan is updated every five years and that allows for adjustment to the Land Use Plan (LUP) based on future trends/needs. The most recently adopted LUP was targeted by the Planning Commission to meet projected needs for the next five years rather than trying to accommodate a 20-year need. Anything proposed to change the LUP would be analyzed as to how that proposal relates to need (whether it is a proposal to change a land use within a development area [new term: in the previous Comprehensive Plans, this was known as a "growth area"] that is already delineated, or whether it is a proposal to add to a development area). Mr. Cilimberg said when there is a request for residential rezoning, the focus is on accommodating the vast majority of that residential development in development areas. Staff does not support or encourage rezoning proposals in the Rural Areas. Usually such requests come in under by-right development as a standard subdivision or a Rural Preservation'Development (RPD). Residential rezoning in development areas needs to be analyzed to be sure the County is achieving its residential development goals. It is hoped that residential demands can be accommodated in the development areas where there is already infrastructure in place. Without an "Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APF)", it is hard to put a cap on that growth. There is no State enabling legislation for an APF, but it would be a tool for staff to use in addressing residential development in a general sense (where it is occurring; what impacts it might make on infrastructure; whether it should occur at that point in time). Recommendation No. 2, "Develop a program to purchase development rights (PDR's)." Mr. Cilimberg said this is something staff is studying. The County Attorney has furnished written comments about the PDR enabling legislation (on file). It is a program that can be set up because the provisions do exist. Virginia Beach is conducting a PDR program now. The County Attorney did note that the program is intended for purchase of development rights in "urbanized areas", which are rather loosely defined. Mrs. Thomas said it also includes the term "urbanizing in character" which includes the whole of Albemarle County as far as the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) is concerned. Mr. Cilimberg said staff feels the PDR program should be utilized and what Albemarle County is trying to protect, defined. In Virginia Beach, the program is focused on prime farmlands, and they have many of them. They have a very high quality agricultural area in terms of their soils. There are a lot of potential areas in Albemarle County where a PDR program could be targeted. Those areas need to be established to show how PDR's might tie into some proposed plans, such as the Mountain Protection Plan. The Mountain November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16 ) ~. 000266 Protection Plan shows significant areas which need to be protected. A PDR program could be directly oriented to areas identified in that plan. Mr. Bowerman asked the County Attorney to discuss how the development rights could be applied. What is meant by "urbanizing areas"? Mr. Davis said that language has not been specifically defined. In his opinion, if there is a far-reaching rural part of the County that is not urbanizing, or in danger of being influenced by the urbanizing part of the County, no development right could be purchased there. Mrs. Thomas said the VOF has been taking easements throughout the County using an opinion that allows designation of the entire County as either urbanizing, or being in danger of urbanizing. She thinks that argument has been faced and decided as far as Albemarle County is concerned. Mr. Davis said he believes that is an advisory opinion. The question has not been decided. It has not been challenged. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board could have Mr. Davis pursue the issue in terms of what this Board wants to do. Mr. Davis said he believes there are legal grounds to take a position consistent with what the VOF has done, but it is an issue which has not been decided. Mr. Cilimberg said one of the practical aspects of this question is that this can be a valuable tool when directed to those areas which are considered to be important resources. Then there is the question of finding the revenue to undertake the PDR program. Because Albemarle is such a large county, it would make sense to prioritize. Virginia Beach uses a priority, scoring system which sets out where PDR acquisitions will occur based on the signifi- cance of the areas, provided they meet the State enabling legislation. Their program lists criteria and evaluation scores on where to buy first, or how to direct resources. Mrs. Thomas asked if this Board directed that this program be undertaken, if it could be part of the review of the Rural Areas. Mr. Cilimberg said staff would want to do it sooner, as part of the Mountain Protection Plan proposal. If the Board decides to pursue the PDR program, adopts that as a policy to be included in the Comprehensive Plan, and adopts the necessary ordinance provisions, staff will determine how to fund and get the program started. Mr. Martin asked if staff thinks there are areas involving the mOuntain tops which should be considered priority areas under such a program. Mr. Cilimberg said if this Board adopts the Mountain Protection Plan as proposed by the Mountain Protection Committee, the Board will be establishing very specific resource areas because they are clearly defined in the proposed plan. Mr. Martin mentioned that Mr. Davis has said the Board should look at areas that are clearly being threatened by urbanization. Mr. Davis said that may not be a problem with some of the mountain areas. What is being proposed in the Mountain Protection Ordinance is to shift development rights below the ridge line. There would then be no loss of development rights so there would be no need to purchase development rights. Only in an instance where it were found to be unfair or a taking of the property to not allow development above the ridge line, or where a property owner could be granted an exception, a variance, or something that would grant them the right to develop above the ridge line, might the County purchase development rights in lieu of allowing development. That would not create a problem with the term"urbanizing character" because it is an area being developed for residential purposes. That goes hand-in-hand with what the enabling legislation allows counties to do. Mr. Bowerman asked if the entire watershed area of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir could be looked at as one of the areas in danger of urbanization. Mr. Davis said there is different criteria in that case. In Virginia Beach, they basically have 20 questions and a point rating system. There has to be fairness in how to decide which development rights are purchased. It is a dangerous situation if it is done on a sporadic or random basis just because a landowner indicates they are going to develop their property. There has to be a rationale basis before expending county funds. There cannot be favoritism in applying the program. There are a lot of "red flags" to be careful of when setting up the program. Mr. Cilimberg s~id there are 740 square miles in Albemarle County, minus what is in the development areas, so it is probably not possible to have funding for a PDR program which could apply to every area November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) of the County. If priorities are established, then over the years, it may be possible to get to all of the areas that are felt to be important. Mrs. Thomas said setting priorities is different from deciding there are certain areas of the county that cannot even be considered. She will resist doing that. If one wants to call the definition ambiguous, she believes that gives grounds for carrying on. It is good to have it pointed out that it is something called an "urban area", but she does not want the Board to say at this point, "we can't take anything that is farther than ten miles outside of the city." The Board does not need to handicap the thought process at this point. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to be creative and "push the envelope". Mrs. Thomas said that obviously there is already a state agency in Albemarle County that is doing that. The Board would just be following in the footsteps of the VOF which is already using this same legislation. Mr. Davis said the difference is that the VOF is not expending funds, so there has been no incentive for anyone to challenge that law. The reason for the limit in the legislation is that the law was not intended to apply to all lands in the State. Justification would be needed for the areas picked as urbanizing under the definition. The definition is very broad and, if challenged, there would be a problem justifying the reasons the area was chosen. Mr. Perkins asked if the County could rent, or lease land, on an annual basis. Would enabling legislation be needed for that? Mr. Davis said if there is a public purpose to acquiring the land on a lease basis, there is enabling authority that allows counties to lease land. If it were leased as a county park, or something of a similar nature, there is general enabling authority which allows that. Mr. Martin asked if the County purchased development rights, if it can sell them. Mr. Perkins said he believes there is a time limit on those purchased by Virginia Beach. Mr. Davis said Virginia Beach's program allows them at the end of the 25-year purchase agreement period, before they actually take permanent title to the open space, to sell them back to the landowner at the then fair market value. He thinks the enabling legislation is broad enough so that if development rights were purchased and it was later deter- mined that the land should be developed, those rights could be sold. Mr. Martin said it seems to him that the Board could put itself in the posture of making decisions now that boards in the future might want to change. All of the Board's other decisions (Comprehensive Plan, sewer connection policy, etc.) are things a board 40 years from now could change. He would not want the Board to make a decision that might affect someone 40 years from now, and it could not be changed. Mr. Bowerman said the whole idea behind these things is that they are permanent. Mrs. Thomas agreed. Mr. Martin said he is not saying he is opposed to the idea, but he does not want to get in a situation where there is no more land available for development. Mr. Bowerman said that is one of the ideas. He does not think the program could be done to the whole 740 square miles, but the whole idea is to protect and preserve. Mr. Martin said he understands that, but Mr. Cilimberg just mentioned the whole 740 square miles, and Mr. Bowerman said earlier to "push the envelope" He knows the concept is great and the County needs to move in that direction, but he does not like to hear comments that sound like the County is trying to buy up all development rights in a way where different decisions could not be made in the future. Mrs. Thomas said the chances of the Board doing that are very remote. Mr. Tucker said that is not very realistic. Mrs. Humphris said to look at what was proposed by the ANA and the proposal is clear. It states: "To develop a program to purchase development rights. The purchase of development rights program shall target the permanent protection of selected areas of prime farmland, critical habitat to insure bio-diversity, environmentally sensitive land and green belts and greenways .... " Mr. Martin said he read that and knows what it said. Mrs. Humphris asked wh~the.Board would not want to insure that the purchases are permanent. Mr. Martin said~as long as the ~°ard talks about ~'se~ected areaS" ' But, then the Board started talking about being in the business of buying all of the development rights even if it takes 50 years. He has some real concerns. As long as the talk is about selected areas, mountain tops, those areas that are being immediately threatened by urbanization, then he is for doing this. If the long-term goal is to purchase them all, that gets away from what Mrs. November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) Humphris just read. Mrs. Humphris said this is what she thought the Board was discussing. Mrs. Thomas said if Mr. Martin thought she was speaking about anything other than "selected" then she misspoke herself. Mrs. Thomas said if Mr. Martin thinks the program is a good idea with the word "selected" then she believes all the Board members are in agreement. Mr. Cilimberg said from the staff's standpoint, it can provide the Board information on those areas, and then the Board can talk about how those areas should be prioritized, and the staff will also do some legal testing. Mr. Bowerman said that~ is what he means about the "envelope" Where there are questions of what can and cannot be done, he would like those defined, and where there is something this Board decides is in the public interest to do (something which may be questionable), he would like to look seriously at doing that. Mrs. Humphris said the Board does not want "to spin its wheels by barreling ahead with something it cannot do." Mr. Martin said his whole concern is (and he will talk about it again when the Board talks about the 21 acres versus 42 acres) that working class people need to be able to live in Albemarle County too. He does not want the Board to talk about affordable housing on the one hand, and on the other hand talk about making sure that no one can live here, period. He wants the Board to always move in a direction which allows the Board to think about some of the other things which are considered important. Mrs. Humphris said she agrees there should be balance. She asked about a statement Mr. Cilimberg made earlier, that an Adequate Public Facilities (APF) ordinance is not allowed in the State. She remembers attending work sessions of the VACO Steering Committee on Planning and Land Use, and this was enabled for some locality in Northern Virginia. However, it was done in such a way that it was crippling, and they never implemented it because it presented more problems than it helped. Mr. Cilimberg said he is not aware of any APF ordinance, but he knows that several counties in Northern Virginia and the City of Norfolk were granted the right to have impact fees, which many times go hand-in-hand with such an ordinance. Those impact fees were for transpor- tation and schools. They found that to put together an impact fee program was more difficult than just continuing with cash proffers, etc. If the Board feels there is a need to have infrastructure paid for by the impacts, which typically are based on residential development, it is done across-the-board and is not part of a rezoning. It is done with any new dwelling unit. Mr. Davis said he is not aware of any locality being enabled for an APF ordinance. There are jurisdictions which sought legal opinions from their attorneys and were told, "if you push the envelope of all the existing enabling authorities counties have" you can come close to approaching an APF ordinance, but there is no specific enabling legislation allowing it. Mrs. Humphris said she understands there are two people present who would like to speak on this subject, probably to enlighten the Board. Ms. Karen Dame said she has questions, not enlightenments. She has lots of process questions with what is going on. The most raging one at the moment is in terms of the next step of a PDR program. She said there are two different things. Figuring out where a revenue stream would come from, and then figuring out a priority list. She understands from the conversation that the definition of a priority list will go back to staff and they will make a recommendation to the Board. She does not understand how a priority list can be made when the Rural Areas have yet to be reviewed for the Comprehensive Plan update. There has not been a Critical Resources Inventory, so what is actually in the County is known. She would like to see part of the planning for the PDR spelled out as to how it will funnel into all the other things being planned. Mr. Cilimberg said before there can be a fully developed PDR program, the Rural Area review is needed. He mentioned the Mountain Protection plan as an example of a place where, if there is real interest in getting something started, that is a place where the Board could start looking at funding needs. It does not mean it would be a full-fledged PDR program because there would be other priorities identified after the Critical Resources Inventory and the Rural Areas discussion. Ms. Sherry Buttrick said she would like to speak about the Open Space Land Act under which the Board would take an interest in land if doing a purchase of development rights program. She said Mr. Martin mentioned that forever is a long time. This comes up quite often when taking land forever. 0002G9 November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) There are provisions in the Act to provide for the release of land if the open space is no longer needed. There are legislative findings which must be made. In order to release land, substitute land has to be found unless the situation has changed so substantially that the County would no longer need the land. The way the law was crafted, that question did come up, and there is a provision in the law to address that question. Mr. Bowerman asked if that applies to a private person giving an ease- ment. Ms. Buttrick said "yes". One of the reasons she is interested in how the open space land act is interpreted in Albemarle is that upon this statute hangs most of the law for conservation in Virginia. The VOF, although it does not spend money to buy these easements, does expend the resources of the sovereign to administer them and to run the VOF, to run the Department of Historic Resources which also takes easements under this legislation, and the Public Recreational Facilities Authority which works under the same legisla- tion and this has not come up as a problem yet. Mr. Bowerman asked if there are tax consequences in the future for the landowner. Ms. Buttrick said "yes". Giving an easement constitutes a charitable gift. A gift cannot be "undone" unless legislative findings are made because that is what they call private inurement which means that you have been given back something for which you have taken a tax deduction for giving it away. Determining that this open space in the fullness of time is no longer needed and can be released is a very substantial, important and difficult finding to make. It's not often made, and it is not anticipated that such a decision would be made lightly. The Legislature thought of this and did make some provisions that should give this Board some comfort. Mr. Martin said he is glad to know this. It seems to him that if he made a decision in the near future that is to be forever, there might come a time when his vision did not see "forever" Ms. Buttrick said that is clearly the same intellectual exercise that was gone through when this law was adopted. She directed the Board to the section of the Act entitled "Conversion of Land from Open Space Land Use." Mr. Davis said there are two basic findings that must be made by the governing body, or the public body administering the program: the diversion is essential to the orderly development and growth of the urban area and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of the conver- sion/diversion; and, other real property of at least equal fair market value and as nearly as feasibly equivalent usableness and location is substituted in its place unless there is a determination that such open space land use is no longer needed. Ms. Buttrick said "essential" is a serious word and is taken seriously by the VOF which administers this program. Land is not lightly put under easement and then sprung because it no longer suits. She mentioned the definition and application of the term "urban area". It is an odd term, particularly in Albemarle County, where the terms "urban area" and "rural areas" mean something else. The definition in this law is different from that definition used by Albemarle County. "Urban area" in the statute is defined as meaning "an area which is urban or urbanizing in character including semi-urban areas and surrounding areas which form an economic and so- cially-related region taking into consideration such factors as present and future Population trends and patterns of urban growth." That is different from Albemarle County's idea of an urban area. Because it is a somewhat odd term, and because the VOF operates in much more rural areas of Virginia than Albemarle County under the same statute, a question does sometimes come up. It came up in 1994, and the Assistant Attorney General was asked for an opinion on the definition of an urban area. She read a couple of sections from that oPinion: "To accomplish the purposes of the Open Space Land Act, open space land must be protected in areas meeting the extremely broad criteria given in the definition of urban area. With modern roads and automobiles, surrounding areas which form an economic and socially-related region' covers substantial areas. Modern transportation coupled with the desire of so many people to have a low-cost and peaceful home in the country means that an urban area can be developed almost anywhere in the Sate by subdividing a farm into numerous housing sites or a strip or other shopping center. Thus, the definition of open space as land in an urban area as defined, must necessarily include much of the State. The VOF has always followed a broad interpretation of urban area. This is based on the necessity of reading the Act in a way which will actually accomplish its purpose. If land may be protected only in an already developed or semi-developed area, a November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 000 ?0 major underlying purpose of the Act would be defeated. In view of the foregoing, I believe the Foundation's position is legally justified." Ms. Buttrick said this is a letter from VOF's counsel, and is a letter of opinion and not an official Attorney General's opinion. The letter is signed by Frederick S. Fischer, Assistant Attorney General, who represents all of the agencies who work under this legislation. He is extremely familiar with this legislation. He spoke also with George Freeman, senior partner at Hunton & Williams, who wrote the legislation. It is Mr. Freeman's opinion that the "urban area" covers every acre of the Commonwealth. He feels that there is not an acre of the Commonwealth that is not urbanizing in some manner. He feels the VOF is justified in operating all over Virginia. He was also chairman of the Historic Resources Board which operates under this legisla- tion. Ms. Babette Thorpe commented on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council. She said she would respond on three elements of the Growth Manage- ment Plan beginning with the Purchase of Development Rights program, and then back track to the limitation on speculative development. First, she thanked the County Planning Staff and the County Attorney for their diligence in reviewing and commenting upon this package. It is obvious that they spent some time looking at this and PEC appreciates that. It is a good sign that citizen planning initiatives are of value to this community. As to the definition of "urban area", she pointed out that the entire County lies within the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area which confirms the economic and social connection between the rural and urban areas of the County and the City. With regard to using the Transient Lodging Tax, the Code of Virginia states that the revenues collected from the portion of the tax exceeding two percent, "shall be designated and spent for promoting tourism, travel or business that generates tourism or travel in the locality." In some cases, the County might contemplate the purchase of development rights which would not meet those criteria, and another source of revenue would have to fund that purchase. In many cases, however, the land so protected would directly benefit and promote tourism by protecting those assets that tourists come here to visit. According to the 1992 NFO Virginia Pleasure and Business Visitors Study, which was conducted by the Virginia Division of Tourism, 67 percent of the tourist visit historic buildings, houses, or sites. Another 62 percent visit National or State parks. It appears well within both the letter and the spirit of the statute to use this revenue to protect from inappropriate development, land within Monticello's viewshed, land surrounding significant historic buildings and sites, land along State scenic highways, and land visible from State and National parks. Ms. Thorpe suggested that the Board consider appointing a committee to develop a PDR program. There is a lot of expertise in the community on this issue. She knows the County Planning staff is overloaded, so PEC would like to help by working with the County to identify possible sources of funding, and to help identify areas of the County that should be targeted for purchase of development rights. Ms. Thorpe said she would like to make some comments about Recommendation No. 1, "Limit speculative development". She said County staff has recommended that this proposal is most appropriate to Comprehensive Plan amendments rather than rezonings. The Piedmont Environmental Council urges the Board to first, implement the method of calculating the potential for job formation which is laid out in the ANA proposal. Second, conduct this analysis as part of the rezoning review. Third, if a Plan amendment is needed to accomplish this, then adopt such amendment. The current method employed by county staff projects the amount of land needed versus the amount of land zoned in acres. While this is an appropriate start, it does not tell how many jobs could be accommodated on the land zoned. Determining job potential is the key to understanding the potential for population change and the attendant impacts on County resources. To complete the analysis suggested by the ANA, would involve translating acres of potential development into square feet. This analysis would include the total number of building area which could be accommodated on a site, taking into consideration setbacks, floor area ratios and parking requirements. The square footage would then be divided by the approximate number of square feet required per employee for that type of land use. Knowing the number of employees is essential to knowing whether the number of jobs provided bears any relationship to the number of people expected to arrive in Albemarle over the next 20 years. This information helps determine whether the County is zoning more land for industry and offices than it needs to support jobs for the population it expects. It is also important to remember that the Plan projects land use over 20 years. The County has both the authority and the responsibility to insure that the recommendations of the Plan are phased over that 20-year period rather November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)~ (Page 21) 0002'71 than put into place the first year or two of the Plan. Zoning substantially more land than needed, which can be best determined using the method suggested by the ANA proposal, leads to over zoning. This reduces the community's control over its future and can fundamentally undermine the Comprehensive Plan. Over zoning is already a problem in Albemarle County. A PEC analysis (attached to our statement-on file) indicates that current LI zoning could accommodate between 63,000 and 66,000 new employees, a number far in excess of the number of jobs needed to serve population growth estimates over the next 20 years. Planning staff implies that amending the Comprehensive Plan to require phasing is not necessary because "there are not vast designated development areas not zoned to Comprehensive Plan designations." While it is true that few large tracts are being unzoned, there are over 300 acres in the County's zoned rural areas designated in the Plan for industrial development according to a May, 1996 inventory of industrial sites generated by the Planning Department. It does make sense to amend the Plan to insure that the zones for these sites can be phased. Mr. Cilimberg said if there were no further questions about the first two recommendations, he would discuss "phasing annually of development rights per owner." He pointed out that this could be used as an incentive for Rural Preservation Developments (RPD) . If eventually, development were subject to some type of an annual phasing, a RPD could be allowed as one basic exercise of development rights. In phasing development rights, staff does not want to feed some of the things that have been worked against, basically piecemeal subdivision of land, and subdivisions without internal roads. It is not known how phasing of a project would affect the decisions of a landowner. If a landowner could only exercise so many rights in a phasing process, would that discourage him from using internal roads and develop along existing roads instead?. Any preliminary subdivision plat must show where roads will go, how the lots are laid out, and then as the plat is approved, the road must either be bonded, or built, so it raises the question of how phasing relates to planning. Mrs. Thomas asked how this is working in Orange and Madison counties, who both have this program in effect already. Mr. Cilimberg said he talked to Mr. Ben Blankenship, who was Orange County's Planning Director, about it, and it depends on what is allowed by right in current subdivision regulations. Orange County was receiving proposals for large subdivisions. They don't have the same subdivision process as Albemarle has. They introduced this program as a way to discourage requests for vast subdivisions, and then have the approved subdivision plans just waiting for potential development. Orange already had a large inventory of lots which had been subdivided in prior years. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that Mr. Blankenship has now come to work for Albemarle County in the newly created position of Development Review Manager. At this time, Mr. Tucker said he had asked Mr. Blankenship to come to the meeting today so that he could be introduced to the Board. Mrs. Thomas asked her question again. Mr. Blankenship said the rate of growth in Orange County is quite a bit slower than that in Albemarle County. The number of lots developed since 1989 has not been so many as to make the problem insurmount- able. In Orange County, they wrote their regulation to allow four lots in four years, and their Board felt that was a better solution than having a final limit on development rights as is the case in Albemarle County. They felt that would still control the timing of development. He said that a developer who comes into town and buys up a large piece of property and divides it into lots and then leaves town, will not be interested in property that is tied up that way. Even though an owner has the right over a period of time to create enough lots for income purposes, it would not be attractive to a developer. That was a major part of the thinking in Orange. Another thing that Orange County intentionally does differently from other places, is to allow development on private roads with very minor qualifications on develop- ment of the road. The purpose of this was to get the four lots off of the state road and onto a private right-of-way. Before that was allowed,~there was a stripping of the secondary roads. They decided they would rather deal with the problems of the private roads, than continue with strip development. That is a different position from what most rural counties have taken, but it has worked for Orange. Mr. Cilimberg said the rural development allowances in Orange are quite different from those in Albemarle. Mr. Blankenship said that in Orange there is only one agricultural district, and that covers about 85 percent of the land area. In agricultural, no more than four lots can be created in any four-year period, and that includes the residue. This allows a farmer to November 6, 1996 (Page 22) 000272 create a minimal amount of income over a period of time, rather than selling the farm all at once. Mr. Cilimberg said that over a number of years, a person could create a multiple of two-acres lots, but only four in four years. If that were to stay in place over 50 years, a large parcel could have two-acre lots all over it. Mr. Blankenship said there are other subdivision restrictions that come into play at 14 lots for a major subdivision. At that point, the roads must be upgraded, and questions relating to water and sewer answered. Mr. Cilimberg said he would now discuss the next two recommendations: "Increase the size of rural lots from 21 to at least 42 acres ..." This is something the Planning Commission recommended in 1989. It was not approved by the Board of Supervisors at that time, and is something that will be brought up again as part of the Rural Areas discussion. It is also recom- mended in the proposed Mountain Protection Plan. A lot of alternatives will need to be studied in regard to rural development. A~other thing that has been mentioned is the possibility of establishing a maximum lot size in the Rural Areas, as well as the minimum lot size. If there were a maximum lot size, it would limit the amount of actual land area that could be subdivided. Mr. Cilimberg said that ~5 - "Support the principles embodied in the recommen- dations of the County's Mountain Protection and Historic Preservation Commit- tees .... "is at this very time proceeding. The Planning Commission is about to order a public hearing on the Mountain Protection Plan. Work of the Preservation Committee is on-going. Mr. Cilimberg said that as to #6 - "Hire a nationally recognized consul- tant experienced in neighborhood design .... ", last week staff presented to the Planning Commission a proposal for proceeding with the development area initiatives (a copy of that was attached to the staff's report delivered to the Board members previously). They did lay out a process which the Planning Commissioners who were present last week endorsed (4-0 with 3 absent). That had two elements which are important: 1) creation of a steering committee with a wide range of membership, and 2) have a consultant to assist in the process by creating a visual picture of what they are trying to do and to also conduct the public participation process. That has been recommended by the Planning Commission and this Board's endorsement and approval of that process will allow the work to go forward. This is already a part of the Planning Staff's work program. At this point, Mr. Cilimberg offered to answer questions. Mrs. Thomas asked what was being requested of the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said the critical item is the endorsement of what the Planning Commission has recommended to the Board. Staff needs to know whether the Board will want it to get a steering committee together, or whether the Board wants to make the appointments. After reviewing the staff's memo, Mrs. Thomas said she liked the listing of groups recommended for membership on the committee. Mrs. Humphris suggested that there be room allowed on the committee from other groups should the need arise. Mrs. Thomas said she also liked the proposal, even though it is not included in the staff's report, of having citizens work on the Purchase of Development Rights proposal. This could involve the expertise of the commu- nity, but not involve the staff at this particular time. Mr. Bowerman said the policy implications inherent in that in terms of finances needs to be determined. Mrs. Thomas said they might clearly delineate the types of questions the Board has to answer before moving forward with various stages of the proposal. Mr. Martin asked why Mrs. Thomas had suggested leaving staff out of the work. Mrs. Thomas said she did not want to put another burden on the staff at this time. Mr. Martin said he hates to be totally antagonistic, but he does not see putting an issue such as this in the hands of a particular group that has a particular philosophy. He thinks the Board needs to be looking at both sides of the picture of all of these issues. There is more than one way of looking at the issues. Mrs. Thomas asked what Mr. Martin would suggest. Mr. Martin said to use individuals from many types of groups. Mrs. Thomas said that although this proposal was made by the PEC, she was not thinking of it as being a PEC committee. Mr. Bowerman said there needs to be staff on the committee so the Board can be sure the administrative functions are done. Mrs. Humphris said what the Board needs to find out and understand is how to establish PDR's. If the Board does this, how is it implemented? A group of people who can do all the digging and find out exactly what is enabled, and November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 0002'73 (Page 23) where the money is coming from, is needed. They are not to decide whether or not this is a good thing. The Board will have to decide that later. Mr. Martin said he feels any presentation by such a group will be biased toward a certain direction. He thinks a cross-section of people is needed. He does not know how the Board would give this task to an agency, or a group to get the facts together. Mr. Tucker said staff will bring the Board a list of people who might provide the balance the Board is discussing. Mr. Martin said all the issues have different sides. The recommendation regarding 21 acres versus the 42 acres is a great idea, but he wants to know if by doing that the Board is expecting everyone in the County to be able to afford 42 acres or live on a quarter of an acre in a "pushed up" subdivision. Is that what the Board is trying to say? If so, go ahead and say it. He knows that Mrs. Thomas has been very interested in low-income housing and he wonders if 42 versus 21 has an impact on that. It may not have an impact, but he wants that question answered by someone. He wants to make sure the questions are asked that will allow Albemarle to remain a county where the middle class can still live. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a question which will be taken up during the Rural Areas analysis. Mrs. Humphris said in the background information distributed today, the Board has discussed No. 1. Mrs. Thomas said it was discussed but the Board did not decide if it is adequate to have this take only during Comprehensive Plan amendments or whether the Board needs more analysis when there is an Office or an Industrial rezoning proposal. At what point, does the Board do something other than just have a discussion of this question? Mr. Cilimberg said there is a fair amount of analysis that goes with rezoning requests. Staff needs to look at where it feels the analysis would be most beneficial. In the rezoning sense, it would be best to do this if there were a proposal on land such as the Sperry property. There is commercial land on the west side of Route 29 in the Hollymead area that is under one ownership, and if that were to be brought forward for development, this is the kind of analysis that would be helpful. Mrs. Thomas said she often substitutes the word "all rezonings" for the word "major rezonings". There is a difference of opinion as to what is major, and that is understandable. She would feel happier if all could agree on the word so staff would know that is what was expected. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be helpful. Mrs. Thomas said major rezonings that involve employment should have this analysis. However, expansion of existing businesses should be exempt, as was suggested, since that is what the Economic Development Policy clearly calls for. Mrs. Humphris asked what step the Board needs to take to be sure that becomes policy. Mr. Tucker said if that is the consensus of the Board, staff understands that, and it will be handled that way from now on. Mrs. Humphris said that has just become policy. Mr. Martin asked if Mrs. Humphris was saying the Board just implemented this. Mrs. Thomas said on No. 1, the major rezonings should have a staff analysis of other land already zoned for that use and projected demand for the proposed use based upon current populations and relevant employment data. Mr. Tucker said this is just a change in the analysis that staff goes through already. Mr. Cilimberg asked if this is something the Board wants to apply just to commercial and industrial rezonings, or also to residential. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks staff already provides information on residential rezonings. Mrs. Humphris said No. 2, "Develop a program to purchase development rights .... "was discussed and decided on. As to No. 3 regarding phasing, "Reduce commercial speculation in the rural areas .... "she thought it would be taken up during the Rural 'Areas comPrehensive Plan review,'so that after Mr. Cilimberg's explanation, the Board does not need to do anything else at this time. The same thing applies to No. 4, "Increase the size of rural lots from 21 to at least 42 acres ..." Mrs. Humphris continued by saying that No. 5, "Support the .principles embodied in the recommendations of the County's Mountain Protection and Historic Preservation Committees .... "is in progress. As to No. 6, "Hire a nationally recognized consultant .... "she thinks the Board agreed to that and the steering committee. Mr. Perkins said any steering committee looking at land use should have representation from the Farm Bureau. November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 000274 Mr. Martin asked if the Board members really intend to go forward with implementing No. 1 without having a public hearing. Mrs~ Humphris said it makes sense to her. Mr. Martin said he was not indicating that it does not make sense, but for all of the other ideas, the Board is talking about having further study and yet on this one, it just seems that it should have a nighttime public hearing so people can at least speak to the issue. Mrs. Humphris said this is for the benefit of the Board in its decision-making. She feels the Board needs this information in order to make good decisions. Why would the public not want the Board to have all the information staff can make available about the impacts of the rezoning? That is not something she thinks the public needs to say the Board can have. It is something the Board should be able to request from staff. Mr. Bowerman said that during Comprehensive Plan reviews those things are incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant and everybody knows what has to be done. All those things have been adopted either under zoning requirements, supplementary regulations, or Comprehensive Plan requirements. The Board is saying that when it receives such a request, it wants additional information. He would like for the Board to have that information available. Mrs. Thomas asked if it is because it will require more staff time and public dollars that Mr. Martin thinks it should have a public hearing. What is the basis for his suggestion? Mr. Bowerman said the Board is not implementing anything except asking for additional information. Mrs. Thomas said that several months ago she asked that the Housing Office be allowed to comment on certain major decisions. That has been put into effect. She is hardly ever opposed to having a public hearing, so if Mr. Martin has reasons for the request, she is agreeable. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Martin if he is satisfied. Mr. Martin said he would just send it "out into the twilight zone today." Mrs. Humphris said if there were no further comments on this agenda item, the Board would turn that suggestion over to staff to implement as discussed today. Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Analysis of Reinstatement of Scenic Highway Regulations. Mr. Cilimberg said at its May 17, 1996, meeting, the Board requested a study of the possible reinstitution of Scenic Highway zoning provisions on U.S. Route 250 West. Since that time, the Board has discussed the matter twice, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has discussed the matter twice, and it has been the subject of a Quarterly Roundtable attended by 22 citizens and 11 members of County staff. Most of the citizens spoke in favor of returning the setback on roads that had been previously designated as Scenic Highways. They supported 150 feet as the setback, but there was no consensus as to whether that should be a zoning provision, or a guideline the ARB might follow. There was concern expressed about the ability to vary from that setback. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 11:42 a.m.) Mr. Cilimberg said staff provided to the Roundtable participants, a list of alternatives for discussion. First, they looked at the issue from an aesthetic standpoint. The fact that the County has an Entrance Corridor Overlay along all of the highways which were previously designated scenic in the Zoning Ordinance. The County has an ARB which reviews development proposals in those corridors, and the ARB did not see a need, from an aes- thetic standpoint, to restore the scenic overlay. They felt the Entrance Corridor District, and their discretion was appropriate. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:44 a.m. and Mr. Martin left the room.) Mr. Cilimberg said staff looked at what has happened with development in these corridors that might provide a basis for some type of additional setback requirement. Staff found no clear correlation of setback to historic develop- ment patterns. Neither was staff able to find any discussion as to the origin or basis of the prior 150-foot setback. They did look at the discussion of the Open Space Plan component in the Comprehensive Plan, dealing with corri- dors. They tried to determine if what is being sought is for aesthetic view from the road, or an attempt to preserve the rural character because some of these roads go through growth areas. What is felt to be an apPropriate rural road setback has already been established, and that is 75 feet. From strictly the rural character standpoint, there is some basis for the 75 feet.' Staff has not found anything to change the recommendation they made to the Board previously~ There are different routes that can be taken to restore some form November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 000 /5 of scenic overlay, or to achieve the effect of the scenic'overlay which previously existed. Mrs. Humphris said she believes the Board received adequate information on this issue in its packet today. She asked for comments from the Board. Mr. Perkins said he is amazed at how something so simple can become so complicated. He said he has a poorer understanding of the issue now than he had six months ago. He is not sure what course to follow. Mrs. Thomas said she appreciates all of the staff's work. She also thanked the citizens for bringing this issue to the Board. She had not realized the Scenic Highway designation had been~removed from the' Zoning Ordinance. At one time, she thought that redefining the ARB standards to take into account roads in the rural areas would the best thing to do. There was a proposal in June from County staff that suggested something along those lines. Even though some members of the ARB have said this is not needed, there seems to be a fear among citizens that scenic highways will become like Route 29 North. She trusts the ARB enough to believe they will apply different standards in different areas. Mrs. Thomas said each time she discussed this with people in the community, they returned to the issue of the setback. She is afraid a lot of time might be spent on standards, and the setback issue would still not be settled. She is intrigued with the 75-foot setback because it might be something that can be done. Reinstating a 150-foot setback would be a large rezoning matter, a major undertaking. A lot of community support would be needed. Mrs. Thomas said that rather then the Board just "washing its hands" of it, and saying it does not believe anything needs to be changed, she thinks a community group could look at these hard issues and bring back a proposal. She thinks the people who were concerned enough to bring this before the Board can also bring the Board a practical proposal of what could be done to make sure the rural corridors that are designated Virginia scenic byways have as much protection as possible. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 11:54 a.m.) Mr. Bowerman asked Mrs. Thomas what she is proposing. Mrs. Thomas said she is proposing that there be a committee established to get a concrete proposal which takes into account the political and legal realities County staff has shown the Board. Mr. Bowerman asked if that includes reinstating the 150-foot scenic highway setback. Mrs. Thomas said she believes that would be difficult, but if the committee wanted to propose that they would need to propose how to go about doing it, and how it could be defended. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the key word is what can be done "practi- cally''. She believes the word "realistically" should be added, and that should be a caveat of the committee's charge. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Davis if a scenic highway designation would have to apply to all of the roads listed in the staff's report, if the 150-foot setback were readopted. Mr. Davis said there has to be some rational basis to distinguish which roads the setback would be applied to. There are scenic byways and there zs criteria for those which is firmly established and legally accepted. If you diverge from that, you have to find other established criteria that coUld be legally accepted on which to base the different treatment of what is otherwise similar property. Staff had looked at hooking it to a standard which already existed. Mr. Tucker said that is basically the State Scenic Byways standards because there is criteria already established for that designation. Mr. Ron Keeler said one of staff's original recommendations for the Corridors was to have standards developed for each corridor because the corridors are definitely different in character. While it would be good to address all of the corridors, they could be addressed in different fashions depending on the character of the corridor. That recommendation was not followed. The ARB decided to adopt generic standards. Now, there is significant sentiment that Route 250 West is special and there needs to be some kind of special treatment on that road. The City, at that time, was doing corridor specific studies, and County staff worked with City staff for a while to see if the County's corridor regulations could be worked from some of the City's regulations, but the corridors are too different in nature. November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) Mrs. Humphris said she thinks Mrs. Thomas' suggestion about a citizens group is an excellent suggestion. Mr. Perkins said he talked to Mr. Scott Peyton about this very thing last night. He suggested that Mr. Peyton be allowed to comment. Mrs. Humphris asked that the comments be limited to this one suggestion. Mr. Peyton said he has spoken with a number of interested parties along the Route 250 corridor who would be interested in helping to draft some language for review by this Board. That would allow the Board to use citizen input as a resource. They would like to draft language in a way that would address their concerns about the need for additional protection for these corridors above and beyond what the Corridor Overlay District currently provides for. A number of individuals have expressed their willingness to work with him to accomplish that language. Mrs. Humphris said it will obviously be necessary to limit the number of people who can be a member of the committee. She dOes not know how the appointments should be made. Mrs. Thomas said she and Mr. Perkins are the most .closely connected to Route 250. Staff has done a lot of work on this already, so maybe they can come up with a proposal for the next meeting. Mr. Tucker said he believes that would be helpful. Mrs. Humphris said the Board is grateful that Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Perkins will work with staff on a proposal for the committee, for the charge to the committee, and in so doing she believes they will work out a lot of the legalities that need to be looked at, and the restrictions in which they must work because of the legalities of the situation. Not Docketed: Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Thomas A. Hanson, the newly employed Director of the Emergency Communications Center. Mr. Hanson served a multi-jurisdictional area center in Charleston, West Virginia, and since that time has been Director of the Chesterfield County Emergency Communication Center. Agenda Item No. 12. Housing Program Presentation: "Homebuyers Club". Mr. Tucker said this is a fairly new program and he thought it was important for the BOard to have a brief presentation. It has been highly successful and a program which the Board will hear more about in the future. Ms. Ginny McDonald, Housing Coordinator, said among the challenges facing the Housing Office last Fall, three relate to this Homebuyers' Club presentation. 1) To respond to the challenge of the Housing Committee in their Spring, 1995 report "To train a housing education program with a particular emphasis on new purchase counseling for first-time homebuyers; 2) To respond to the challenge of the real estate and the banking industries to help them sell homes and provide mortgages utilizing the various special loan products available fOr first-time homebuyers; and, 3) To provide an opportu- nity to achieve the American dream of home ownership to those in the community who feel left out from that dream. Ms. McDonald said the Housing Office launched three clubs in the Spring of 1996. Thanks to the work of Ms. Debbie Chlebnikow, former FSS Coordinator, this is the first and only locality in the Commonwealth to have launched a homebuyers' club. She then introduced Mr. Tom Von Hemert. Mr. Von Hemert said they took on this challenge because banks, mortgage companies, real estate agents and non-profit housing agencies put out a "cry for help". They said that only one in 35 applicants applying for a mortgage loan were within the low- and moderate-income, guide!'ines for their household Size based on VHDA inCome standards. What do the other 34 do? Do they rent? Do they take it on themselves to try and get into home ownership? The Housing Office felt it could take the challenge and move them into home ownership. The difference between the Housing Office and any other institute is that they are not selling anybody on anything, they do not get a commission or funding from the program. The Housing Office is to educate and counsel; that is the main aspect of the homebuyers' program. Mr. Van Hemert said the Homebuyers' Club is for anybody who lives and works in Albemarle County. Income, savings account or credit do not count. 00027? November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) The program is divided into the two programs he mentioned, the educational aspect and the counseling aspect. In reference to the three clubs, there are monthly meetings, one held in the County Office Building, and one at the Yancey Elementary School (being used to promote the housing being built by Habitat for Humanity and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program [AHIP]). One club is open for anybody in the County area which now has 35+ households involved. The club with the Fas (Family Self-Sufficiency Program) is for people now using Section 8 housing. The idea is to set up incentives to help them get off of public assistance. Meetings are held in the evening in order to accommodate people who are working. Free child care is provided for single parents. Also, free food and drinks are provided. They have gotten a number of restaurants to give food, so cost has been kept to a minimum. At each meeting there is a home buying expert who comes in to talk about the home buying process; budgeting, credit, all the way to settlement (title, insurance, points, home inspectors, every- thing involved). Instead of just leading these people up to home ownership and leaving them there, there will then be a homeowners club. There will be help with budgeting and basic home maintenance skills such as plumbing, electrical and landscaping. The educational part is the easy part of the program. The hard part of the program is the budgeting, the credit, the savings and the income. He works with each household on a one-on-one basis to get them into home ownership. He helps a person with more detail as to budgeting than a bank or real estate agent does. He works with their net income and asks all the questions necessary to get the most minute detail. He has seen too many people qualify for a mortgage loan and get into a house they could not afford. This program tries to prevent that from happening. For a whole month, each participant has to write down every penny spent. Another aspect has to do with credit. He reviews the applicant's credit report with them, and tries to help them clear anything on that report that is negative. He said the Consumer Credit Counseling Service has been a great help to this program. There are people in the Homebuyers' Club who are doing very well income-wise, some people with very little income, but they all have a commit- ment toward getting into home ownership. Some people will be ready for home ownership in six to 12 months, and others will not be ready for 36 months. The Housing Office will continue with this commitment. It is a program which lenders, real estate agents, or even housing agencies cannot continue to do. He is concerned that when someone is qualified for a mortgage, a rough rule to use is that most people can qualify for two to two and one-half times their gross annual income to purchase a house. If there are people just coming on line, those who are the backbone of the community, teachers, ~police officers, store managers, social workers, ministers, etc., whose average salary is around $25,000, they could qualify for a home costing from $50-$65,000. The catch is that in Albemarle County, the median income price is approximately $150,000, so most people who want to live in the County will have to rent, or purchase outside of the County. There are a number of State programs that do help people get into home ownership. One of those is through Home Partnership Funds, through using regional loan funds which can buy down the loan as long as the homeowner stays in the home for 15 years or longer. He concluded by saying that people who live in their own home take greater pride and care of their neighborhood. Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Von Hemert for the report. Agenda Item No~ 13. Discussion: FY 1997-98 Preliminary Revenue Projections and Budget Guidance. Mr. Tucker said preliminary revenue projections from the Department of Finance will form the basis of FY 1997-98 recommended budgets that will come before the Board of Supervisors in March. The Board has traditionally allocated revenues in November to committed expenditures for General Govern- ment and the School Division. Mr. Tucker said the Board had been furnished a copy of the preliminary General Fund revenue projections which are to be used in developing budget guidance for FY 1997-98. General Fund revenues, are projected to increase by a November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) total of $4.7 million or approximately 5.4 percent over those for FY 1996-97. Of this total increase, real property taxes are anticipated to increase by only $1.3 million (3.5%) based on a 2.5 percent average reassessment increase and $65.0 million assessed in new construction. Personal property taxes are projected to increase by approximately $2.7 million over FY 1996-97 (15%) reflecting increases in both the value and number of vehicles assessed, making the total property tax increase about $4.1 million or seven percent. Other local taxes, which includes a five percent increase in sales tax revenue, are projected to increase by approximately $0.75 million or a four percent increase over FY 1996-97. State and Federal revenues are projected to decrease by three percent or approximately $200,000. Page 2 of the handout shows by major category, the $4.7 million increase followed by the committed expenditures for FY 1997-98 which were presented previously to the Board in the Five-Year forecast. Debt Service has been reduced by $113,500, which reflects the FY 1996-97 final payment for new voting machines and a level payment for School Debt Service. The transfer to the Capital Program shows a reduction in funding from FY 1997-98 only because additional funds were added in FY 1996-97 that exceeded the Five-Year planned annual increase. The Jail Debt Reserve Fund, which will require approximately $250,000 to $300,000 in additional per diem costs beginning in FY 1998, has been reduced to $100,000 for FY 1997-98. Mr. Tucker said that based on the remaining $4.8 million in uncommitted revenues, 60 percent ($2.9 million) is allocated to the School Division and 40 percent ($1.9 million) is allocated to General Government. This allocation provides an increase of approximately seven percent in local revenues to both the School Division and General Government to address baseline costs, fixed costs and additional operating costs associated with capital projects. Page 3 of the handout shows a breakdown of revenues and expenditures by the General Fund and the School Fund for a combined increase of $5.3 million (4.5%) and an estimated FY 1997-98 County budget of $123.0 million. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed FY 1997-98 allocation of new revenues that will hopefully address the operational needs of both the General Government and the School Division. Mrs. Humphris invited questions from Board members. Mr. Perkins asked what happened to the idea of split billing of the real property taxes. It looks like next year's budget will actually be less than this year's budget. Mr. Tucker said that is being tracked in a separate fund, and it is not reflected in what the Board received today. When the Board gets the full new budget, it will show. Next week, staff will bring some figures and numbers on the new high school. The School Board will review those on Monday, and their recommendations will be brought to this Board next week. Mrs. Humphris said staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed allocation of new revenues. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the proposed FY 1997-98 allocation of new revenues as recommended by the County Executive's staff. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. A~SENT: Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 14. 20, 1996. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of November Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. perkins, to cancel the Board of Supervisors' meeting of November 20, 1996. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Absent: Mr. Marshall. November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) Agenda Item No. 15. BOAi~D. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Mr. Tucker asked for a volunteer from the Board to serve 0n a Wireless Communications Task Force concerning towers. He said the committee has been meeting diligently for a long time, and they felt it would be good for a Commissioner or a Board member to be in attendance as they finalize their recommendations. Mrs. Humphris said she is a member of the VACO Communica- tions Task Force so will be updated from that group, and they have done a lot of research. If it will help she will serve on the committee. Mr. Tucker asked for a volunteer from the Board to serve on the Develop- ment Area Initiatives Steering Committee. Mr. Martin volunteered for this committee assignment. Mr. Martin commended the whole concept of the Homebuyers' Club. He said there is still the issue that the person making an average income in Albemarle County cannot afford to continue to live in Albemarle County. He hopes the Board continues to move forward toward building some type of loan buying, where the loan could be bought down from the top making the loan payments lower and the County would be paid back over the course of 15 years. He also thinks it is time for the Board to look at why it is so expensive, why the average home in Albemarle County is $150,000, and across the line that same home is about $90,000, and how much the Board's policies contribute to that cost. This morning the Board was talking about getting more information to help with making decisions on the Comprehensive Plan, but he believes more information is needed on the fiscal impact of those decisions on the people who live in the County. He sees the County moving toward being an area that is very attractive, but the only people who will be able to live here are those who are wealthy and already live here, or people who are wealthy and move here because it is an attractive area. He thinks the middle class is being driven out. He wants to look at those decisions which are driving out the middle class. He hopes the groups which were formed earlier today will take into consideration how decisions impact the middle class and their ability to stay in the County. Mrs. Thomas said Albemarle County was asked to make a presentation to the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations on Monday, November llth, at the Homestead, during VACO's Annual Meeting. The presentation should include what Albemarle is doing to protect or enhance its visual quality, its relationship to economic development, and what changes in State funding, regulations or enabling legislation would most enable Albemarle to continue with any programs in terms of visual attractiveness. She is to give a presentation of about 10 minutes, so if anyone has any ideas, she would like to hear them. Mr. Tucker suggested mentioning what Albemarle County have tried to do by planting trees on Route 29 North and how it relates to VDOT's involvement, and stating that while VDOT is a partner in this effort, it has been left up to the local government and the businesses along ROute 29 to provide the plant material and maintain it for some time. He believes this should become the responsibility of VDOT. Mr. Davis suggested that the State could give counties enabling author- ity to regulate aesthetics. Mrs. Thomas said there are other states that have a stronger stand on aesthetics. Mr. Davis said most other states have enacted regulations' regarding aesthetics. Mrs. Humphris said it seems that what they have asked the Board to do is make the connection between the attractiveness of the community and economic development. If that is it, aesthetics is a major issue. Mrs. Thomas said Mr. Sandy Rives told her the national parks have been going through a process for a dozen years to make them more aesthetically appealing. Mr. Bowerman requested a status report from the Fiscal Impact Committee. He said it has been four years and he has no idea what they are doing. Mrs. Humphris said the Committee is ready to make a report, but it probably needs to have a full Committee meeting first. November 6, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) Mr. Tucker provided Board members with a copy of the brochUre which has been developed by staff on the subject of "Barking Dogs" This brochure will be distributed to citizens who are experiencing this problem. Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Legal Matters and Property Disposition. At 12:43 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman for the Board to go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, under subsection (1) to discuss a personnel matter; under subsection (3) to discuss the disposition of County property; under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters concerning reversion and pending litigation of a tax matter; and under subsections (1) and (7) to discuss personnel and specific legal matters related to the Regional Jail Authority. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Executive Session. At 2:58 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Martin. None. Mr. Marshall Not Docketed: Mrs. Humphris told the Board about a dinner she attended for some educators visiting from Ireland and hosted by Dr. DiCroce. Mr. Martin said he met the Russian ballerina and presented her with a tee shirt. Mrs. Thomas said it would be nice if all BOard members were kept up-to- date on invitations they individually receive. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m. Approved by Board Date Initials,