December 14, 2011 (Afternoon-Adjourned and … 14, 2011 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) transfer $1,498,000 to CIP for schools and local government projects,

December 14, 2011 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1)

An afternoon-adjourned meeting and a regular night meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, were held on December 14, 2011. The afternoon meeting was adjourned from December 7, 2011. The afternoon meeting was held at 3:00 p.m., in Room 241; the night meeting was held at 6:00 p.m., in the Lane Auditorium. Both meetings were held in the County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.

PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Director of Planning, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.

Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:04 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek. _______________

Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Five Year Financial Plan (continued from December 7, 2011).

Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of Budget and Performance Management, reported that the County would begin working on budget development for FY13 in January, so this planning is an important step in that process. She said that staff had reviewed reductions and efficiencies at the Board’s meeting on December 7

th, and Mr. Foley presented two scenarios that reflected the impact of VRS changes at the

current rate and the equalized rate. Ms. Allshouse said the Board provided a lot of guidance last week, instructing staff to prepare the five-year plan with an equalized tax rate that includes a one-half penny dedicated for the capital program and initiation of the bidding process for the Crozet Library. She stated that in the five-year financial plan the guidance was to pursue additional EMS cost recovery revenue, to provide a 1% raise for employees for FY13, EMS service to Pantops would start in FY13, to include a public safety firing range in the Capital Program, and to fund Ivy fire station apparatus.

Ms. Allshouse reported that the equalized tax rate would maintain taxes for the average

homeowner over the five years below the FY09 level when the recession began, and staff used 76.5 cents as the equalized rate although assessments would not be finished for a few weeks. She said the five-year financial plan would maximize misdirected or delinquent tax revenues and would prepare for anticipated State and Federal revenue reductions, as well as continuing to focus on alternative revenue sources. Ms. Allshouse noted that the plan does include the expansion of the EMS cost recovery approved last week, and provided projections based on the current number of Albemarle County transports; billing would begin Countywide in January FY13, which would be a year from now. Staff believes it would take some time to work with volunteers on the proposed change. She stated that there would be time needed to assess what system could be implemented, which would be needed to obtain the OIG opinion regarding how the County would charge insurance companies and bill Medicare/Medicaid. This time frame would also allow time to conduct the necessary public information phase. Ms. Allshouse said if billing were to begin in FY13, it would allow for a three-month lag time to receive payments so they would begin in April. The plan projects $350,000 for the first year and $1.4 million in the out years.

She then presented a summary sheet of reductions and continued actions in the five-year model,

which she said addresses obligations and mandates for local government while continuing the efficiencies, restructuring, and repositioning for the future – including the elimination of four additional positions through attrition in local government; increased reliance on grants, volunteers and partnerships; and continues scrutiny of fund balances and reallocates available fund balance if possible to core services. Ms. Allshouse noted that the plan does assume that CACVB’s excess fund balance would be returned to the County for core tourism expenditures, and the Board would receive a report January 4, 2012 on that plan. She reported that the plan addresses new financial targets to protect the County’s AAA bond rating and restructures and reduces some funding for agencies.

Ms. Mallek asked if the assumption included having festivals and events covered by the CACVB.

Ms. Allshouse confirmed that it did. Ms. Allshouse reported that staff wanted to align the agency funding approach with the same

approach being used for departments, so the five-year plan would include a $100,000 reduction in funding for agencies to be allocated in accordance with the ABRT Steering Committee recommendations. Ms. Allshouse said she has provided Board members with a list of agencies that receive discretionary funding that may be considered as part of reductions. She stated that there would be an emphasis on funding for health, safety and education agencies, and decisions would be made based on objective criteria – with festival and tourism-related agencies to be considered within the County’s established tourism allocation to the CACVB. Ms. Allshouse stated that the Library budget anticipates $30,000 in out of area support, and the County’s contribution would be reduced by this amount. She said the reduced agency allocation would be level funded through FY17. The staff would assume a change in the scope of the Commission on Children and Families (CCF) with a $25,000 savings in FY13 and the operation would be funded through other means such as grants beginning in FY14.

She reported that after meeting the County’s 10% fund balance target set aside, staff

recommends the Board transfer FY11 excess fund balance as follows: 1) reserving $500,000 for a performance-based recognition pool for staff for FY13, FY14 and FY15; 2) $.2 million held for federal and state funding contingencies; 3) establishing a $500,000 contingency for Line of Duty Act costs; and 4)


transfer $1,498,000 to CIP for schools and local government projects, for a total of approximately $3,698,000.

Mr. Boyd asked for clarification of the contingency funds, particularly the one related to federal

and state. Ms. Allshouse explained that the Board’s plan provides for an undesignated general fund balance

of 10% and maintains throughout the plan, which used to be 8% - with a 1% added last year for a Stabilization Fund and another 1% this year as recommended by the County’s financial advisor.

Mr. Foley stated that staff would strongly encourage the Board not to use the Stabilization Fund

unless there is a dire situation, and since there are indications of State and Federal revenue downturns there is money being set aside for that as well.

Mr. Rooker noted that putting a name on the fund is a bit misleading, but items such as TMDL

would likely require funding in the future. Mr. Foley said that TMDL and devolution are on the watch list and the cost of those two items is

unknown. Mr. Rooker said this should not be referred to as a 10% contingency, as some of it is just

undesignated fund balance necessary for cash flow purposes. Ms. Allshouse then presented a summary of how some categories would work out with an

equalized rate for planning purposes, with a rate of 76.5 cents and .5 cents dedicated to capital. She stated that the plan provides funding for education and would provide $7.2 million in additional revenue over the five years, with $1.4 million ongoing for FY13 and an additional $5.4 million over five years for capital. She stated that regarding funding for public safety reclassifications, staff included an additional amount of funding of $125,000 to bring the total up to $675,000 annually to support the entire reclassification study amount.

Mr. Foley said there is $200,000 in the current year, but there would be more needed because the

County had fallen further behind than anticipated. Mr. Rooker stated that they need to take a hard look at that as it is a significant funding

commitment. Mr. Boyd noted that it would still have to go through the allocation process. Mr. Rooker asked how many employees would be covered by that. Ms. Allshouse responded that there are approximately 600 total employees, with 225 in the public

safety (42%) category that is part of the reclassification study – but not all of them may be impacted. Mr. Foley said that the County has data on every single position based on the market study of the

30 localities consistent with the strategy the County has always followed on reclassifications. He added that about 10 years ago they did a comprehensive study to identify benchmark localities – which was determined to be a good mix and has continued to be an effective tool for Human Resources. He stated that staff should probably bring this issue back early in the New Year for a decision, adding that it could probably be afforded in the five-year plan.

Mr. Snow asked if the money from the EMS recovery goes into the general budget as part of the

60/40 split. Mr. Foley responded that EMS recovery revenue it is not a shared revenue source and hence

would not go through that formula, similar to building permits and other County-specific items. Ms. Mallek added that the revenue recovery funds were not intended to be shared with the rest of

local government either; its’ purpose is to offset expenses in the EMS department. Mr. Foley concurred, adding that all the EMS revenue generated would offset general fund tax revenue in the system.

Ms. Allshouse reported that the plan includes the opening of the Ivy Fire Station and provides for

its apparatus, as well as a public safety firing range and EMS service at Pantops. She stated that the plan also includes a 1% increase for FY13, 2% for FY14 and FY15, and 2.7% for FY16 and FY17. Ms. Allshouse said that the plan provides for $167,000 per year to be set aside beginning with the FY11 fund balance, for performance-based recognitions if the Board chose to do so. Ms. Allshouse said the plan provides for the opening of the Crozet Library and one-half of the operating costs beginning in FY14. She stated that the plan does provide for some contingency for watch list items, and in the first year just balances with no additional funding – but in each of the out years it provides an additional $900,000.

Mr. Foley noted that the plan does not include full funding of the Crozet Library operational costs,

as there is an expectation they would come up with some of that. The staff is also going to consider the impact of putting libraries out in the community – as a shift from downtown usage might cause a shift in resources, but not immediately.


Mr. Rooker said he wasn’t convinced that building a new library would change the number of people away from the downtown library, and he does not see a shift of people from one place to another as saving money.

Mr. Foley said the question is whether Crozet would make a difference. He added that the Library

agreement is under renewal/revision and would come before the Board in the next few months. Mr. Rooker stated that his prediction with the Crozet Library is that there would be an increase in

overall usage. Mr. Foley noted that this plan calls for funding one-half of the operating cost. Ms. Allshouse reiterated the issues on the watch list. The schools have a VRS issue that they do

not yet know the impact of. Mr. Rooker asked when that number would be known. Mr. Davis said the Governor’s budget

should indicate what portion of that the State intends to pay. Ms. Allshouse reported that another issue for the School Division is funding of capital needs,

school enrollment, and potential state and federal funding reductions. She said that factors impacting local government include funding of capital needs, TMDL mandate, devolution of secondary roads, and potential reductions in state and federal funding.

Mr. Rooker said he had heard that the state was considering shifting to a matching approach for

roads, similar to revenue sharing. Ms. Mallek said that would be $5,000 a mile x 2,000 miles, and the County would have to come up

with one-half the amount. Mr. Foley emphasized that devolution is happening; it is in process. Ms. Allshouse stated that staff recommended that the Board approve the five Year Financial Plan

at an equalized real estate tax rate with .5 cents dedicated to the Capital Program and including the updated assumptions. She reiterated that this is a planning document and not a budget. This will help guide the staff’s budget development.

Ms. Mallek moved to approve the Five Year Financial Plan at an equalized real estate tax rate

with .5 cents dedicated to the Capital Program and including update assumptions. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. _______________

Agenda Item No. 3. Closed Meeting.

At 3:34 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Thomas, that the Board go into closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,

committees and commissions. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. _______________

Agenda Item No. 4. Certify Closed Meeting.

At 4:03 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Thomas to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the

closed meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. _______________

Agenda Item No. 5. Joint Meeting with School Board

SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Stephen Koleszar, Mr. Harley Miles, Mr. Jason Buyaki, Ms. Diantha McKeel, Ms. Pamela Moynihan, and Ms. Barbara Massie Mouly.

ABSENT: Mr. Eric Strucko.

STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Pam Moran, Superintendent, Dr. Billy Haun, Assistant Superintendent for Student Learning, Mr. Jackson Zimmerman, Executive Director of Fiscal Services, Mr. Vincent Scheivert,


Chief Information Officer, Mr. Josh Davis, Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Chris Brown, Senior Assistant County Attorney, and Ms. Jennifer Johnston, School Board Clerk.

__________

Mr. Koleszar called the School Board to order at 4:03 p.m. _____

Item No. 5a. Capital Improvements Program.

Mr. Bill Letteri, Assistant County Executive, reported that he would present findings from the CIP

Technical Review Team and from the Oversight Committee, which is part of the County’s process in reviewing capital project requests. As part of this discussion, he will discuss the purpose, review the process, discuss resource assumptions, and summarize the Oversight Committee recommendations which will include a balanced program based on the current tax rate. He said that during the time of deliberations with the committees the Board of Supervisors was entertaining the equalized tax rate, so he would present under that scenario along with a discussion of items, as well as the one and two cents scenarios dedicated to capital. He will also discuss the watch list and unfunded capital needs. There were a number of topics that came up with the Oversight Committee that he will share, i.e., bus funding and project management fees.

Mr. Letteri said the purpose of this meeting is to review the assumptions, Oversight Committee

recommendations, unfunded requests, watch list items and for the Boards to provide feedback to staff on the process going forward. This is the CIP cycle year 1 which is the full blown assessment. They look at the five year and the capital needs assessment. He stated that this year there were 85 project requests totaling about $378 million over a 10-year period, which is beyond funding capabilities. Mr. Letteri said that requests were submitted in August and in turn go to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Facilities Development (OFD) for careful review of detail, and then onto the Technical Review Team (TRT) – which ranks the projects objectively in accordance with Board guidelines and presents a balanced plan to the Oversight Committee. He said the Oversight Committee then reviews the plan for policy issues and for compliance with the needs of the County, and their final recommendation is what’s before the boards today. Mr. Letteri said the Planning Commission would provide input in January, and the County Executive’s office would finalize recommendations in February – coming back to the Board in March for a CIP work session. He explained that the plan undergoes a very rigorous review based upon charters of the two committees. They focus on what they are supposed to be looking at whether it be policy or technical issues. They look at the County’s financial policies and procedures published in the CIP; they look at the Board’s strategic plan; the County’s guiding principles and finally project ranking criteria.

Mr. Letteri reported that one of the main revenue sources for capital is transfer from the general

fund, which equates to $16-18 million per year most of which presently goes to pay for debt service for various projects. He stated that it is aligned with the five-year model and reflects debt service savings associated with the recent bond issuance. There was approximately $18 of refunded debt that saved the County quite a bit of money. Mr. Letteri said they were also able to reissue new debt for projects built last year and will be built this year, with total savings of about $1.5 million. The total debt issue was approximately $40 million which included QSCB (Qualified School Construction Bond) which is a zero interest loan. He stated that there must be assumptions about debt going forward, and the County’s financial advisors suggested that the County should finance debt every other year instead of every year which saves on issuance costs and enables the County to plan better. Mr. Letteri reported that for seven year projects, the assumption is 3.5%; 10-year projects would be 4.5%; 20-year projects would be 5%; and all future issuances beyond five years would be assumed at 5% rates. The County saw in its recent issuance that its net interest costs is about 2.9%.

Mr. Boyd asked if this was based on the assumption that the County would start doing its own

bonds as opposed to previously where it joined in with State bond programs because those did not include issuance costs. Mr. Letteri said that was correct. He added that the County has retained its AAA bond rating and the “negative outlook” has been removed from the County.

Mr. Letteri said that for FY12 they assumed a $1.5 million transfer from FY11 General Fund

excess Fund Balance to the CIP Fund Balance, and by way of allocation local government would get $500,000 and schools would get $1 million. A dedication of $500,000 of future General Fund excess Fund Balance is assumed for FY13 and FY14, with $1 million thereafter – which is consistent with the County’s five-year planning. Mr. Letteri stated that School bus purchases are assumed to have offsetting revenues.

He then presented a graphic showing how much of the General Fund transfer goes to capital and

how it is actually used. In FY08-FY09 a little more than one-half of the money was used to pay debt service with the balance considered current revenues, and in worsening economic times there has been far less going into new projects. Mr. Letteri said that approximately 75% of the debt is school-related and 25% is local government, with that ratio changing a little bit in more recent years. He stated that he would present the Oversight Committee’s recommendation at current rates, which would include details of the plan and increments of what projects could be done with additional revenues.

Mr. Letteri stated that the current plan conforms to County policies to balance the plan, and

includes all mandated, obligated and maintenance projects. He said that they had to make some adjustments to some maintenance requests to balance at the 74-cent rate, which involved minor reductions or delays in timing of those requests.


Mr. Rooker asked if it made sense to go through the process with the 74.2 cents rate versus the equalized rate.

Mr. Boyd said he would rather go through the process with the current rate also. Mr. Letteri again stated that the Schools bus replacement request includes an offsetting revenue. Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek asked what was meant by that statement. Mr. Letteri said he would

come back to that issue. Mr. Letteri presented an overview of the overall five-year plan model that showed revenue figures

– growth formula, transfer going to debt service, noting current revenues, interest from prior years, proffers, grants, etc. He said that borrowing for schools and local government is beginning to equalize, and said that much of what was carried in fund balances for projects is gone now that those projects have been built. Mr. Letteri stated that there have been project requests of about $79 million over the five-year period in the basic plan, with $2.5 million as the balance over the five-year period. He presented information on FY12-16 and compared it to proposed FY13-17, noting that the amounts are very close – with most of the $8 million being offsetting revenue for buses. Mr. Letteri stated that the County is well within the recommended borrowing ratio, with the County policy being never to exceed 10% and the AAA recommendation not exceeding 7.8%.

Mr. Letteri reported that adjustments made in order to balance at the current tax rate included

deferral of window replacement at the McIntire building, which was estimated at about $2 million over two years.

Ms. Mallek noted that there would be energy savings. Mr. Letteri agreed, stating that staff had modeled it and showed there was significant heat loss.

The TRC has asked for an analysis of this. Mr. Rooker asked if there is a reason to replace windows other than energy savings. Mr. Letteri

replied “yes”, the windows are part of the “basic wrap package” and also help prevent infiltration from other elements such as rain which affect the quality of the building.

Mr. Letteri reported that they deferred building a storage lease facility for schools and local

government. The five year lease on the current facility on Route 29 is coming to an end; the lease has about a year and a half remaining. A decision must be made on whether to extend that lease or come up with another solution. He emphasized that staff had never viewed the current situation as a long-term solution. They felt that they needed to look at policies and practices about storage, records management, online auctions that may eliminate the need for storage of furniture, etc.

Mr. Rooker asked what the criteria would be for locating storage, adding that the old Crozet

School might be an option. Mr. Letteri said there are a lot of furniture transports involved, but many records stored – which represent about half the space – are not accessed on a daily basis. He added that the old Crozet School is an alternative that can be looked at.

Mr. Boyd said he thought records storage made up a large part of that space. Mr. Letteri replied

that records storage is only about half of the storage space. Ms. Mallek commented that this lease space is located in some of the County’s most prime

industrial space at the Comdial facility. Mr. Letteri stated that the plan includes modifications made to numerous projects, some of them

delayed and some reduced – police video cameras, mobile data computers, lighting on the fields, phone switchboard replacements, and School bus replacement. Mr. Letteri said that this Board and the Oversight Committee have both asked for criteria for replacement of public safety apparatus, and the Fire Department was unable to provide an updated plan this year – so the proposed plan keeps them at level funding of about $12 million over five years. The TRC have insisted that before they fund anything additional for next year they should bring back the revised proposal.

Ms. McKeel said the committee had requested something from them for the last two years, but

has not received anything. Mr. Letteri stated that the plan also reflects only maintenance for public works, with the Ivy Landfill

and Moore’s Creek being mandated obligations. He said that Parks and Recreation and Libraries only have maintenance for existing facilities included in this plan, technology is the County’s ongoing server and technology equipment needs and there are some funds in the storm water portion to engage a consultant to understand what the TMDL liabilities might be.

Mr. Thomas asked if there is someone far along enough in the program who could understand the

TMDL program as a consultant. It is an unknown at this time. Mr. Letteri responded that there will be an ongoing dialogue with various groups and agencies that are looking at this program. There will be a need for the County to have some kind of clear analysis.

Mr. Rooker asked why the expense for a consultant was a capital expense. Mr. Boyd asked why the person would be brought in now, as it seems premature.


Mr. Foley explained that over the next six to eight months, many of the requirements should be

clarified. Mr. Letteri added that it is not clear any money would be needed to move forward, but they do

anticipate using some. Ms. Mallek said that at VACo it was clear in the Environmental Committee that localities were

adamant about having money from the state before implementing any initiatives. Mr. Letteri reported that the School’s program is largely the School’s maintenance program; some

of which is debt financing and some is pay-as-you go for a total of approximately $24 million. The bus replacement item is there as well. In submitting their request, the Schools have indicated that their planning process is not far enough along to say with certainty what their future needs might be. He stated that with grant-funded programs, the practice in the past has been not to fund them if funding is not available.

Mr. Letteri stated that some items that came to the County that were not part of this funding plan

include the Seminole Trail and Pantops fire stations, Community Development projects such as Master Plan implementation, transportation, revenue-sharing programs, library projects, park projects, etc.

Mr. Rooker said, given the state of secondary road funds, there needs to be a way to fund some

of these projects, such as sidewalks, but it costs money to put up funds for revenue sharing and it seems to be an area for which the County is way under allocating funds to accommodate growth area needs and development of the urban areas.

Mr. Letteri noted that this is the third or fourth year nothing would be put in that category. Mr. Letteri presented a table showing increments that would be possible in each of the other three

scenarios, the first being the equalized tax rate with .5 cents being dedicated to capital – which would restore projects that had been delayed or reduced. Additionally, it would provide funds for the Ivy Fire Station engine, funds for the Ivy firing range and funds to construct the Crozet Library. He said it would also include a reserve of about $460,000 per year set aside for either school projects that have not yet been submitted or other things the Board felt were necessary.

Mr. Rooker said that the City voted this week to fund their part of the firing range. Mr. Foley

responded that that was correct. Mr. Letteri stated that the next scenario provides a current tax rate with one penny dedicated

entirely to capital, which would represent a slight increment over the equalized tax rate at one-half penny. He added that the projects in the one cent and two cents scenario have not been factored into the five year plan. He said that if they did have the incremental revenue, the Committee proposed that they focus on getting the Seminole Trail station built, as it is one of the busiest in the County, as well as leveraging transportation money.

Mr. Rooker said he felt the County should pursue an equalized rate with at least one cent

dedicated to capital in order to take advantage of revenue sharing opportunities, which he acknowledged would have an operating impact. He thinks it is foolish to not take advantage of the leverage opportunity.

Mr. Foley clarified that what the Board acted on earlier today was not the above-suggested

scenario. As the Board looks at multi-year, he asked the Board to keep in mind that because of EMS revenues, the Board does have about $900,000 each year beginning in year two that it could dedicate to the capital program, but that is not in the first year of the five years.

Mr. Dennis asked Board members if there was a consensus, assuming they go forward with an

equalized rate, with EMS recovery, to make certain they have at least $1 million per year to put into revenue sharing.

Mr. Snow stated that they still have not heard from the schools as to what their needs might be. Mr. Boyd said having it in Mr. Letteri’s document is the equivalent of putting it on the table. Mr. Rooker responded that it should at least be put on the table for discussion. He reiterated that

the Board did not approve that concept with the five year plan. Mr. Foley said when they get to the CIP discussion during the budget process, the Board can

direct some things that will then drive the five year plan in the fall in a different way. Mr. Rooker said he does not want it to come back when he mentions it again that somebody says

it is not in the five year plan. Ms. Mallek asked if there were a way to include it so it did not get lost in the shuffle. Mr. Rooker commented that somehow the Board needs to identify $1 million annually for revenue

sharing given the dramatic reductions in secondary road funding.


Mr. Foley said if the Board dedicated a penny at the equalized rate to the capital program, it would reduce the transfer to the schools and impact some of the other items discussed.

Mr. Rooker said he understands that other things will be affected. Mr. Letteri stated that he had previously mentioned apparatus requests and has asked Fire and

Rescue to come back with a full-blown plan to address rotation. He emphasized that apparatus, buses and special equipment should be funded with cash whenever possible. The consultants have advised the County that it has a very healthy payout ratio – meaning how quickly it pays down debt and how much equity it has in capital.

Mr. Letteri said the County should be clearer on what constitutes an operating expense versus a

capital expense, and the Committee has recommended that staff go back and try to develop more stringent definitions of those terms. He stated that they had also suggested that the County break down the maintenance into categories such as critical maintenance and repairs, energy and environmental improvements, and infrastructure upgrades – and this provides a methodology for ranking maintenance-type projects, if necessary.

Mr. Boyd asked if schools would provide detailed lists of maintenance projects and the ranking of

them. Ms. McKeel indicated that they could provide that level of information. Mr. Letteri added that this

would allow them to be evaluated consistently across all departments. Mr. Rooker asked if projects that generate substantial return on investment are given higher

priority. Mr. Letteri responded that that’s one of the criteria used in the evaluation process. Mr. Boyd stated that it is only 5% for that category. Mr. Rooker said that there should be a higher priority ranking given to investments that have quick

payoffs. Mr. Letteri stated that these are tools that are used to try to make the process objective, but they

are always tweaked or embellished. He will share that comment with the Committee. Mr. Koleszar said he felt projects that had already begun were underrepresented, such as the

Crozet Library. Mr. Letteri reported that there was mention that the County needed to be careful when there is a

proffer associated with a project, that the staff needs to ensure those funds are used to actually make the project happen. He stated that the Committee also recommended taking a thorough look at the issue of reserves and perhaps come up with some schemes as to how they could be applied. Mr. Letteri said the watch list includes County Office Building needs, anticipated school projects over the next five years, the TMDL program, ongoing devolution, and court facilities needs.

Mr. Boyd asked when the court study would be back. Mr. Letteri responded that the County hired

a firm that has been evaluating data over the last three or four months, along with evaluating the three sites, and has developed concept plans for each of the three sites and cost estimates to be considered. They hope to bring this information back to the Board within the next month or two. He added that there was a very extensive study done eight or ten years ago, and that was updated when the County bought the Levy Building and began considering it for a possible joint district court operation. Mr. Letteri indicated that since that time the City has signaled they will not likely do a joint facility there, so the question for the County is what will be done with it now. Does the County develop that Levy building for its own use for district court operations or does it make sense to go elsewhere and build a complex. There are lots of issues that will go into any decisions.

Mr. Rooker asked if one consideration would be selling that building and putting those revenues

into a new facility. Mr. Letteri responded that there are a lot of efficiencies that happen between the three courts, and those pros and cons would need to be evaluated. It is a complex issue.

Mr. Letteri also said that the issue of the buses is an important one, and staff was not able to work

out the details of how this might be accomplished with revenues. Mr. Letteri stated that he has strategized with School administration about how to fund the buses. They talked about fund balance, modification policy changes, allocating part of the revenue schools get from the state that is earmarked for buses, although it is difficult to understand how much that is. They talked about reallocating funding from operations budgets, but nothing had been fully resolved by the time the Committees dealt with the question – so they included buses in the capital program with offsetting revenue shown. The schools have acknowledged that they have not, at this time, identified a revenue source to support bus funding. He said that in the past buses have been funded out of school operations, so if they were moved over to capital, then effectively the capital program would bear the burden.

Mr. Boyd stated that he did not understand why it would matter if the buses were paid for in cash,

which is what was recommended. Mr. Koleszar responded that in the past, schools have not been able to consistently fund buses as

part of the operating budget; and as revenues and needs have fluctuated, buses have been one of the easiest to cut – so running them through the CIP would make fleet management more efficient and


consistent. He emphasized that it is a capital item, which is another reason they would like to see it in the CIP.

Mr. Rooker asked what the annual cost was. Mr. Koleszar said the cost is about $1.5 million each

year. Mr. Rooker noted that it is about a penny on the tax rate. Mr. Boyd said this would be an accounting adjustment to move this into the CIP. Mr. Foley stated that this is not just an accounting adjustment as the buses are currently

unfunded, and said the Board could further adjust the capital program to reallocate funding for the buses. Ms. McKeel said that incrementally accepting the buses over the five years until the CIP

completely funds the buses would be one approach, as it is really taking a hit on the schools operations and there is no way to sustain those purchases very often – similar to other County apparatus.

Mr. Boyd commented that it would mean shifting the expense over to local government whereas

right now it is being funded with 60% of tax dollars. Mr. Rooker noted that it would not be shifted 100% from schools to local government because of

the 60/40 split. Ms. Mallek asked what was being done now with the transportation bus allocation from the state if

it is not being put into buses. Mr. Koleszar replied that the state fund for transportation is not broken down into amounts for buses versus amount for transportation operations.

Mr. Rooker asked what the allocated amount provided from the state is for school transportation

locally. Mr. Koleszar responded that he doesn’t have that number. Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to

know. Mr. Josh Davis said the state does not break transportation out of basic aid. Mr. Davis indicated that he had talked to the Department of Education today, and they acknowledged that one component of the basic aid is for transportation – some of that is intended for bus replacement although it is not a separate line item. He said that there must have been a formula built somewhere along the way, but he does not have that from the state.

Mr. Rooker asked if the County is getting more money under that allocation formula because they

have schools buses and a large area to cover in a locality that provides no school bus service. Mr. Davis stated that the state clusters school divisions into six clusters, and Albemarle is part of the large area-large population cluster.

Mr. Rooker noted that under the formula Albemarle would get some enhanced funding for being in

a higher cluster. Mr. Dorrier commented that during hard times, the buses are treated as maintenance items and

during good times they are treated as capital. Mr. Davis stated that someone in DOE must know the formula because the Governor made the

change a few years ago shifting from a 13-year replacement cycle to a 15-year replacement cycle. He added that the schools currently have 227 buses but plan to reduce that number to 220 and use the spare fleet a little better providing that enrollment does not grow significantly. He noted that the last round of buses that were replaced made it 17 years, with an average of about 275,000 miles on them.

Mr. Dorrier asked how much a new bus costs. Mr. Davis said that last year a new bus cost about

$78,000 but new EPA emissions standards would drive that cost up by $5,000 or $10,000. Mr. Dorrier asked if they purchase used buses. Mr. Davis responded that they will not do that. He

also said that the trade-in value of buses is about $2,000 to $2,500. Ms. McKeel added that they do rotate their buses around the County so that they get maximum

use out of them – from urban to rural roads. Mr. Letteri reiterated that a fundamental question is whether to include buses in the capital

program, adding that the plan would not be balanced without a revenue offset. They would then have to go back through the ranking list to determine what not to fund or if they should proceed to remove the buses from the plan.

Mr. Rooker said that there are two components to that: including the buses in the program, and

whether some revenues could come from schools. He agreed they are properly a capital item, but the question is how they would be funded.

Mr. Boyd agreed and said the crucial point here is how to address that from the revenue side. Mr.

Letteri suggested that schools could try to identify those funds that are coming from the state or could otherwise help support and then quantify that.

Mr. Foley stated that staff could bring back some information on that for further discussion during

the budget process. He added that staff also recommends that buses be a part of capital.


Mr. Snow estimated that it would be about 12 buses a year at $960,000 per year. Ms. Mallek said that next year projects $1.5 million. Mr. Letteri stated that there had also been discussion about project management fees. The Office

of Facilities Development oversees capital projects for both schools and local government – with the cost of the direct management component moved into the capital plan per advice of accountants and others. He said doing so would allow it to be properly accounted for, capitalized with projects, and would allow the County to keep an eye on the cost of project management. If over time, the Board saw that the capital program was either growing or falling, it could make adjustments in its project management staff to maintain a proper ratio. Mr. Letteri stated that the funds are not charged to the project. For example, if the schools come forward and ask for $1 million for a project it is grossed to include the cost of the project management fee. He said that the ratio of how this is allocated among projects has been a point of discussion, but staff has suggested some alternative ideas that involve accounting for hours for each project managers actually work on – then allocate costs to those projects based on that formula.

Mr. Koleszar said the issue he is concerned with is the fee being attached to items that have no

project management, such as school buses – with a $60,000 fee associated when there is no actual management needed.

Mr. Letteri stated that the methodology applied was one the accountants recommended but they

also said the County could do either one. It could be done on a ratio basis of the cost in the capital program or on an hourly basis. Staff feels that an hourly basis would make more sense and has asked OFD to begin tracking their time.

Mr. Koleszar said an interim move might be to increase that percentage but only apply it to those

projects that require management. Mr. Rooker asked when this process would start. Mr. Letteri responded that it is currently

underway as projects go forward in the capital program. Mr. Letteri added that County staff looked at many other jurisdictions’ approach to cost allocation,

and there’s no perfect way to do it. That concluded the capital component discussion. He stated that he has received a lot of feedback and comments, and will incorporate those as they go forward. He said that he thinks they have some direction on the question of buses – will continue to evaluate that and bring it back to the Boards.

__________ Item No. 5b. Access Albemarle Update.

Mr. Letteri reported that he would update the boards on the Access Albemarle project, which is a

huge and very complex undertaking by the County as it affects all County operations in local government, schools, payroll, purchasing, financial, etc. Mr. Letteri said they had achieved tremendous success to date and had employed a basic accounting system that is accurately tracking hundreds of thousands of transactions, and doing it accurately, but there is still a ways to go. There is some delay in payroll although they hope to go live soon. There are some problems with reporting mechanisms, but they area also making progress in those areas.

He presented information on the Great Plains software being used, which functions as a general

ledger and is the core of the County’s system. They can go into the system and pull real time data that is almost to the day, which is a tremendous advantage over the old system. He reported that the County had been through an audit in August, and the Auditors have been extremely pleased with the accuracy of data. The purchasing system, known as BuySpeed Online, is where all invoicing and procurement for various departments is handled and deployed throughout all of the government operations. Mr. Letteri noted that there would be some delay in fully deploying the procurement purchasing system in the schools because of the need to concentrate on payroll. Enterprise Reporting is the customized portion of the software and is where they want to create a system that allows staff to go into the core data base and pull out reports. That system is not 100% there, but the quality of reports had been good to about 98% with some remaining issues related to encumbrance. There is a team of local government and school officials working on the lingering problems.

Mr. Koleszar asked if they had encumbrances reflected in the financial reports in the old system.

Mr. Letteri responded that each year they would tweak the system a little bit, dump the data into Excel spreadsheets, then create sophisticated Excel spreadsheets or Access spreadsheets that manipulated this data and produced reports. They no longer have that and is completely starting over. Mr. Zimmerman commented that the reports have always reflected encumbrances.

Mr. Letteri stated that encumbrances were not handled as a core part of the system; most of them

were handled as independent systems that were tracked. Mr. Letteri said the transactional integrity of the core data system is good, solid and working well.

They do have more to do on the reporting side. They are trying to integrate the purchasing module as well as the reporting side to make sure they are precisely the same, and errors can occur because of timing, human error, or differing account numbers.


Mr. Letteri stated that they hope to go live with payroll on April 1st. They have done some testing

and some parallels, and things do not go as hoped. There were some discrepancies. They do a lot of things here in the County that are unique and they cannot find software off the shelf that will deal with all these different situations. In fact sometimes when they tweak the programs, they create other problems.

Mr. Rooker asked how much staff time was being taken up. Mr. Letteri responded that a great

deal of staff timing is being taken up - noting that up to 50% of some staff members’ time was being consumed to work on this. They have brought in some temporary help to backfill some positions. They have a full time consultant working on the errors and problems. He thinks they are adequately staffed, but it is a quite a drain on staff.

Mr. Koleszar said a lot of delays over the last year had occurred because of inadequate staff

resources. Mr. Letteri stated that the final component of the project is the revenue and tax collection module.

The vendor that Microsoft had identified is no longer capable of doing the work – so they have the challenge of either asking Microsoft to either hire another consultant or reimburse the County for unfulfilled contract obligations. They are working hard with Microsoft to find a solution.

Ms. Mallek asked if there is another contractor, staff will get its own evidence that the new

contractor can do the job, not just take Microsoft’s word. Mr. Letteri said staff has identified two or three companies in the state and is trying to get an idea

of what this might cost, as well as working with the County Attorney’s office to form a negotiating position. Mr. Rooker said the revenue and tax collection was being handled adequately on the old system,

and the primary concern is to get the new system paid for within the existing budget and to get it done reasonably quickly. He also stated that there is not an “off the shelf” product that could likely be used for this purpose. He asked if there is a reasonable opportunity to get this done within the allocated amount.

Mr. Foley noted that the County has not paid any money on this for about three years, which

sometimes results in less leverage with contractors to get the work done. There is some money in the capital fund to move forward but it is hoped there would be a settlement from Microsoft soon to fully offset what would need to be bought. That is the negotiation process they are currently in. He also agreed with Mr. Rooker that there is not really an off the shelf product for local governments in the mid range, as the large localities spend a significant amount and small localities can purchase something ready-made.

Mr. Boyd stated that the group the County had been working with had designed a system for

Manassas, so there were assurances that it was going to work – but they just picked up and walked away. Mr. Rooker asked how the revenue and tax collection component interacts with other components

of the system. Mr. Letteri explained that it is hoped to be fully integrated in the end. The goal is to get a system with languages that talk with each other. They are looking for Microsoft approved vendors.

Mr. Foley confirmed that this system would need to integrate with GP, the core financial system. Ms. McKeel mentioned that schools had difficulty implementing a similar system and are now

using an off the shelf product with the recognition that some schools are not able to customize their work. Mr. Foley noted that local government moved away from customization three years ago and has

been trying to standardize since then. He mentioned that Mr. Koleszar and Mr. Boyd, are process owners, and have been working with staff monthly to keep tabs on the progress with this, and both have been through complicated implementations so they have some helpful perspective.

Mr. Koleszar commented that there had been significant progress in those three years. Mr. Foley said that Microsoft did not really deliver the way they promised, but they have been

working with the County at no cost and there has been some progress. Ms. McKeel noted that County School staff has invested a lot of time on this as well. Mr. Dorrier asked about the status of the Old Jail. Mr. Letteri responded that staff has invited a proposal from the Historic Society; they have been

working to identify a consultant to assist them in evaluating the building and how it might be used. He said they have not yet come forth with a formal response, but he had sent a letter to the President of the Historic Society requesting an update – as there is concern about the integrity of that building. If it is going to be many years before they are able to do something, then the County will need to financial plan to do more work on it.

Mr. Dorrier expressed concern about the condition of the building and said it could get worse.

__________

Note: At 5:26 p.m., Mr. Koleszar adjourned the School Board meeting until December 15, 2011, 10:30 a.m. _______________


Agenda Item No. 6. Closed Meeting.

At 5:26 p.m., Mr. Thomas moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees and commissions; under subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of real property for a public use because an open meeting discussion would adversely affect the bargaining position of the County; under subsection (5) to discuss a prospective business that may relocate to the County, noting that the business has not publicly announced its interest in locating in the County; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal

counsel and staff a matter of pending litigation regarding employment benefits. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. _______________

Agenda Item No. 7. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek. _______________

Agenda Item No. 8. Certify Closed Meeting.

Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Thomas to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed

meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the closed meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. _______________

Agenda Item No. 9. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 10. Moment of Silence.

_______________ Agenda Item No. 11. Adoption of Final Agenda.

Mr. Boyd said he wanted to add a conversation about the policy of discussing items at the end of meetings, as well as introduction of a policy proposal related to the Economic Vitality Action Plan.

Ms. Mallek moved to add the items as requested to the Board’s final agenda. Mr. Thomas

seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.

Mr. Philip Anderson, a resident of Crozet, said that he would present information relative to the Route 29 Bypass. Mr. Anderson asked if $244 million, or perhaps twice that amount according to State engineers, would be the best use of resources. In this time of indefinite economic contraction, they must use their precious, common wealth to bring about the greatest and most sustainable common good – the biggest and longest bang for the buck. Mr. Anderson suggested that rather than building an expensive and disruptive bypass to reduce traffic congestion, the number of cars could be replaced with bicycles and pedestrians along with an electronic trolley system. If bicycling and walking are made efficient and truly safe by extensive and protected bike and walkways, thousands of people will walk and bike for local mobility instead of driving. He mentioned that in Uterecht, Holland, that city of 350,000 reduced 33% of car traffic by replacing it with bicycles; in Copenhagen they are aiming for 40%. People on bicycles can get around those towns faster than they can in cars. This would be a less disruptive and more lasting way than the bypass to end traffic congestion. Mr. Anderson stated that the challenge of traffic congestion and massive transportation funds are a wonderful opportunity to free the community – and especially students – from forced dependence on cars. He emphasized that it is practical and affordable, but only if an extensive and safe walk and bike system is available with an efficient trolley. Bicycles are indispensable to assure sustainable, affordable, local mobility which is crucial in keeping the community connected prosperous and rich in the wealth of happiness.

__________

Mr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, stating that the LCAPP report is a scientifically flawed document based on outdated, flawed and politicized United Nations IPCC environmental ideology. He stated that it reflects the self-serving activist views of only those permitted to be a part of the LCAPP process. He encouraged the Board to tentatively accept the Albemarle County Environmental Stewardship Strategic Plan as a non-binding voluntary initiative independent from the LCAPP report in order to get the County out of the business of micromanaging energy uses by its citizens. Mr. Battig emphasized that LCAPP was built on United Nations IPCC ideology and quotes the IPCC as an authoritative source for its actions and recommendations. The IPCC has been disclosed as a political advocacy arm of the U.N. by its own members. He also presented images of wind energy farms and


claimed they are destructive to mountaintops, wildlife, birds, et cetera. Mr. Battig also noted that neither wind nor solar had replaced fossil fuel plants.

__________

Ms. Nancy Carpenter said that she was before the Board to reaffirm her support of the Occupy Movement. She noted that 16 million of the children in this country, or 21%, are living below the poverty line. She also said that veterans comprise one-fifth of the homeless in the country, with a higher unemployment rate at 11.7% for male vets and 14.7% for female vets. She asked “Where is Washington?” Ms. Carpenter stated that the abuse must stop and personhood is not applicable to corporations. They are beginning a new conversation and by staging the occupations, they are enumerating what is lost when they lose our mortgages, their jobs, their environment, their health, and their right to protest in public.

__________

Mr. Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said that he assumes the issue Mr. Boyd mentioned about meeting protocol was likely because this was the last night with a 4-2 Board vote to change the rules. He emphasized that changing the rules so that things can simply be added at the end of a late night meeting is unacceptable, noting the negative reaction from the public when that happened on June 8. He urged the Board to not allow that to happen; the Board needs to represent the people of this community. Mr. Werner also expressed concern over the proposed two-minute time restriction for Redfields speakers, as it is important that the Board hear what the people have to say.

Mr. Werner reiterated that it is totally unacceptable for Board members to try to change the rules

tonight so that issues can be raised at the end of the meeting without awareness by the public. __________

Non Agenda. Ms. Mallek said perhaps the item regarding meeting protocol should be addressed earlier in the meeting.

Mr. Boyd stated that the policy put in place 4-6 months ago is not working because a Board

member cannot bring up a topic until either late night or during the daytime meeting after sitting for eight or ten hours. He said that he thinks the system was better before than what it is now.

Mr. Rooker commented that if a Board member was talking about adding a new item to the

agenda, it would go on last not first. Mr. Boyd said that up until May of last year, an item could be discussed at the beginning of the

meeting. Mr. Rooker said the change was voted on unanimously by the Board. Mr. Boyd said he wants to reconsider that vote. Ms. Mallek stated that voting on an item without notice to the public was the reason why the Board

felt a more thoughtful presentation was a better approach. Mr. Boyd asked how this policy was established to begin with. Ms. Mallek explained that Board members have introduced topics for discussion at a later

meeting, in order to get more information and a staff report if necessary. She does not think it is a great idea to introduce an item at a Board meeting and have it voted on first thing at a meeting, without any preparation.

Mr. Boyd said that he wanted the debate to be whether the current process was working or not –

to have something announced at the beginning and then voted on at the end of the meeting. He does not know how that better serves the public.

Mr. Rooker commented it puts the public on notice that an item was going to be put on the

agenda in the event they want to stay and hear that item. Mr. Boyd also stated that with live streaming, people can listen to meetings anytime day or night –

as well as written minutes being available. This process has wiped out a history of decades of allowing a Supervisor to bring up an item for discussion and voting on it. He reiterated that he does not think it is working better now.

Mr. Rooker said he hasn’t seen a single issue that has resulted in a problem from this process. Mr. Boyd said that the most talked about item – the bypass – could have been dealt with during

the earlier hours of the meeting if the Board had not changed the rules requiring that it be brought up at midnight.

Mr. Rooker noted that it was a night meeting, and Mr. Dorrier was not even been present to bring

it up. He stated that he should have announced that he wanted it to be put on a meeting agenda. The issue of whether the item is last or first on the agenda is another matter. The policy was established so that the people who are sitting in the meeting understand if something is being added to the agenda, so if they want to stay and participate and hear it they can. Mr. Rooker said that otherwise a Board could put matters on the agenda after everyone had left.


Mr. Boyd said that people come to Board meetings to hear a specific agenda item. Very few people come to the meetings just to hear everything being discussed; if they do, they are being paid or part of a group monitoring what is going on. This is a representative form of government, not a government run by the PEC or some of the other groups that want to come and monitor every word that is ever said in here.

Mr. Rooker asked why a Board member would not want to notify the public in advance. Mr. Snow said he understands what Mr. Boyd is saying, but he would prefer to have items heard

at the end of a meeting, because a long discussion might throw the meeting off by an hour or two. When the Board gets into these discussions it completely throws the meeting off.

Mr. Davis said the Board’s practice in the past has been for the Board to adopt its rules and

procedures at their annual meeting – so on the January 4, 2012 agenda one item would be rules of procedure for next year.

Mr. Foley stated that the changes the Board made six months ago would be before them in writing

at that time. Mr. Davis said those would be incorporated into the new proposed rules of procedures before

them in January. Mr. Boyd said he wants to have further discussion on the rules. They do not have to be voted on

today, but he does not think this new policy is working. He is concerned that he has a proposal for the Economic Vitality Action Plan but will not be able to get into that proposal until the public hearings are over.

Mr. Rooker said that all that the rule requires is for Board members to announce what item they

wished to add. Mr. Boyd said he also wants to discuss a policy proposal change to the Economic Development

Action Plan with direction to staff about heading into another development area. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Boyd if he would be content to wait until January when the Board votes for

its new rules and procedures. Mr. Boyd responded that he would be. He added that he does not think the second item would

bother Mr. Werner or PEC since they have to be accommodated. Mr. Rooker said the Board was trying to accommodate the public through a rule adopted by

unanimous vote and now Mr. Boyd is acting like it is somehow an imposition to abide by the rule that they adopted unanimously.

Mr. Boyd said he dislikes having to have difficult decisions made at the end of a very long

meeting, and that is what the Board’s policy requires. Ms. Mallek explained that it requires that the Board notify people in the morning if they are going

to add an item in the afternoon or evening. Her suggestion would be to put the item on the agenda at one meeting, then discuss and make a decision at a future meeting. The item would then be in the normal timeframe. _______________

Agenda Item No. 13. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Items 13.1 through 13.3 on the consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Mr. Snow

seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None.

__________

Item No. 13.1. Approval of Minutes: March 9(A), 2011. Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of March 9(1), 2011 and found them to be in order.

By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read. __________

Item No. 13.2. Resolution of Support for The University Community Next Generation Innovation

Project (Gig.U). The executive summary states that the University Community Next Generation Innovation Project

(“Gig.U”) is an initiative driven by a broad-based group of over 30 leading research universities from across the United States. Drawing on America’s rich history of community-led innovation in research and entrepreneurship, Gig.U seeks to accelerate the deployment of ultra high-speed networks to leading U.S. universities and their surrounding communities. Such network improvements drive economic growth and stimulate a new generation of innovations that can address critical needs, such as health care and


education. The University of Virginia is a founding member of Gig.U and seeks the County’s expression of support as a community partner in advancing the Gig.U mission.

Gig.U’s mission is to accelerate the deployment of world-leading, next generation networks in the United States in a way that provides an opportunity to lead in the next generation of ultra high speed network services and applications. Through a Request for Information process, Gig.U will work with current and potential network service providers, as well as others, to create a critical mass of next generation test beds by accelerating the offering of ultra high-speed network services to their communities. While economic hurdles impede upgrading networks in all communities, those hurdles are smaller in university communities since those communities enjoy characteristics that both lower the cost of deployment and increase demand, making them the most attractive targets for initial next generation network deployments. Gig.U will create a focused conversation between the demand side (universities and their communities) and the supply side (service providers and other enterprises interested in an upgrade) to determine if there are ways to bridge the gap sufficiently to induce private risk capital investment in whatever network assets and service functions are necessary to bring an upgrade to university communities.

The Project will build on foundation stones already in place, such as organizing done through the

Google Community Fiber initiative, to create an environment in which private risk capital has sufficient incentives to provide next-generation services. This effort will focus business leadership and policy makers on a critical but often overlooked point, which is that from both an economic and a policy perspective, a small amount of financial capital and political capital focused on upgrading university communities can yield major gains for both the future of America’s leadership in research and for the American economic leadership. The attached resolution (Attachment A) expresses that the Board supports Gig.U and its mission to work with high-speed service providers to bring high speed networks to our country’s research communities.

There is no budget impact to the County related to this Resolution of Support. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Support (Attachment A).

By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, developing world-leading networks and applications are vital to America’s global leadership and such developments spur economic growth, investment and job creation while stimulating a new generation of innovations to address critical needs, such as health care, energy and education; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in ultra-high speed Internet access as other nations move towards gigabit connectivity and the next generation of broadband based innovations; and

WHEREAS, the University Community Next Generation Innovation Project (“Gig. U”) is a project of broad-based group of universities and communities across the country working together to accelerate the deployment of world-leading, next generation networks and services in the United States; and

WHEREAS, Gig. U universities and their surrounding communities have the most favorable conditions for a market-based, ultra high-speed broadband strategy, including dense populations and high demand; and

WHEREAS, these communities are the communities most likely to use networks and applications in ways that create a new generation of opportunities for the American economy; and

WHEREAS, these communities are already hubs of innovation and discovery, but to continue to lead the country – and the world – they must have access to the next generation networks and services; and

WHEREAS, Albemarle County and its surrounding region, together with the University of Virginia, one of the nation’s leading research universities, is perfectly positioned to play a leading role in next generation opportunities and discoveries, provided the community has the necessary communications resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby acknowledges the importance of deploying leading edge networks and services for economic growth, investment and job creation and supports the University Community Next Generation Innovation Project, known as Gig. U.

__________

Item No. 13.3. Resolutions of Intent for Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments – Site Plan

and Subdivision Review Processes.

The executive summary states that on August 3, 2011, the Board of Supervisors met jointly with the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board to receive staff information and discuss the legislative, site plan and subdivision review processes. At the conclusion of the work session, the Board provided consensus direction regarding changes to these processes. On November 29, 2011, Resolutions of Intent to bring forward ordinance amendments providing for these process changes were considered by the Planning Commission. The Commission unanimously approved the Resolution of Intent for amendments to the zoning ordinance to address legislative process changes. However, by


unanimous vote, the Commission referred the Resolutions of Intent for amendments to the zoning and subdivision ordinance to address ministerial process changes without recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. At the August 3, 2011 joint work session, the consensus of the Board regarding the site plan and

subdivision processes was as follows:

Plats and plans should be subject to agent approval instead of Planning Commission approval with no right for them to be called up for review by the Planning Commission. The Architectural Review Board should review projects in Entrance Corridor Districts prior to preliminary approval. In addition, the Board agreed with the following regarding process:

A. Pre-application submittal with review in 10 days to determine main issues and required

waivers. B. Reduced plan content to minimum necessary for review. C. Public notified of Site Review Meeting and asked to attend and provide comment. D. Establish clearer submittal requirements for the final site plan. E. Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the project

withdrawn. F. Allow the issuance of grading permits with the approval of the initial (preliminary site plan).

Before the Planning Commission took action regarding the Resolutions of Intent on November 29, 2011 one Commissioner expressed opposition to removing from the ordinances the allowance for site plans and subdivisions to be called up for review by the Planning Commission. Another Commissioner expressed concern that the August 3

rd work session was abbreviated due to other Board agenda matters

and questioned whether all Board members fully understood the consensus reached by the Board. In its action referring these Resolutions of Intent to the Board, the Commission expressed its preference that the Board act on these resolutions since the direction set out in the Board’s consensus was a Board initiative. As staff noted with the Planning Commission, the resolutions in and of themselves do not pre-determine any particular outcome for these ordinance amendments, but are simply necessary to initiate the amendment process. Nevertheless, the basis of the amendments that staff will propose will reflect the consensus the Board reached on August 3

rd. The amendments as proposed will be the subject of public

hearings, Planning Commission recommendations and ultimate Board decisions. Therefore, staff is asking the Board to adopt the Resolutions of Intent to specifically cover consideration of changes to these provisions. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolutions of Intent (Attachments A and B) and direct staff to proceed to an initial work session with the Planning Commission in early 2012.

By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolutions:

RESOLUTION OF INTENT

WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to the procedures for the review of applications for site plans; and

WHEREAS, in order to improve quality and efficiency in the application and review processes for site plans, it may be desirable to amend the regulations in the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the application requirements and the review procedures for preliminary (initial) and final site plans, to allow grading permits to be issued upon approval of the initial (preliminary) site plan, and to provide for dormant applications to be deemed withdrawn.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code §§ 18-30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, and 18-32, Site Plans, and any other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.

_____

RESOLUTION OF INTENT

WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to the procedures for the review of applications for subdivision plats; and

WHEREAS, in order to improve quality and efficiency in the application and review processes for subdivision plats, it may be desirable to amend the regulations in the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to the application requirements and the review procedures for preliminary and final subdivision plats and to provide for dormant applications to be deemed withdrawn.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good land development practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Albemarle County Code §§ 14-209 et seq. and 14-213 et seq. and any other sections of the Subdivision Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.

__________

Item No. 13.4. Copy of letter dated December 5, 2011, from Mr. Francis H. MacCall, Senior

Planner, to Mr. Lee Rasmussen, McCallum & Kudravetz, re: LOD-2011-0008 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 89, Parcel 65 (property of Benjamin Pollard Alsop Warthen and Terry Gwyn Warthen) Samuel Miller District, was received for information.

__________

Item No. 13.5. Copy of letter dated December 5, 2011, from Mr. Francis H. MacCall, Senior

Planner, to Mr. Lee Rasmussen, McCallum & Kudravetz, re: LOD-2011-0009 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 89, Parcel 72 & 72A (property of Benjamin Pollard Alsop Warthen and Terry Gwyn Warthen) Samuel Miller District, was received for information. _______________

Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: Future Pantops Fire Rescue Station Site. To consider the approval of a lease-back lease for a portion of property being acquired by the County located at 656 Peter Jefferson Parkway (TMP 78-31) between the County and Worrell Land & Development Company LC. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 5, 2011.)

Mr. Davis summarized the following executive summary that was forwarded to Board members: Several studies, including the 2007 Regional Fire and Rescue Study and the adopted Pantops

Master Plan, have identified the need to establish a fire rescue station in the Pantops development area.

Although funding for the construction of this fire station is not currently included in the County’s adopted Capital Improvement Program, staff has worked with Worrell Land & Development Company, L.C. (“Worrell Land”), the developers of Peter Jefferson Place, to secure the donation of a 1.283-acre parcel off of Peter Jefferson Parkway as the site of a future fire/rescue station. The proposed site currently houses the maintenance shed for the Peter Jefferson Place office park.

The proposed site has already received significant review and approvals:

On September 15, 2009, the Planning Commission unanimously found that the placement of a fire station at this location is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (CCP-2009-1)

On November 19, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a critical slopes waiver, with no conditions, as part of the approved Preliminary Site Plan SDP-2010-00067.

A “clean” Phase I Environmental Assessment was completed in January 2011. The conveyance of the proposed fire/rescue station site would require the approval of a deed, lease, and private street access agreement:

1. Deed – Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1803, the County’s acceptance of property requires approval of the deed. The parties have negotiated the attached deed for the Board’s consideration. A term of the deed requires the County’s continued use of the property as a fire/rescue station, and includes a reversion clause in the event the property is no longer used as a fire/rescue station.

2. Lease -- Worrell Land would like to continue using this location to house the maintenance shed for the Peter Jefferson Place office park. Subject to Board approval of the negotiated lease, the parties have agreed to Worrell Land’s continued use of the site. Prior to construction of the new fire/rescue station, Worrell Land would simply continue using its existing structure under the County’s new ownership of the site. Once construction of the proposed station began, the County would be responsible for providing a suitable temporary substitute during construction. Ultimately, a permanent replacement maintenance shed would be constructed as a separate part of the new fire/rescue station building. The parties’ proposed lease addresses Worrell Land’s continued use of its maintenance shed before, during, and after construction. Though the lease has a fixed initial term, it may be renewed indefinitely at Worrell Land’s option. Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to leasing any County-owned property.

3. Private Access Easement Agreement -- The proposed fire/rescue station site requires the subdivision of a larger parcel to create the new 1.283 acre parcel. The new parcel will be served by a private street access. Subject to Board approval, staff has negotiated a private access easement agreement to provide legal access to the site.

None of the proposed documents place a deadline on the construction or initial staffing of the proposed station. Therefore, the conveyance of the property itself has little or no immediate fiscal impact.


However, the preliminary construction budget for the proposed fire/rescue station is presently estimated to be $2.6 Million.

Staff recommends that the Board accept the conveyance of the proposed fire/rescue station site.

After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to authorize the County Executive to execute the proposed deed, lease, and private access easement agreement (Attachments B, C and D) in a form approved by the County Attorney.

_____ Mr. Davis added that the lease requires a public hearing. He noted that it is basically a no-cost

lease for Worrell in exchange for donation of the property.

Note: Mr. Rooker announced that he would not participate in the discussion or vote on this matter, as Worrell Land & Development Company is a client of his, although he did not perform legal work with respect to this matter. He then recused himself from the discussion.

Mr. Foley said that this project is not funded but the County is trying to create the opportunity in

the future to move it forward, at which time there would be a full review of the station and the reasons for it.

Ms. Mallek asked if the there were a cost estimate for the County meeting its obligations for the

lease-back of the storage and utilities. Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, stated that the actual maintenance facility was

storage in nature and there is minimal activity required and minimal associated risk to the County. Ms. Mallek asked if the storage of vehicles on the property was also ample enough not to interfere

with circulation for the fire company. Mr. Davis replied that the lease provides that until the fire station was built they would remain in

the current building, and when the station was built the County would replace it with a comparable building per the lease agreement. He noted that there would be two parking spaces identified for the storage building. The estimated cost by staff of the replacement building would be less than $100,000. The assessed value of the current building is $56,000.

Mr. Elliott noted the preliminary site plan that had been through the process and the location of the

private entrance road, the fire station, and the relocated maintenance shed at the rear of the building. Mr. Boyd asked if the lease required the County to maintain the shed in perpetuity. Mr. Davis responded that the County would maintain it through the life of the fire station. He

added that the lease is a 50-year lease renewable at the option of the tenant. He also stated that there was a provision in the deed that the site can only be used for a fire station, and any other use would transfer the property back to Worrell Company.

Mr. Elliott noted that the parcel would need to be subdivided, and improvements for the

maintenance shed would remain with the fire station built when money becomes available. He added that the Board has previously had discussions about several sites in the Pantops area for a fire station. They have looked at cost estimates between $1 million to $2.5 million for the land. He mentioned that the response times from this site meet the average of five minutes stipulated as a Comp Plan goal, and the station is a two-bay station just under 10,000 square feet. This station is very similar to that proposed for the Ivy site.

Mr. Snow asked if it could be expanded to a larger building at any point. Mr. Elliott explained that there were some critical slopes to the west of the building and to the east

that provide site constraints for expansion. Mr. Thomas asked what the value of the land is now, and the cost of the station. Mr. Elliott replied that the estimated cost of construction is about $2.6 million, which has not yet

been appropriated as capital or operating funds. He said the site is part of an 18-acre tract of land, and the parcel in question has a land value of $90,500 with the value of the shed at $58,000; the per-acre assessment is approximately $5,000, making the value of the transfer to the County about $6,400.

Mr. Thomas asked if any future construction is scheduled. Mr. Elliott stated that the only work engaged thus far has been the drawings used by the planning

group for preliminary site plan approval and the Comp Plan conformance discussions. The Chair opened the public hearing. Ms. Robin Elliott addressed the Board, stating that she was born and raised in the City and has

lived since 1986 in the County. Ms. Elliott said that she does credit analysis and real estate projects for Virginia National Bank. One of her concerns about the station is not the typical size the County wants, as the land use plan calls for a minimum of two acres along with other amenities – living quarters’ Chief’s office, radio room, storage area, exercise area, training space, meeting room for the public and a police


department satellite office space. Ms. Elliott stated that it is great that the land would be donated, but the station needs at least a two-acre site. She does not think the County should scale down what it needs. At the Planning Commission meeting, Chief Eggleston stated that the land size was constrictive to what they would normally want to do, and Worrell does not want them to build a two-story building. She said that guidelines are normally a good general rule to follow. She added that land values have declined since the parcel was viewed, and she encouraged the County to continue to shop around. If the Board accepts the land, she also has issue with the lease agreement. She asked why it would be the County’s responsibility to build a $100,000 replacement shed along with maintenance, repairs and insurance for it. She reiterated that she thinks the County should wait and try to find another site that will meet its needs.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed

before the Board. Mr. Foley noted that this station was originally proposed as a more full-service station, but after

discussion during the CIP process the Board gave the directive to make it more of a substation which is the reason for the difference in Comp Plan standards.

Ms. Mallek commented that the reason for that was the availability of three other stations that

could team up with this one.

Mr. Boyd moved to adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the County Executive to execute the proposed deed, lease, and private access easement agreement in a form approved by the County

Attorney. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None.

(The adopted resolution, deed, lease and easement agreement are set out below:)

RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE

ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY

WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to accept certain properties within the County by gift from Worrell Land & Development Company, L.C. (“Worrell Land”) for the purpose of providing a fire rescue station site; and

WHEREAS, all necessary agreements for the acquisition of said property have been made and presented to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute the following Agreements and all other documents, all in a form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to acquire Tax Map Parcel 78-31 in the County of Albemarle:

1. Deed of Dedication from Worrell Land to the County of Albemarle, Virginia conveying Tax

Map Parcel 78-31 in the County of Albemarle; 2. Agreement of Lease between the County of Albemarle and Worrell Land for Worrell Land’s

continued use of a portion of Tax Map Parcel 78-31 in the County of Albemarle; 3. Private Access Easement Agreement between PJP Building Six, L.C. and PJP Building

Seven, L.C., Grantors, and the County of Albemarle, Grantee, granting the County a private, non-exclusive access easement from Peter Jefferson Parkway to the fire rescue station across Tax Map Parcels 78-31J and 78-31K in the County of Albemarle.

_____ THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY: CONSIDERATION: $0 Paul H. Davenport, Esquire Hirschler Fleischer, A Professional Corporation 2100 E. Cary Street Richmond, VA 23223 GPIN # 07800-00-00-03100

This instrument is exempt from the recordation tax imposed by Section 58.1-802 of the Code of Virginia of 1950,

as amended (the “Code”), pursuant to Section 58.1-811.D

DEED OF GIFT

THIS DEED OF GIFT is made as of the ______ day of December, 2011, by and between WORRELL

LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company (“Grantor”) and the COUNTY

OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (“Grantee”) whose address is 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.

WITNESSETH: THAT for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid by Grantee to Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby


acknowledged, Grantor does hereby give, dedicate, grant, bargain, sell and convey, with general warranty and English covenants of title, unto Grantee, a tract or parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.283 acres,

more or less, together with all improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging (the “Fire Station

Site”), and more particularly described as “Parcel F 1.283 ac.” on a certain plat by Lincoln Surveying dated February 7, 2011, last revised December 15, 2011, entitled “Subdivision Plat of Parcel F - Being a Portion of Tax Map 78 Parcel 31 Located on Peter Jefferson Parkway Rivanna Magisterial District Albemarle County,

Virginia” (the “Plat”), a copy of which Plat is recorded in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court, Albemarle County, Virginia, herewith, and to which Plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of property conveyed.

EASEMENTS

In addition, Grantor hereby dedicates, grants and conveys to Grantee the following easements

(collectively, the “Easements”), subject to the General Easement Conditions and the Restrictions set forth herein below:

(i) A non-exclusive, permanent easement in the location more particularly described on the Plat as “New 30’ Private Street”, reference to the Plat being made for a more particular description of the

location of the easement (the “Access Easement”), for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress to and from the Fire Station Site from and to an existing variable width access easement located on land currently owned by PJP Building Six, L.C., which access easement is recorded in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 3192, page 343; and (ii) A non-exclusive, permanent easement for storm water drainage from the Fire Station Site in the location shown on the Plat as “New Private Drainage Easement”, reference to the Plat being made for

a more particular description of the location of the easement (the “Site Drainage Easement”).

The Easements shall be subject to the General Easement Conditions and the Restrictions set forth below.

GENERAL EASEMENT CONDITIONS

1. Construction of Improvements. Any improvements constructed within the Access Easement and Site Drainage Easement shall require prior review and approval of all plans, landscape plans and specifications by Grantor, pursuant to Article V of the Declaration of Covenants of Peter Jefferson Place recorded in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 1673, page 600, on February 5, 1998 (as amended, the

“Covenants”). All construction of any improvements and facilities within the Easements shall be completed in a good and workmanlike manner, free of any mechanics’ or materialmen’s liens. Except as otherwise approved in writing by Grantor, all facilities to be installed within the Easements, other than roadways, manholes or other facilities which by their nature are required to be aboveground, shall be installed underground, unless otherwise authorized in writing by Grantor. Upon completion of any construction, installation, maintenance, repair or replacement of the improvements or facilities installed within any of the Easements, the party performing such construction, installation, maintenance, repair or replacement shall be obligated to repair any damage caused by such activities and to restore or replace the surface of the land to substantially the same condition existing immediately prior to such construction, installation, maintenance, repair or replacement. All such work shall be completed in accordance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. Grantor shall have the right to use the area subject to the Easements in any manner which is not inconsistent with the rights granted to Grantee in this Deed.

2. Maintenance of Road and Drainage Improvements. Grantee agrees to maintain any road or improvements now or hereafter located within the Access Easement and any drainage facilities now or hereafter located within the Site Drainage Easement in good condition and repair, at Grantee’s sole cost and expense. Grantee shall maintain any road improvements in such a condition as to be passable by fire and emergency vehicles that will make use of the proposed fire station and by vehicles used for maintenance within the Peter Jefferson Place office park. If Grantee fails to maintain the road and other improvements or drainage facilities in good condition and repair as required by this Deed, Grantor may provide written notice of such failure to Grantee. If Grantee fails to cure such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, Grantor may perform such maintenance work on behalf of Grantee, and Grantee shall reimburse Grantor for the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Grantor within thirty (30) days after written demand, accompanied by copies of paid invoices for such work.

RESTRICTIONS. The conveyance of the Fire Station Site and the Easements is made subject to the restrictive

covenants set forth below and made a part hereof (the “Restrictions”) for the benefit of all real property

owned by the Grantor and located within the Peter Jefferson Place office park (the “Benefited Property”): 1. Approval of Plans. The design of the proposed fire station to be built on the Fire Station Site shall require prior review and approval by Grantor of all plans, landscape plans and specifications by Grantor pursuant to Article V of Covenants.

2. Waiver of Assessments. Grantee agrees that the Fire Station Site shall be subject to all applicable restrictions and covenants of record, including, but not limited to, the Covenants, notwithstanding the exclusion of government-owned property from the definition of a “Site” under the Covenants; provided, however, that the Fire Station Site shall not be subject to property owner’s assessments under Section 8.9 of the Covenants. Grantee agrees to execute, acknowledge and deliver to Grantor any document or instrument


reasonably requested by Grantor, in recordable form, for the purpose of confirming that the Fire Station Site is subject to all provisions of the Covenants other than the obligation to pay property owner’s assessments. 3. Maintenance Costs. All costs and expenses of designing, constructing and maintaining the proposed fire station on the Fire Station Site shall be the sole responsibility of Grantee. 4. Use Restriction. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that Grantor is conveying the property to Grantee, without consideration, for the sole purpose of use as a fire and/or rescue station, or other public use appropriate for a Class A office park that would not generate significant incoming public traffic, and no other use whatsoever. If Grantee proposes to use the Fire Station Site for any use other than a fire and/or rescue station, Grantee shall first provide notice in writing to Grantor of the proposed use for approval by Grantor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld provided that the proposed use is appropriate for a Class A office park and will not generate significant incoming public traffic. In the event that (i) the Fire Station Site is used as a location of a fire and/or rescue station or other public use approved in writing by Grantor pursuant to the provisions of this Paragraph 4, and thereafter ceases to be used for such purposes, or (ii) the Fire Station Site is used for any purpose other than as a location of a fire and/or rescue station or another public use approved by Grantor as set forth above, title to the Fire Station Site shall revert to Grantor. The Restrictions are a material part of the consideration for the conveyance of the Fire Station Site and the Easements by Grantor to Grantee, shall be a covenant running with the Benefited Property, and Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the Restrictions shall be specifically enforceable by Grantor and its successors in title or assigns. Grantor may, at its sole option, assign its rights to enforce the Restrictions and the General Easement Conditions to the owner or owners of any real property located within the Peter Jefferson Place office park, or to PJP Owners Association, Inc. by recording a written assignment of such rights in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court, Albemarle County, Virginia. In the absence of such a recorded assignment, at such time, if any, as Grantor no longer owns any of the Benefited Property, PJP Owners Association, Inc. shall thereafter have the right to enforce the Restrictions and the General Easement Conditions.

GENERAL 1. Matters of Record. This conveyance is made subject to the easements and the restrictions as set forth above, and all other restrictions, covenants, conditions and easements of record, insofar as they legally affect the property hereby conveyed.

2. Authority to accept conveyance. The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive,

duly authorized by resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, accepts the conveyance of this property pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1803, as evidenced by the County Executive’s signature hereto and the recordation of this Deed.

WITNESS THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES AND SEALS:

GRANTOR: WORRELL LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,

L.C., a Virginia limited liability company By: Anne R. Worrell Manager

GRANTEE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: Thomas C. Foley, County Executive

_____

AGREEMENT OF LEASE

THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of ________________, 2011 by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Landlord, and WORRELL LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, Tenant.

ARTICLE I. PREMISES AND IMPROVEMENTS

Section 1.1. Leased Premises. In consideration of the rents and covenants herein set forth, Landlord hereby leases to Tenant, and Tenant hereby rents from Landlord, the premises described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof together with any and all improvements thereon (the "Leased Premises”). The Leased Premises shall be occupied by the Tenant.

Section 1.2. Existing Maintenance Shed. As of the execution of this Lease, the Tenant has

possession and use of an existing maintenance shed (the “Existing Shed”), more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto. Tenant shall continue to have full possession and use of said Existing Shed as the Leased Premises until a replacement maintenance shed (the “Replacement Shed”) is constructed.

Section 1.3. Replacement Maintenance Shed. At such time as Landlord makes any improvements

that require the removal and/or demolition of the Existing Shed, the Landlord shall construct, at its cost and expense, a Replacement Shed for Tenant’s sole possession and use. During the construction (or re-construction) of said Replacement Shed, Landlord shall provide, at its cost and expense, temporary on-site storage for the benefit of and in consultation with Tenant. Upon the completion of said Replacement Shed,


Tenant shall have possession and use of said Replacement Shed as the Leased Premises hereunder in lieu of the Existing Shed.

ARTICLE II. TITLE: QUIET ENJOYMENT

So long as Tenant is not in default hereunder, Tenant shall have peaceful and quiet enjoyment, use and possession of the Leased Premises without hindrance on the part of the Landlord or anyone claiming by, through, or under Landlord.

ARTICLE III. TERM

Section 3.1. Commencement and Expiration. The initial term of this Lease shall be 20 years, commencing on __________________________ (the "Date of Commencement") and expiring ________________________. All references to the “term” of this Lease shall, unless the context indicates a different meaning, be deemed to be a reference to the term described herein.

Section 3.2. Renewal. Upon the expiration of the initial term, this Lease shall automatically be renewed annually for successive one-year terms, unless either party provides to the other at least six months’ advance written notice of termination, pursuant to Section 18.3 herein, in which case this lease shall terminate upon the expiration of said notice period.

ARTICLE IV. RENT

Commencing upon the Date of Commencement, during each term of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent of one dollar ($1.00), payable on the first day of each year during each term hereof.

ARTICLE V. UTILITIES AND SERVICES

Landlord shall provide water and electricity at no additional cost to Tenant. Tenant shall provide any

and all other services.

ARTICLE VI. USE OF PROPERTY

Section 6.1. Permitted Use. Tenant shall have use of the Leased Premises for a maintenance shed.

Section 6.2. Parking. Tenant shall be entitled to the use of one parking space in the parking lot and an access easement to the Leased Premises.

ARTICLE VII. ALTERATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, FIXTURES AND SIGNS

Section 7.1. Installation by Tenant.

(a) Tenant may, from time to time, make or cause to be made any interior non-structural alterations, additions or improvements which do not damage or alter the Leased Premises, provided that Landlord's consent shall have first been obtained in writing, and provided that Tenant shall obtain all required governmental permits for such alterations, additions or improvements.

(b) Tenant may, from time to time, make interior structural alterations, additions or improvements, only with Landlord's prior written consent to plans and specifications therefore, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, Landlord shall have the option (exercisable upon sixty (60) days notice to Tenant except in the case of a termination of this Lease due to a default by Tenant, in which case no such notice shall be required) to require Tenant to remove at Tenant's sole cost and expense any and all improvements made by Tenant to the Leased Premises or to elect to keep such improvement as Landlord's property. In the event Tenant is required to remove any improvements, (i) Tenant shall be responsible for the repair of all damage caused by the installation or removal thereof, and (ii) if Tenant fails to properly remove such improvements or provide for the repair of the Leased Premises, Landlord may perform the same at Tenant's cost and expense.

Section 7.2. Signs. Tenant shall have the right to place signs on the interior or exterior of the Leased Premises with the prior written approval of Landlord.

ARTICLE VIII MAINTENANCE OF LEASED PREMISES

Section 8.1. Maintenance. Landlord shall be responsible for all repairs and maintenance for the Leased Premises, whether ordinary or extraordinary, structural or non-structural, foreseen or unforeseen. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant shall be responsible for all maintenance and repairs necessitated by the negligence of Tenant, its employees and invitees.

Section 8.2. Right of Entry. Landlord reserves the right for itself, its agents and employees to enter

upon the Leased Premises at any reasonable time to make repairs, alterations or improvements; provided, however, that such repairs, alterations, or improvements shall not unreasonably interfere with Tenant's operations. Such right to enter shall also include the right to enter upon the Leased Premises for the purposes of inspection.

Section 8.3. Surrender of Leased Premises. At the expiration of the tenancy hereby created, Tenant shall surrender the Leased Premises and all keys for the Leased Premises to Landlord at the place then fixed for the delivery of notices. At such time, the Leased Premises shall be broom clean and in good condition and


repair, commensurate with its age. If Tenant leaves any of Tenant's personal property in the Leased Premises, Landlord, at its option, may remove and store any or all of such property at Tenant's expense or may deem the same abandoned and, in such event, the property deemed abandoned shall become the property of Landlord.

ARTICLE IX. INSURANCE

Section 9.1. Liability Insurance of Tenant. Tenant covenants and agrees that it will, at all times during the term of this Lease, keep in full force and effect a policy of public liability and property damage insurance with respect to the Leased Premises and the business operated by Tenant on the Leased Premises in which the limits of public liability for bodily injury and property damage shall not be less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident, combined single limit. The policy shall name the Landlord as an additional insured. The policy shall provide that the insurance thereunder shall not be cancelled until thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to all named insureds.

Section 9.2. Fire and Extended Coverage. Landlord agrees that it will, during the initial and any renewal term of this Lease, insure and keep insured, for the benefit of Landlord and its respective successors in interest, the Leased Premises, or any portion thereof then in being. Such policy shall contain coverage against loss, damage or destruction by fire and such other hazards as are covered and protected against, at standard rates under policies of insurance commonly referred to and known as "extended coverage," as the same may exist from time to time. Landlord agrees to name Tenant as an additional insured on such policy, as its interest may appear.

Section 9.3. Evidence of Insurance. Copies of policies of insurance (or certificates of the insurers) for insurance required to be maintained by Tenant and Landlord pursuant to Sections 9.1 and 9.2 shall be delivered by Landlord or Tenant, as the case may be, to the other upon the issuance of such insurance and thereafter not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration dates thereof.

Section 9.4. Waiver of Subrogation. Tenant hereby releases the Landlord from any and all liability or responsibility to Tenant or anyone claiming through or under it, by way of subrogation or otherwise, from any loss or damage to property caused by any peril insured under Tenant’s policies of insurance covering such property (but only to the extent of the insurance proceeds payable under such policies), even if such loss or damage is attributable to the fault or negligence of Landlord, or anyone for whom Landlord may be responsible; provided, however, that this release shall be applicable and in force and effect only with respect to loss or damage occurring during such time as any such release shall not adversely affect or impair the releasor's policies or insurance or prejudice the right of the releasor to recover thereunder.

ARTICLE X. WASTE, NUISANCE, COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS

Section 10.1. Waste or Nuisance. Tenant shall not commit or suffer to be committed any waste or

any nuisance upon the Leased Premises.

Section 10.2. Governmental Regulations. During the term of this Lease, Tenant shall, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, comply with all of the requirements of all county, municipal, state, federal and other applicable governmental authorities, now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to the Leased Premises or Tenant’s use and occupancy thereof.

ARTICLE XI. FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY

If the Leased Premises shall be damaged so as to render two-thirds (2/3) or more of the Leased Premises untenantable by fire or other casualty insured against under the insurance required to be carried by Landlord pursuant to Section 9.2, Landlord may elect to either terminate this Lease as of the date of damage or repair the Leased Premises. Unless Landlord elects to terminate this Lease, such damage or destruction shall in no way annul or void this Lease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any damage or destruction from any cause whatsoever has not been repaired and such repairs have not commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date thereof, Tenant may, as its exclusive remedy, terminate this Lease upon thirty (30) days written notice to Landlord.

ARTICLE XII CONDEMNATION

If the whole or any part of the Leased Premises shall be taken under the power of eminent domain, then this Lease shall terminate as to the part so taken on the day when Tenant is required to yield possession thereof, the Landlord shall make such repairs and alterations as may be necessary in order to restore the part not taken to useful condition. If the amount of the Leased Premises so taken is such as to impair substantially the usefulness of the Leased Premises for the purposes for which the same are hereby leased, then either party shall have the option to terminate this Lease as of the date when Tenant is required to yield possession.

ARTICLE XIII DEFAULT OF TENANT

In the event of any default or breach of the provisions of this Lease by Tenant, other than the non-payment of rent, that continues uncured for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, Landlord shall have the right (in addition to all other rights and remedies provided by law) to terminate this Lease or to re-enter and take possession of the Leased Premises, peaceably or by force, and to remove any property therein without liability for damage to and without obligation to store such property, but may store the same at Tenant's expense.


ARTICLE XIV HOLDING OVER, ASSIGNS, SUCCESSORS

Section 14.1. Holding Over. Any holding over after the expiration of the term hereof, with the consent of Landlord, shall be construed to be a tenancy from month-to-month at the same rent herein specified and shall otherwise be on the terms and conditions herein specified as far as applicable. If Tenant remains in possession without Landlord's consent after expiration of the term of this Lease Agreement or its termination, the Tenant shall pay to Landlord its damages, reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in any action for possession.

Section 14.2. Showing the Leased Premises. During the last ninety (90) days of the term hereof, Tenant shall allow Landlord, or its agents, to show the Leased Premises to prospective tenants or purchasers at such times as Landlord may reasonably desire.

Section 14.3. Successors. All rights and liabilities herein given to, or imposed upon the respective parties hereto, shall extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns of the parties. All covenants, representations and agreements of Landlord shall be deemed the covenants, representations and agreements of the fee owner from time to time of the Leased Premises and Landlord shall be automatically released of all liability under this Lease from and after the date of any sale by Landlord of the Leased Premises. All covenants, representations and agreements of Tenant shall be deemed the covenants, representations, and agreements of the occupant or occupants of the Leased Premises.

ARTICLE XV. BROKER’S FEES

Tenant and Landlord hereby warrant that there are no brokerage commissions due in connection with this Lease.

ARTICLE XVI. NO ASSIGNMENT

Tenant shall not assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the Leased Premises, either directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent of Landlord. No assignment, sublease or transfer of this Lease by Tenant shall (i) be effective unless and until the assignee, subtenant or transferee expressly assumes in writing Tenant's obligations under this Lease, or (ii) relieve Tenant of its obligations hereunder, and Tenant shall thereafter remain liable for the obligations of the Tenant under this Lease whether arising before or after such assignment, sublease or transfer.

ARTICLE XVII. SUBORDINATION OF LEASE

This Lease and all rights of Tenant hereunder are and shall be subject and subordinate in all respects to (1) any mortgages, deeds of trust and building loan agreements affecting the Leased Premises, including any and all renewals, replacements, modifications, substitutions, supplements and extensions thereof, and (2) each advance made or to be made thereunder. In confirmation of such subordination, Tenant shall promptly upon the request of Landlord execute and deliver an instrument in recordable form satisfactory to Landlord evidencing such subordination; and if Tenant fails to execute, acknowledge or deliver any such instrument within ten (10) days after request therefore, Tenant hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints Landlord as Tenant's attorney-in-fact, coupled with an interest, to execute, acknowledge and deliver any such instruments on behalf of Tenant. Tenant further agrees that in the event any such mortgagee or lender requests reasonable modifications to this Lease as a condition of such financing, Tenant shall not withhold or delay its consent thereto.

ARTICLE XVIII. MISCELLANEOUS

Section 18.1. Waiver. The waiver by Landlord or Tenant of any breach of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, or condition or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein. The subsequent acceptance or payment of rent hereunder by Landlord or Tenant, respectively, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any breach by Tenant or Landlord, respectively, of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease regardless of knowledge of such breach at the time of acceptance or payment of such rent. No covenant, term, or condition of this Lease shall be deemed to have been waived by Tenant or Landlord unless the waiver be in writing signed by the party to be charged thereby.

Section 18.2. Entire Agreement. This Lease, and the Exhibits attached hereto and forming a part hereof, set forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and understandings between Landlord and Tenant concerning the Leased Premises; and there are no covenants, promises, agreements, conditions or understandings, either oral or written, between them other than as herein set forth. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Lease shall be binding upon Landlord or Tenant unless reduced in writing and signed by them.

Section 18.3. Notices. Any notice, demand, request or other instrument which may be, or is required to be given under this Lease, shall be in writing and delivered in person or by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, and shall be addressed:

(a) if to Landlord, at County of Albemarle County Executive’s Office 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

or at such other address as Landlord may designate by written notice;


(b) if to Tenant, at

Worrell Land & Development Company, L.C. [Address]

or at such other address as Tenant shall designate by written notice.

Section 18.4. Captions and Section Numbers. The captions and section numbers appearing in this Lease are inserted only as a matter of convenience and in no way define, limit, construe or describe the scope or intent of such sections of this Lease nor in any way do they affect this Lease.

Section 18.5. Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, or the application thereof, to any person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such term, covenant, or condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant, or condition of this Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.

Section 18.6. Recording. Upon request of either party, a memorandum of lease will be executed and recorded. Such memorandum shall contain any provisions of this Lease which either party requests except for the provisions of Article IV, which shall not be included. The cost of recording such memorandum of lease or a short form hereof shall be borne by the party requesting such recordation.

Section 18.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance

with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Section 18.8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day and year first above written.

TENANT

WORRELL LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.C. By: Anne R. Worrell, Manager

LANDLORD This Lease is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Thomas C. Foley, County Executive, following a duly-held public hearing, and pursuant to a Resolution of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.

COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: Thomas C. Foley, County Executive

EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES

Prior to Construction of Replacement Shed

All that certain structure shown as“1 Story Frame Building” on Sheet 2 of that certain Preliminary Site Plan for the Pantops Fire Station, dated August 18, 2010, and prepared by DJG, Inc.

Following Construction of Replacement Shed

All that certain space, measuring approximately 28 feet by 41.5 feet, shown as “Maintenance Shed” on Sheet 3 of that certain Preliminary Site Plan for the Pantops Fire Station, dated August 18, 2010, and prepared by DJG, Inc.

_____ PREPARED BY: CONSIDERATION $-0- HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION P. O. BOX 500 RICHMOND, VA 23218-0500 TAX PARCEL Nos. 78-31J

PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made this ____ day of

December, 2011, by and between PJP BUILDING SIX, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company (“Grantor”);

THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (“Grantee”); PJP BUILDING SEVEN, L.C., a Virginia limited

liability company (“PJP Seven”) [index as additional grantor]; THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, individually and as agent for First Penn – Pacific Life Insurance Company (the “Lender”); and

STANLEY J. WROBEL, as trustee under that certain Deed of Trust (as defined below) (the “Trustee”) [index as an additional grantor].


RECITALS

A. Grantor is the owner of a parcel or tract of land being Lot 12 of Peter Jefferson Place, more particularly shown and described on a subdivision plat prepared by Jordan Consulting Engineers, P.C., dated March 30, 2006, entitled “Subdivision Plat Showing Lots 12 & 13 and Common Areas 2 & 3, Peter Jefferson Place, a Division of Tax Nos. 78-31 and 32, Rivanna Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia” (the

“Plat”), which Plat has been recorded in the Clerk’s Office, Circuit Court, Albemarle County, Virginia (the

“Clerk’s Office”), in Deed Book 3189, page 227, and according to which Plat Lot 12 contains 8.007 acres. Lot

12 is referred to herein as “PJP Six”. B. Grantee is the owner of a parcel of land containing 1.283 acres, more particularly shown and

described on a subdivision plat prepared dated February 7, 2011, last revised December 15, 2011, by Lincoln Surveying, entitled “Subdivision Plat of Parcel F – Being a Portion of Tax Map 78 Parcel 31 located on Peter

Jefferson Parkway Rivanna Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia” (the “Fire Station Plat”), which

plat is recorded in the Clerk’s Office immediately prior hereto (the “Fire Station Parcel”).

C. A private access road has been constructed on PJP Six in the location described in a certain Declaration of Cross Access Easement dated April 10, 2006, recorded in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book

3192, page 343 (the “Cross Access Agreement”), a portion which is shown on the Fire Station Plat (the “PJP

Six Access Road”).

D. Grantee has been granted an access easement by Worrell Land and Development Company, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, from the PJP Six Access Road to the Fire Station Parcel over a 30’ private street in the location reflected as “New 30’ Private Street” on the Fire Station Plat. Such access road is

referred to herein as the “Fire Station Driveway”.

E. PJP Seven is a party to the Cross Access Agreement, as the PJP Six Access Road provides access to certain property owned by PJP Seven. PJP Seven joins herein for the sole purposes of consenting to this Agreement and the Access Easement granted herein, and acknowledging the increased burden which this Agreement may impose on PJP Seven with respect to its obligations under the Cross Access Agreement.

F. PJP Six is encumbered by a certain Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing from Grantor to Trustee for the benefit of the Lender, dated March 14, 2008, and recorded in the Clerk’s Office

in Deed Book 3566, page 1 (the “Deed of Trust”).

G. Grantee has requested, and Grantor has agreed, to grant a non-exclusive, private access easement over the portion of the PJP Six Access Road between Peter Jefferson Parkway and the Fire Station Driveway for the purpose of facilitating access from Peter Jefferson Parkway to and from the Fire Station Parcel, all on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

AGREEMENT In consideration of Ten Dollars cash in hand paid by Grantee to Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is mutually acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee hereby agree as follows:

1. Access Easement.

(a) Grant. Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee a private, non-exclusive easement for the benefit of Grantee, its successors in title and assigns, and their respective guests, invitees, tenants and employees, for the purpose of pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress to and from Peter Jefferson Parkway from and to the Fire Station Driveway, to facilitate access to and from the Fire Station Parcel from and to Peter Jefferson Parkway. The easement granted in this subparagraph is hereinafter

referred to as the “Access Easement” and the portion of the PJP Six Access Road subject to the Access Easement (being the portion of the PJP Six Access Road lying between Peter Jefferson Parkway and the

southern boundary of the Fire Station Driveway) shall be referred to herein as the “Access Easement Area”. The road now or hereafter located within the Access Easement Area shall be referred to herein as the

“Driveway”.

(b) Relocation. Grantor reserves the right to relocate, from time to time, any portion of the Driveway, provided that the Fire Station Parcel shall continue to be reasonably served for its intended purposes by the relocated Driveway.

(c) Use. The right is hereby reserved for the Grantor to use the Access Easement Area for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights granted to the Grantee in this Agreement, provided such use does not unreasonably interfere with use of such Access Easement Area by the Grantee for its intended purposes.

2. Temporary Construction Easement. In addition, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee a private, non-exclusive, temporary construction easement over the Access Easement Area for the benefit of Grantee, its successors in title and assigns, and their respective contractors, for the purpose of performing the

work necessary to transition from the PJP Six Access Road to the Fire Station Driveway (the “Construction

Easement”). The Construction Easement is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:

(a) Approval of Plans. All plans for any construction work (the “Work”) shall be

prepared by Grantee (the “Plans”). Grantee shall deliver two sets of the Plans to Grantor for review and approval by Grantor at least thirty (30) days prior to the projected date for commencement of the Work, with


such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. Grantor shall review the Plans and either approve them in writing, or provide comments in writing to Grantee, within fifteen (15) days after Grantor’s receipt of the Plans. The reasonable cost of review of the Plans by Grantor’s professionals shall be paid by Grantee or reimbursed by Grantee to Grantor. No Work may be performed until such time as the Plans have been finally approved in writing by Grantor and all applicable governmental authorities.

(b) Permits. Grantee shall be responsible to satisfy any and all governmental requirements and obtain all applicable governmental permits required in connection with performance of the Work.

(c) Costs. All costs and expenses of performing the Work, including, without limitation, the cost to prepare the Plans and all permit costs, shall be paid by Grantee.

(d) Interference. The Work may not increase the costs or diminish the capacity or benefits of any underground utilities located within the Access Easement Area or otherwise on PJP Six or the rights of any other utility easement holders. Grantee shall use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that an adequate means of ingress and egress is maintained into and out of PJP Six and any other property served by the PJP Six Access Road so as not to adversely impact any business conducted on such parcels. Grantee shall provide at least five (5) days notice to Grantor prior to commencement of the Work. A representative of Grantee shall meet with a representative of Grantor at a pre-construction meeting at Grantor’s office prior to commencement of the Work to review any anticipated lane restrictions or closures. If any closure of the PJP Six Access Road is required, Grantee shall conduct a partial closure when possible and maintain ingress and egress on one side of the PJP Six Access Road. Unless otherwise agreed by Grantor, any full closure shall be limited to between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. The work site shall be kept reasonably clean and free of debris. Any mud from construction tracked onto the PJP Six Access Road shall be washed down as necessary on a daily basis.

(e) Restoration. Upon completion of the Work, Grantee shall restore the PJP Six Access Road and any other property in the vicinity that is damaged during the course of the Work to substantially the same condition it was in prior to commencement of the Work, such restoration to be completed promptly after completion of the Work.

(f) Mechanic’s Liens. The Work shall be completed in a good and workmanlike manner, free of all mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens.

(g) Termination. Upon completion of the Work and restoration of any damage to the PJP Six Access Road and any surrounding property caused by the Work, this Construction Easement shall automatically terminate. Upon the request of Grantor, Grantee shall execute and deliver to Grantor, at Grantee’s sole cost and expense, an instrument reasonably satisfactory to Grantor and Grantee, in recordable form, confirming the termination of the Construction Easement.

3. Maintenance. Grantor shall repair ordinary wear and tear and maintain the Driveway in an attractive, usable, clean and orderly condition reasonably clear of water, debris, ice and snow. If replacement of the surface of any portion of the Driveway is required, Grantor shall replace the surface to an equal or greater standard than originally installed.

4. Damage or Destruction. If the Driveway is destroyed or damaged, the following provisions shall apply:

(a) No Fault. If the Driveway is destroyed or damaged by casualty or accident, the cause of which is not attributable to Grantee, then Grantor shall be responsible for repairing and reconstructing the Driveway.

(b) Construction Vehicles. If the Driveway is destroyed or damaged by construction vehicles employed or contracted for by or on behalf of Grantee, Grantee shall be responsible for repairing and reconstructing the Driveway and shall bear the costs of repairing the Driveway.

(c) Owner at Fault. If the Driveway is damaged or destroyed by casualty or other causes attributable to the negligent or willful act or omission of Grantee, then Grantee shall be responsible for repairing and reconstructing the Driveway and shall bear the full costs of repair and restoration of the Driveway.

(d) Remedies for Failure to Repair or Reconstruct. If Grantee is obligated to repair or reconstruct the Driveway, pursuant to Subparagraph (b) or (c) above, and fails to commence to repair and restore the Driveway within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice of the need for such Work from Grantor, and thereafter diligently prosecute such repair and restoration to completion, then Grantor may effect such repair and restoration and either charge the cost of the same to Grantee or be entitled to reimbursement of the same within fifteen (15) days after written demand Grantor to Grantee, which demand shall include paid receipts or invoices for the amount due. The costs incurred by Grantor shall constitute both the personal obligation and debt of Grantee.

5. Private Rights. The Access Easement Area is private and shall be maintained exclusively by Grantor. As improvements on the Fire Station Parcel are intended for public use, members of the general public shall be allowed to use the Access Easement as a means of ingress to and egress from the Fire Station Parcel. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as or deemed to create any other rights for the benefit of


the general public in the Access Easement Area or any other improvements now or hereafter located on any portion of PJP Six.

6. Matters of Record. The conveyances made and rights granted in this Agreement are made subject to all applicable easements, restrictions, covenants and conditions of record in the chain of title to PJP Six.

7. Successors and Assigns. The terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to be covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the owners of PJP Six and the Fire Station Parcel and their respective successors, grantees, devisees and assigns and any person claiming by, through or under them. Any obligations contained herein shall be construed as covenants and not as conditions and a violation of any said covenants shall not result in a forfeiture or reversion of title to the Access Easement.

8. Interpretation. When the context in which words are used in this Agreement indicates that such is the intent, words in the singular member shall include the plural, and vice versa, and words in the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders, and vice versa. If either PJP Six or the Fire Station Parcel is owned by two or more persons or entities at any one time, all of such Owners shall be jointly and severally liable for all of the obligations imposed on the owner of such parcel pursuant to this Agreement.

9. Title and Headings; References. Titles and headings to sections herein are inserted for convenience of reference only, and are not intended to be a part of or to affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. All paragraph references in this Agreement are to the paragraphs of this Agreement unless expressly stated to the contrary.

10. Modification. This Agreement shall not be amended or modified and no waiver of any provision hereof shall be effective unless set forth in a written instrument executed with the same formality as this Agreement.

11. Enforceability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be unenforceable in whole or in part, such provision shall be limited to the extent necessary to render the same valid, or shall be excised from this Agreement, as circumstances require, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such provision had been incorporated herein as so limited or as if such provision had not been included herein, as the case may be.

12. Authority to accept easement. The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, accepts the conveyance of this property pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1803, as evidenced by the County Executive’s signature hereto and the recordation of this Deed.

13. PJP Seven Consent and Acknowledgment. By execution of this Agreement, PJP Seven consents to this Agreement and the Access Easement granted herein, and acknowledges that this Agreement may impose an increased burden on PJP Seven with respect to its obligations under the Cross Access Easement.

14. Subordination. Lender executes this Agreement for the sole purpose of subordinating the lien of the Deed of Trust to this Agreement. Trustee executes this Agreement, at the direction of Lender, for the sole purpose of subordinating the lien of the Deed of Trust to this Agreement.

PJP BUILDING SIX, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company

By: Brandywine Charlottesville, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company Its: Development Manager

By: Brandywine Operating Partnership, LP, a Delaware limited partnership Its: Sole Member

By: Brandywine Realty Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust Its: General Partner By: William D. Redd,

Sr. Vice President and Managing Director

COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA

__________________________________________ By: Thomas C. Foley Title: County Executive

PJP BUILDING SEVEN, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company

By: Brandywine Charlottesville, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company


Its: Development Manager

By: Brandywine Operating Partnership, LP, a Delaware limited partnership Its: Sole Member

By: Brandywine Realty Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust Its: General Partner By: William D. Redd,

Sr. Vice President and Managing Director

THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, An Indiana corporation By:

Name: David Spearman Title: Vice President ________________________________________ Stanley J. Wrobel Trustee _______________

Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: SP-2010-00034. Glenn A. Hall (Signs 76&76).

PROPOSED: Request for one additional development right for the creation of a new parcel for a family member. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 4399 Braxton Road, approximately 430 feet from the intersection with Gilbert Station Road (Route 640). TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 34 Parcel 74B. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 28 and December 5, 2011.)

Mr. Cilimberg reported that the request was for one additional development right in the rural area

for the owner to provide a second lot for his daughter to build a home. He stated that the site is in the northern part of the County on Gilbert Station Road west of Stony Point Road, and presented an aerial view of the property with the existing house. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that this was one of four parcels created by a non-family member several years ago from a 23.5-acre parcel, and Mr. Hall purchased one of the parcels and other family members purchased other parcels that had been created in the subdivision. This is not a subdivision created by the family. He stated that historically, applications for family-owned parcels with development rights that have been exhausted through prior family subdivisions are generally approved and tended to be properties that were part of a larger family concentration. Mr. Cilimberg said that other applications have generally been denied. In this situation Mr. Hall acquired this property with only one development right – so in order to do any further division they need a second development right, which this special use permit is requesting.

Mr. Cilimberg explained that policies within the Comp Plan aim to stop an ongoing trend toward

fragmentation and loss of rural character and reduce the level and rate of residential development in the rural areas. Approval of additional development rights are generally contrary to those policies. He stated that staff found a favorable factor in that the parcel has the necessary building site to accommodate the additional development right, with unfavorable factors being inconsistency with the rural areas policy and the fact that this was not a parcel whereby development rights had been exhausted through prior family subdivisions. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff did not recommend approval, but based on the health and welfare of a family member, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the special use permit. He stated that originally there was only one condition recommended by staff if this was approved which provided for the division to be only a family subdivision. The second condition was added by the Commission, at the agreement of the applicant, stipulated that the family division period retaining the property should be extended to 10 years from the current four years.

Ms. Mallek asked if this zoning would provide for an accessory structure. Mr. Cilimberg

responded that you could not have a second dwelling unit without a development right. Ms. Mallek also said that she recalled a 15-year timeframe for previous similar applications. Mr.

Cilimberg said he does not remember. Mr. Rooker mentioned a company that makes units to be put onto your property that have medical

facilities in them, and there was a statute passed in the General Assembly to allow that to happen without subdivision.

Mr. Cilimberg responded that the intent of those is for caretaking of a family member whereby a

second person could reside on the property to take care of them. Mr. Rooker said it is for the person who needs care. Mr. Cilimberg added that it would also

include their caretaker. Mr. Rooker asked why that would not be an option here as opposed to


subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg stated that his understanding was the second house would be for the daughter who has a family member in need of care. The applicant would need to address the question.

Mr. Rooker commented that the units are also very reasonable in cost. Mr. Cilimberg added that

they are designed so that they can be removed when the caretaking is no longer necessary. Ms. Mallek asked if an option is to add an additional wing off the existing house through a

breezeway or such so that it could meet all the necessary zoning requirements. Mr. Cilimberg said that an accessory apartment is limited by the ordinance.

The Chair opened the public hearing. Ms. Tiffany Taylor addressed the Board, on behalf of her father, the applicant. She said that her

daughter would be eight in March and has been in the hospital for the last seven years but is now coming home. Ms. Taylor emphasized that the house needed for her child must be wired in a specific way, with specific ventilation and wider doorways. She said that everyone who lives around her father’s property is family and it would be a huge help for her to live here as there is an aunt who cares for her disabled son on the property. She added that she does not plan on moving from the property.

Ms. Mallek asked if she had any problem with stipulating 15 years of ownership. Ms. Taylor said

she had no problem with that condition. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed

before the Board. Mr. Rooker said that he normally does not support these because they run contrary to the purpose

of limited development rights in the rural area, but this is a rather extreme circumstance and with the 15-year provision he could support it.

Ms. Mallek agreed that she would also support this. She thinks that it is a unique situation and

would not set a precedent.

Mr. Boyd moved for approval of SP-2010-00034 with the condition one as presented and the

second condition modified to reflect 15 years. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None.

(The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 34, Parcel 74B shall only be permitted as a “family subdivision” as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code; and 2. The family division period to retain the property shall be extended to fifteen (15) years. _______________

Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: ZMA-2010-00010. Peter Jefferson Overlook and

SP-2010-00039. Peter Jefferson Overlook Offices. (Signs #82&83).

PROPOSALS: Rezone 2.09 acres from Pantops Place PRD Planned Residential District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD Planned Residential District residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses and Special Use Permit for commercial offices. No residential units are proposed. SECTION FOR SP: 19.3.2.9 which allows offices by special use. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in Pantops Neighborhood. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: NE Corner of Route 250/Pantops Mountain Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-055A7. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 28 and December 5, 2011.)

Mr. Cilimberg said the Board was familiar with the site on Route 250 East located by the cottages

at Peter Jefferson Place and Westminster Canterbury. This rezoning would amend the application to show offices as well as allow offices through the special use permit in the Planned Residential District. He presented the plan, noting the location of Route 250 East and the entrance to Westminster Canterbury and the units behind this site that were the original residences built under the rezoning. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the access would come directly off the road entering the residential area and would come back downhill into the site. He added that there would be one building of approximately 10,500 square feet with a second building of 23,000 square feet, both including parking and fronting Route 250 East. He said there would also be a sidewalk constructed along Route 250 East and connecting into the sidewalk on Pantops Mountain Road, and there would be access off the sidewalk that comes into the complex. Sidewalks are provided around the buildings.

Mr. Cilimberg stated that this is an area designated under the Comp Plan, which is reflecting the

Pantops Master Plan as urban density residential. The project contains a combination of residential and office commercial along Route 250, and to the north of the site. He said that staff had not recommended approval and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of both the rezoning and the special use permit based on several factors, including the fact that the proposed office use was not in compliance with the master plan for Pantops and they had not seen compelling justification provided for


developing office. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission had in prior work sessions discussed the possibility of office and had said it could be acceptable there if it were more localized to serving the northern side of Route 250 and the residences in that area.

The Commission also had concern about the proposal for the site being overdeveloped, with

street trees potentially needing to be in VDOT right of way but also required because of ARB provisions; grading construction easements to construct a retaining wall on the north side of the site would also be necessary. Mr. Cilimberg stated that reduction in the amount of required parking spaces was reflected by the plan, but there had not been a request for that reduction so no justification had been provided for review by the Zoning Administrator. He said that a critical slopes waiver would be needed, as would an access easement from Westminster Canterbury if this is to be approved and developed.

Mr. Rooker asked for confirmation that if this were approved, they would not be approving the site

plan. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it could be varied to some extent through administrative procedure

but if it had to change significantly it would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Rooker asked if the Board approves this, it still requires ARB approval along with any

plantings the ARB requires on the site. Mr. Cilimberg said that the ARB does not like to have required trees in VDOT right of way

because VDOT could take them down, so that could impact the site’s development and require some downsizing, but the rezoning would not necessarily have to come back to the Board.

Mr. Rooker said they would still have to get a critical slope waiver and the Commission would

make a decision on it one way or another. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission’s primary reason for recommending denial was the

inconsistency with the Pantops Master Plan. The other factors can be a consideration but they could be addressed in the development process. He also said that if the Board chose to approve this, the proffers dated November 21 are legally acceptable and the special use permit would need no conditions.

Mr. Boyd asked if this would be closer to Route 250 than the Luxor buildings, as they are very

close to the road, and asked if the trees are ones they planted in the VDOT right of way. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the difference with this project is the elevation changes onsite,

which play into where plants can go. He said that this may be just a little closer to Route 250, but the elevation change from the street to the site makes a big difference.

Mr. Boyd asked if the traffic counts are more there because it seemed the volume would be

greater for residential than for office complex. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it would depend on units and the offices that go there as to what the

differences might be, and there would be peak office hour traffic. Mr. Boyd asked if office space generated higher traffic counts than residential properties. Mr. Cilimberg said that the period of time when the trips are taken can be somewhat different. Mr. Joel DeNunzio, of VDoT, stated that the amount of traffic is dependent on the office square

footage. There was not a traffic study done on this although there was a small analysis done on the right and left turn lanes going into the site.

Ms. Mallek asked if they were consistent with the turn lanes as currently in existence or if they

required improvements. Mr. DeNunzio said there would need to be some lengthening of the turn lanes, and there would be

no entrance permit required from VDOT because Pantops Mountain Road is not controlled by the state. He stated that the application plan shows lengthening of turn lanes in accordance with the traffic study the applicant submitted.

Mr. Boyd said the Commission’s main objection seemed to be the proper use of the site in

conjunction with the Master Plan. He thinks that even though the site is designated as residential, he is not sure it is a better or the most practical use for the property, given its location and proximity to Route 250.

The Chair then opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Justin Shimp, with Shimp Engineering, addressed the Board stating that he was representing

the owner. He stated that they did conduct a traffic analysis, which found that the length of the right-turn lanes is adequate but not per current VDOT standard so they have agreed to VDOT standard. Mr. Shimp said that the applicant’s proposal is to revise what is currently an unrealistic, unbuildable plan that’s proffered for this property, and to better adhere to Entrance Corridor standards from both a design and Comprehensive Plan standpoint. He presented the current plan of development, which included 10 townhomes that back directly onto Route 250 – with patios that would be just 50 feet off of pavement of


Route 250. Mr. Shimp stated that there are over 40,000 trips per day on that road, which seems to be a lot of intensity for a low-density residential use in that location.

He said that the applicant’s plan is to change the use to professional offices. He indicated that

one of the proposed buildings is about the same footprint as the Topeka’s across the street – but two stories – with the other building being about the size of the small offices where the Social Security office is located. Mr. Shimp stated that their site is up the hill when compared to the Luxor site, but the right of way is also wider. He said that both VDOT and the ARB are amenable to the street trees with a maintenance agreement, which would be part of the site plan process.

Mr. Shimp stated that the Pantops Master Plan and Comp Plan both state that neighborhood

scale offices and services are part of an urban density residential zone – and that is what they are proposing, which is consistent with the property next door. The applicant has agreed to pay their share of traffic of maintenance costs to the private road based on trips. He said the concept plan presented shows the maximum that can be done, but there would likely be less onsite. Mr. Shimp stated that he had not been aware of the critical slopes waiver until the Planning Commission hearing, but his understanding was that the slopes were all manmade and he does not see it as a major issue because they are the ones at risk on that. He emphasized that the proposal is just a logical, appropriate use for this parcel, is supported by the Comp Plan, and the neighbors have not objected to this proposed use – with Westminster Canterbury agreeing that it should only be professional office, no commercial use.

Mr. Boyd asked if the applicant had approval from Westminster Canterbury for use of the access

road. Mr. Shimp stated that they have deeded easements to the road and covenants that allow them to

use it from previous site plans. Ms. Mallek asked if they would be able to keep the large trees at the high ground where the

access road would likely route through. Mr. Shimp replied that he would like to, but the topography of the site is quite challenging and the

grading of the site is difficult. He also said that this is just the concept plan and when they get to final engineering they would address those specific issues.

Mr. Snow asked him if they would have any problem working with the ARB if they require more

parking, a smaller building, and a greater setback. Mr. Shimp responded that the building location is consistent with ARB guidelines, and the

applicant would meet whatever falls under their purview. Mr. Thomas asked if he had received an explanation as to why there was not a mention of the

critical slopes waivers in this process. Mr. Shimp said that there had been three different planners working on this, so perhaps it slipped

through the correspondence – and it would likely be administratively approved because all the slopes seem to be manmade.

Mr. Thomas asked if there was enough space for the trees to go on the property, outside of the

VDOT right of way. Mr. Shimp responded that it might be possible, but would require some adjustment to the

buildings and parking layout. He said he would like to have them where they are shown, subject to VDOT approving the maintenance agreement. He said that he considers that a site plan issue.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed

before the Board. Mr. Rooker stated that there were four issues raised when the Planning Commission denied this

request, and three of them deal with matters of ARB approval and ultimate site plan approval. He said that the Board would not be approving parking or critical slopes waivers, as they would have to be applied for on their own merit, and the same would hold true for the planting in the right of way. He also views the easement issue as the applicant’s problem. Mr. Rooker stated that the Board was really only considering whether the application was compatible with the surrounding area and with the Comp Plan. The site is in the growth area. He does not think the current master plan designation of high-density residential is not as consistent with the surrounding uses as what the applicant is applying for. He also said that putting residential that close to Route 250 might be a difficult buy. He thinks that it actually reduces traffic to have doctors’ offices close to the hospital. He said that he thinks it is a good use of the property. He also thinks it is consistent with the master plan if not specifically consistent with the designation in the master plan.”

Mr. Boyd agreed and asked what the impact on the tax assessment of the property would be with

this approval. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he had no idea. Mr. Rooker said it would likely increase.


Mr. Dorrier stated that this use is consistent with the offices that are currently out there. Mr. Thomas commented that the area is kind of a transitional area. Mr. Boyd asked for clarification of the proffers. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Board’s action would be inclusive of the proffers dated

November 21, 2011 – there would be separate actions for the rezoning and special use permit, with no conditions.

Mr. Boyd moved for approval of ZMA-2010-00010 with the proffers dated November 21, 2011.

Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None.

Mr. Snow then moved for approval of SP-2010-0039. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None.


_______________

Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: ZMA-2011-0001. Fontana Trails Proffer Amendment.

PROPOSAL: Amend proffer to remove obligation to build trail on 6.09 acres zoned R-4 Residential which allows 4 units per acre. Proffer was made in conjunction with the ZMA2004-00018 which was a rezoning of 17.15 acres on TMP 078E00000000A0. No proposed change in density. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential which allows residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in the Pantops Neighborhood ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: In open space behind Olympia Drive and Appian Way and also at the rear of lots on the north side of Fontana Court in the Fontana Subdivision TAX MAP/PARCEL[S]: 078000000000A0, 78E00000000E0, 078E000000000D, 078E0000012800, 078E0000012900, 078E0000012700, 078E00000012600, 078E0000012500, 078E0000012400, 078E0000012300, 078E0000012200, 078E0000012100, 078E0000012000. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 28 and December 5, 2011.)


Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request is in the Fontana Subdivision and would move a few trails as they are currently required. There was an overall system approved with the original zoning for Fontana. With this request, he said, one trail would be removed due to the inability to get easements that would allow for construction. He stated that the second trail would become a grass trail with a marker. The overall system in the Fontana Subdivision as originally approved would now have trails in a rerouted path – with the trail planned for behind Fontana no longer required. Mr. Cilimberg said that traditionally eliminating paths removes pedestrian connections, which is contrary to what the County tries to achieve in planning, and the paths also provide an alternative to walking in the street. He stated that in this case residents have indicated a desire to eliminate these particular trails and feel it would have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Property owners on the north side of Fontana Court where the trail would be removed are unwilling to provide easements. Mr. Cilimberg said that the unsurfaced path would have signage, and the County holds a bond for completion of all paths.

He stated that the recommendation from staff and the Commission is approval inclusive of the

proffers dated 10/18/11 and signed on October 18 and October 19. Mr. Boyd said that he had received a letter from the Fontana Homeowners Association

unanimously approving removal of the trails. Mr. Boyd added that there has been a lot of discussion about these trails over the years.

Ms. Mallek commented that even though one stretch of trails is being removed there remains a

big network throughout the rest of the neighborhood for people to use. Mr. Rooker emphasized that there is a lesson in this in that the Board decided in 1997 to allow

path systems instead of sidewalks. When there have been other issues regarding Fontana one of the things consistently raised by the residents is that they do not have sidewalks in their neighborhood. This whole issue became a problem because the Board allowed the path systems instead of sidewalks.

Mr. Cilimberg noted that under the ordinance now they would be required to include sidewalks

unless there was a waiver from the Planning Commission. It was not for lack of trying that staff did not get sidewalks back even in the late 90s; it just was not something the County could require.

The Chair opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Powers, a resident of Fontana Court in Fontana Subdivision, said there was a trail

system planned for Fontana that utilized prearranged open spaces and easements that were platted and provided to homeowners, but in 2008 a modified plan was created as a new proffer from the applicant with regards to a new section he wanted to build – and that plan put paths in sections where easements did not exist. He explained that in 2009 the 10 homeowners who were affected wrote a letter to the County and to the developer stating that they did not grant an easement for construction of paths on their property and did not intend to do so, so this put the developer in a bit of a catch-22 situation. The one trail is on a court so the residences that would otherwise be connected by that path already walk down the court; traffic is light because it is not a through street. Most of where they are going is to the clubhouse which is on that same court. He does not see that as a real concern nor does he think the other residents see it as a concern.

Mr. Anthony Nichols, Trustee of the Subdivision, said that that the pathways on the north side of

Fontana Court would be stairways more so than pathways because it is so steep there. He also said that on the west side between lots 16 and 17 there is an existing pathway, and on the east side of Olympia Driver there is another pathway – with the distance between the two being 300-350 feet. Mr. Nichols said he would really appreciate the Board’s approval because the homeowners do not really want the pathways.

With no one else come forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Boyd moved to approve ZMA-2011-0001, inclusive of the proffers dated October 18, 2011

and signed on October 18, 2011 and October 19, 2011. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None.



_______________

(NonAgenda. At 7:36 p.m., the Board took a recess, and then reconvened at 7:50 p.m.) _______________

Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: ZMA-2011-00006. and SP-2011-00014. Albemarle

Health and Rehab Center (Sign #28).

PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.38 acres from R-1 zoning district which allows residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial zoning district which allows large-scale commercial uses; residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre and special use permit under Section 24.2.2(7) of zoning ordinance for hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes uses. No dwellings proposed. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: N. PROFFERS: No. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Transitional – neighborhood-scale commercial uses, offices, townhouses and apartments (6.01-34 units/acre) and Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office, and service uses and located in Neighborhood 4 in the Development Area. LOCATION: 91 Galaxie Farm Lane. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09100000001200. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 28 and December 5, 2011.)

The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:

On October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation Center rezoning and special use permit requests. The Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of ZMA201100006 with the proffers to be resolved to address the following before a Board of Supervisors’ public hearing:


Restrict the uses to only the use they are proposing plus wireless facilities, public utilities and public facilities;

Keep all improvements, including stormwater facilities and grading, on-site, or provide off-site easements, and reflect accordingly on the application plan; and

Address the circulation past the fire station. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0, also recommended approval of SP201100014 with no conditions. Also the Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of waivers of maximum parking allowance, minimum yard requirements, maintenance of undisturbed buffer, and screening requirements based on affirmative findings regarding Sections 4.12.2(C), 21.7(B), 21.7(C) and 8.2(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. (See Attachment VI for analysis of these waiver requests) The attached proffers include clarification as to uses allowed by-right and by special use permit as recommended by the Planning Commission. (Attachment II) While the proffers are technically and legally acceptable, staff notes the following are remaining issues regarding the proposal: The applicant is no longer proposing off-site grading, drainage and stormwater management on the school property. The stormwater is now handled on-site. Staff suggests it would be preferable if grading was kept 5 feet off the property line because it will be very difficult to stay on the property and grade to the property line. (Attachment III) The applicant has provided signed copies of grading easements for Galaxie LLC and ACSA. (Attachment IV) However, off-site grading easements will be required for the retaining walls and grading on the property line of Dominion Crane and Rigging Inc. Staff believes it is not possible to construct on the property line without these elements. If this permission is not obtained, a 5 foot minimum distance needs to be provided for safety and erosion control measures. While the applicant has provided a Declaration for private street maintenance on the Albemarle County property, this agreement has not been signed and does not contain sufficient information regarding the proposed road section. (Attachment V) A description for the type of road design expected and the sanitary sewer and water lines and easements should consider the County’s long range plans for the property. Based on the previous comments from staff, the easements do not include all off-site improvements nor do they address all of the grading on site. Until the above listed issues are rectified, staff does not find that the expectations of the Planning Commission in recommending approval have been fully addressed and does not recommend approval of ZMA201100006 and SP201100014, Nursing Home with waivers for Waiver of Section 21.7 (b), Minimum Yard Requirement, Waiver of Section 21.7 (c ), Required Buffers, Waiver of Section 32.7.9.8(c ), Required Screening, and Waiver of Section 4.12.4(a), Exceeding the maximum parking by more than 20%. Should the Board want to approve this re-zoning, special use permit and waivers, staff recommends the following be addressed before the Board acts on this proposal:

1. Because a portion of a retaining wall will be located on the joint property line of the subject property and that of Dominion Crane and Rigging, an indication of permission from the adjacent property owner to allow activity on their property should be provided. Permission is also needed from Albemarle County in order to build the access road.

2. The applicant has provided a private street maintenance agreement, but some type of provision needs to be made regarding a description for the type of road design expected as the access road. Consideration also needs to be made for the County’s long range plans regarding sanitary sewer and water lines on this property. The maintenance agreement needs additional detail regarding the road design, sanitary sewer and water lines. The agreement is also not signed.

_____ Mr. Cilimberg reported that the location of the property is behind a few public facilities – the

Monticello Fire Station on Mill Creek Drive, and Cale Elementary School on Avon Street – and it is currently accessed by Galaxy Farm Lane, which intersects with Route 20. He noted the location of Albemarle County Service Authority property and a water tank on a map. He said the request for rezoning would cover just under 5.5 acres from R-1 to Planned Development/Mixed Commercial; a special use permit would allow the nursing home facility. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the application plan proposes to develop the site with access coming through County property that now serves as access for Monticello Fire Station. The area is currently designated as transitional and neighborhood density, as well as urban density. He said that the Commission unanimously recommended approval of this rezoning with some conditions including restricting uses to the proposed use and some other uses that were more of a public nature, to keep all improvements onsite or provide offsite easements, and to address access past the fire station.

Mr. Cilimberg said there was also a recommendation for approval of the special use permit with

no conditions and a vote of 7-0 for the waivers associated with this request – maximum parking, minimal yard, maintenance of undisturbed buffer and screening. He stated that staff does not find that all of the Commission’s expectations in recommending approval had been fully addressed. Permission would still need to be provided for offsite activity where there all retaining walls and grading on the property line. Mr. Cilimberg said the provision of the access road on County property meeting the County’s requirements for future use of its property has not been provided. Staff feels the provision should be a public road meeting the requirements of the development of the land proposed here – as well as the land the County owns and


potential future uses. He stated that JAUNT has also expressed concern that provision for their service may not be reflected in the plan and have indicated they would want that a stop location and necessary weather protection would be provided onsite.

Mr. Cilimberg said that if the Board should choose to approve this request, the proffers are legally

acceptable. The special use permit would need no conditions and the waivers are approvable based on staff findings. He emphasized that staff believes there should be a provision made for the road that would serve this use on County property.

Ms. Mallek asked if the public road provision was different from the proposal to widen the section

which until it gets past the firehouse, and then go to a 24-foot. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant would provide for a road to fully serve the County’s

needs, not only to the fire station but to the potential development to the rest of the public land. He said the County would need to determine the actual design requirements, but the idea would be urban cross-section with sidewalk – which would be to the benefit of the County in case there is public bus service to Mill Creek Drive.

Mr. Davis noted that it would need to be proffered as an offsite improvement, and staff has

suggested that it be proffered to a design standard for acceptance by VDOT and maintained by the applicant. He said it would be maintained by the applicant until such time as it would be taken into the VDOT system.

Mr. Boyd asked how long the road would be, adding that it might add significant expense to the

project. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the location of the proposed road on a map, stating that the County land

has been considered for locations for a middle school, courts facility, and library. As proposed, he stated that the land would be made available to the developer at no cost, so in exchange it is deemed to be reasonable to get a road that could be used.

Ms. Mallek commented that part of the road had already been built. Mr. Davis said it is built as an entrance now, not as a road. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant has proposed less than a full cross-section, with the

necessary grading. Mr. Thomas asked if they would just widen the beginning of the road going into the site. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant would provide complete grading for the width necessary and any

associated pavement needed for their development. At this point it would not include sidewalk or full urban cross section. He said that the sidewalk would be part of the road coming back to the site, and ideally their site would be pedestrian accessible from the sidewalk.

The Chair then opened the public hearing. The applicant, Mr. Bruce Hedrick, Vice-President for Development for Medical Facilities of

America, addressed the Board. He said that Mr. Justin Shimp and Mr. Steve Blaine are also present on the applicant’s behalf. Mr. Hedrick stated that the company is a second-generation family-owned business that has operated in the state for 40 years. The company owns and operates the Charlottesville Health & Rehabilitation Center on Rio Road – which they purchased three years ago and spent $1.5 million renovating earlier in 2011. Since their inception they realized that the greatest assets they have are their people. To be successful tomorrow they need to invest today in terms of their professional development, work place environment, as well as competitive wages and benefits.

They come from a family culture of values that is doing the right thing at the right time, the right

way and for the right reasons. He said that the company is about customer service excellence, which means not just caring for their patients, but also about caring about them. MFA is an industry leader in terms of outcome-based programming, cutting edge technology and equipment, as well as culture-changing building environments. They are very active in the community, providing both training as well as clinical rotation for area students. They will be a taxpayer contributing to the current and future services in the County.

He said that the average age of patients is typically in the 80s, and MFA provides them with short-

term rehabilitation and restorative care as well as long-term care; about 70% of their patients are Medicaid recipients – and that is the hardworking mothers and fathers of the County who outlive their savings for retirement, and they, as taxpayers, have to take care of them. It is no surprise that the state doesn’t provide enough to cover those costs, with the average nursing home losing $12 a day taking care of a Medicaid patient. That translates into their 90 bed center is approximately $200,000-$225,000 of charitable care that they will be providing County residents. He added that that is a sustainable model based on the building plans and site plans that they have prepared. He added that it is a very sensitive model from a cost-based situation. Mr. Hedrick reported that their facilities strive to be accessible to families and loved ones, so proximity becomes a key element in providing support. They are also intricately involved with the healthcare community and by having proximity and accessibility to other health care services helps to perfect that continuum of care.


Mr. Hedrick then asked the question – who present would like a private room for their loved one? Since he knows that he would, he also knows that it is important to who they are and what they do, not only from a quality of life perspective but from an outcome perspective. He emphasized that the 70+ population would increase 33% over the next 10 years and the last time the County had new beds added to local inventory was 1994, with 2004 being the most nursing home – a replacement of an existing facility. Mr. Hedrick stated that their facility is compatible and complimentary to the existing non-residential uses and is an efficient use of the growth area, which over 90 permanent jobs and 200 construction-related jobs. He said the project represents a $12 million investment in the County and is substantiated by the state as a need in this area for these services. Mr. Hedrick mentioned that this would be the first all-private room nursing home in the state regardless of payer source. He also noted that the project received unanimous approval from the Planning Commission.

Mr. Rooker asked how the balance with Medicaid clients is achieved. Mr. Hedrick responded that it is up to supply and demand, but the typical payer mix is

approximately 60-70% Medicaid and could be duly certified with Medicare. Mr. Rooker asked if that mix is any different from other nursing homes. Mr. Hedrick replied, “no”

that is typical. Mr. Shimp addressed the Board and said that the setback waivers, etc., are all related to the fact

that surrounding properties were zoned R-1 in the 1980 countywide rezoning – and none of the uses are actually residential. He said that in order to build a commercial-type site, they had to get waivers and the Commission recommended approval of those. Mr. Shimp noted that the retaining wall and the setbacks is a site plan issue, and if the wall needs to be pulled off the building could be made a few feet smaller. He stated that grading is based on a four-foot County topo, but a much more accurate topographical map would be used at the site plan stage. Mr. Shimp said that he had spoken with Ms. Donna Shaunessy, of JAUNT, and indicated that they do adequate clearance on the entrance. He stated that the reality of their facility is the clients won’t be able to walk down a sidewalk down the hill, but there would be sidewalks circulating around the facility.

Mr. Shimp mentioned that the big issue was road access and he had no idea it was an issue until

this morning when Mr. Cilimberg mentioned it. He said that there had been a “morphing of the language” from what the Commission recommended to what staff presented – as it was not intended to address access to County property, but to address circulation of the fire station. Mr. Shimp stated that the application plan in the staff report was old, and there is a new application plan that was submitted. He said that the issue brought up by Mr. Don Franco, of the Commission, regarding extra traffic at the fire station was addressed by widening the road to provide 30 feet of pavement in that location. Mr. Shimp presented the approved site plan for the fire station and said the developer’s intent has always been to build a “Phase I” of the public road that has to be there in the future. Their proposal was to build it to a vertical grade but not putting in a full urban section as it is not within the budget of the project. He said they would pave their section to an applicable pavement section so the County or developer would be able to simply widen the road, install some curbs and sidewalks, and create the public road. The applicant is open to discussions on how to resolve this issue regarding the road. Mr. Shimp emphasized that their intent all along had been to offer private access with the easement, and the County’s Facilities Development had offered their support of the idea.

Mr. Dorrier asked what proffers the applicant had made thus far. Mr. Shimp responded that they had proffered to only have a nursing care facility on the site, with

limits on every other use except public improvements such as utilities. He said they also have a special use permit with no conditions applied, but when the executive summary came out there were questions about the details of the road. Mr. Shimp stated that the applicant was happy to have a condition of the special use permit that the County Engineer can confer with VDOT to approve the vertical design for future expansion possibilities.

Mr. Dorrier asked about the reason for maximum parking allowance waivers. Mr. Shimp responded that the ordinance requires 30-40 parking spaces for this type of use, which

is likely based on an older model, and Mr. Hedrick knew that 90 spaces would be needed because of rehab clients coming in and out.

Mr. Rooker said it seems one of the expectations might be that employees would be walking up to

the facility, and wondered why they would not proffer sidewalk facilities at least on one side of the road. Mr. Davis explained that the concept of having a private road on public property is something the

County has never done, adding that this property was purchased by the County in 1998 at fair market value. He stated that the applicant purchased their property, which is a very constrained site and has no legal access from Mill Creek Drive, and there are no easements there at all. Mr. Davis said that the applicant has made no arrangements to have access through County property and what would typically be accepted is that they would acquire the property and dedicate it to the County for a public road. In this instance they are basically asking to just improve it – they do not have to acquire the property – but it should be constructed to a public road standard and maintained until such time that VDOT would accept the road.

Mr. Rooker asked the applicant why they didn’t acquire an easement.


Mr. Shimp said they felt, that because this issue did not come up until now, that they are basically asking now, and are asking if the alignment is the right thing. If it is not the right thing, then the Board needs to make that call now.

Mr. Rooker said that as a legal matter, he would expect that the applicant would tie down the

access first before pursuing the process of rezoning. Ms. Mallek stated that the County’s expectation has been that the road be to public road standard.

Mr. Thomas asked why he did not know about the road to be proffered originally especially since

the applicant has gone through all this planning. Mr. Shimp responded that he just did not know until this morning. Mr. Thomas asked what the County could do in this situation. Mr. Davis explained that this is a pretty basic requirement for any developer to know. Ms. Mallek emphasized that frontage is the #1 thing. Mr. Rooker also stated that access is one of the first things people look at when trying to buy

property. He added that the entire Board probably thinks this is a good use for the property and that a nursing home in this location would be a good thing for this community, but the Board does have to work through this issue of access. He added that he is not sure that issue can be dealt with tonight because it is not proffered and the applicant does not have access.

Mr. Shimp said they submitted their last revision in the end of October, and there was a full

maintenance agreement proposed between the applicant, the residual landowner, and the County of Albemarle. He did not hear anything back from that submittal.

Mr. Rooker stated that that’s a different matter, as often people contract to buy the property

conditioned on getting the access. Often people contract to buy property conditioned upon getting access. They are trying to get a rezoning without acquiring the access first.

Mr. Steve Blaine, Attorney for the applicant, suggested that what is new to the applicant is the

condition for approval being the full build out of a public road to public standards, and it was not the intent that they have an exclusive use – but rather to be able to build in phases to more of a private road standard. He agrees that this issue cannot be resolved tonight. He said that the applicant had been in communication with Facilities Management and Fire & Rescue, and it is not as if this is being requested for the first time tonight. Mr. Blaine suggested that the application be deferred until the access issue was resolved. Mr. Blaine said there is a policy decision on what to require of the applicant, and there is a financial model constraint that does not allow for a full public road – but at such time as it is needed, that could be done at some savings to the County because the applicant is willing to grade to a width that would allow a public road. The County is not contributing to the cost of this. In fact, the applicant is contributing to future costs that the County will not have to incur. He suggested that the applicant not try to resolve this in this forum but if the Board could support their approach to allowing this applicant to build the road in phases, as proposed. They also have to decide whether that requires a public hearing because it is a private use. It is not the applicant’s intent that it be exclusive. He thinks that they can get the process right if they get the policy business direction from the Board.

Mr. Dorrier asked what standard it had to be built to. Mr. Blaine responded that the applicant does not really know as the County’s future uses are

speculative and may determine what would be needed in the future. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Cilimberg if there were any guidelines on that. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Brooks had made some comments and recommendations, where he

recommended an urban cross section – but the uses must be considered in order to determine that. Mr. Davis pointed out that this site is intended to be a major County facility at some point. In

speaking with Bill Letteri today it is known what the ultimate design standard needs to be. At this point, he said that he thinks the staff’s position would be that it should be built to the ultimate design. This is a for-profit company that is asking the County to support a for-profit company with County property that the County acquired at full fair-market value. In his opinion, the only way it would be appropriate would be if it is built as a public road and the developer paid the cost of that public road.

Mr. Rooker stated that he cannot remember a case where the County did not require a developer

to build the road at his own expense back to its required standards. Mr. Boyd said the Board has allowed private standard roads before. Mr. Rooker pointed out, not on public property. Mr. Boyd stated that he cannot recall a time when it required crossing public property to get to

some other parcel.


Ms. Mallek said that is all the more reason to do it with the right standard the first time. Mr. Rooker said there is a presumption here that the easement would be given for nothing. Mr. Blaine stated that this is not the developer; this is the user of the property – who has proffered

out all other uses, that is bringing 90 permanent jobs, 200 temporary construction jobs, a need that has not been fulfilled [since] 1994. He said there is an economic development and community benefit consideration here, as this isn’t a developer who is going to sell lots. Mr. Blaine stated that the applicant had not factored in full development of the road, and it could be done when the property is put to its use – without interfering with facilities use and without having to do the grading of this section.

Mr. Rooker said he does not want to be in the position tonight of voting on whether to accept a

lesser than public road build out standard on County property and give an easement for nothing. He stated that it seemed if the access is being granted for nothing, there would be an expectation of getting the road built to accommodate future traffic. He thinks the County would require that of anybody. He lauds the use of the property, but it is not a charitable operation. Mr. Rooker added that they would need to require what would be required from any private business buying a piece of property and expecting to get access across County property.

Mr. Snow asked for a breakdown of the 90 jobs. Mr. Hedrick responded that about 30% would be professional – LPNs, RNs, and CNAs – and 70%

skilled workers or staff. Mr. Snow said that this is a good fit for the community, especially in light of bringing in 90 jobs,

and while they may not vote on this tonight it should definitely be considered. Mr. Dorrier commented that it could either be deferred to another date for consideration of the

road issue, or approved with a public road requirement. Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Cilimberg why this didn’t happen in the staff review. Mr. Cilimberg explained that he had found out about this particular level of discussion yesterday,

but it had been circulating through reviewers for some time. He said he asked from the beginning whether the County was in some kind of deal to provide this access. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was apparent to him that they were expecting access on County land, and perhaps OFD and Fire/Rescue assumed that it was being discussed.

Mr. Boyd asked what the standard of the road is currently that is leading to the fire station. He

asked if it is private road standards. Mr. Davis confirmed that it was not. Mr. Cilimberg said once you get past the entrance at Mill

Creek Drive it is a circulation, a driveway and not a street. Mr. Boyd said he would be receptive to putting a private standard road in, considering it could be

graded out to a standard that could be used when the County eventually decides on the usage of the rest of the road.

Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow said they would like to see a sidewalk – either for employees or visitors. Mr. Hedrick said that they are not developers; they are owners and operators of skilled nursing

facilities and part of what they do is charitable care. He emphasized that they have a limited amount of money, and they can either improve it with a public road or spend that money in the building on providing private rooms. Mr. Hedrick stated that this is the most he would ever spend in tap fees in a County, by three or four-fold, and it is expensive to buy land here. They are agreeable that there are some further issues that need to be discussed. The applicant believes that for them to provide the “heavy lifting” to get the road in is going a long way towards recognition and consideration of property that the County is giving up, but they view themselves as “Phase I” towards providing a road to be used later by the County.

Mr. Davis stated that the County cannot donate property to this company because they are for-

profit, and if they want to have a private access easement they would need to pay fair market value for that easement after a public hearing for the County to grant access rights. That would be a separate public hearing and it needs to be a public road on the County’s public property. A public road cannot be built to private road standards. The only question would be what design level does the Board want this public road to be. He added that staff’s recommendation is that the road be built to the design standard that this property would require so it would be done up front and be fair compensation for the use of County property. He said the alterative would be to build it to some other, lesser road standard that would be acceptable to VDOT, but that would then have to be redeveloped to the full cross-section when the County wants to make use of its property.

Mr. Rooker said that the Board could not legally grant what was being requested, and the

complexities need to be worked through with staff and the applicant before this comes back. Mr. Dorrier suggested deferring the request for a month. Ms. Mallek said that since the public hearing has been opened, that could continue with a

deferred decision once new information came back.


Mr. Davis stated that if there were additional proffers offered, there would need to be a new public

hearing. Mr. Rooker said ideally the application would come back with the hearing on the access easement

at the same time. Mr. Davis commented that an access easement would not be needed if the road were built as a

public road. The County would plat the right of way and they would proffer to improve it. He said the Board would have to give some direction as to what was acceptable to them, and then the applicant would have to decide whether they wanted to proffer that. If the applicant wants to proffer what he (Mr. Davis) suggested earlier, a new public hearing would need to be held in the future on that. Mr. Davis explained that the proffer would be agreement to make offsite improvements to County right of way to build a public road to design standards determined by the County and they would maintain it until such time as it is accepted by VDOT.

Mr. Snow asked what the economic impact of this facility would be. Mr. Foley responded that staff would have to assess that and bring it back. Mr. Snow said there is reason to work with the developer to get the facility there, as it is a benefit

to the community and to citizens. Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that any business would be held to that standard – such as Stonefield,

which is adding 1,500 jobs including eventually several million dollars of taxable property, retail sales, etc, and the County is requiring them to make numerous public improvements to the road system. He also mentioned that there were limited funds for road building, and that is something the Board needs to keep in mind. He reiterated that all the Board members think this is a good use and facility to come into the County, and the Board should do what it can to accommodate them, but there are legal realities in that it is public property that will be devoted to a private use unless a public facility is built on it.

Mr. Boyd asked if the County was still contributing to Mountainside, adding that this new facility is

also providing some public good. That contribution establishes an interest the County has in providing for the citizens.

Mr. Rooker agreed. Mr. Davis said the donation to Mountainside is to a nonprofit organization. The Chair asked if there was additional public comment. Ms. Kristina Parker said that this is a valuable project – but the ultimate issue is if the County

would give away land and reduce the road requirements for a for-profit business. As a citizen of this County, she does not think the Board should be giving anything away. She thinks they should be held to the standards that Mr. Davis mentioned. She can sympathize if the applicant does not have the extra money, but they should be held to the same standards as anyone else.

A gentleman who did not identify himself said he lives at the end of Galaxy Farm Lane. He asked

what impact this would have, as it adjoins his property. He also stated that he got a right of way to the water tower from the previous owner.

Mr. Cilimberg replied that an easement cannot be removed for provision of water so it would need

to be provided for continued water access, and the property he is mentioning is to the south of the subject property. He indicated that the access for the property otherwise is proposed to be through the County’s property, not Galaxy Farm Lane.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed

before the Board. Ms. Mallek stated that she thinks this is a great use and she hopes it can be worked out, but there

must also be very good care of public property and how its use is allowed. Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant would be able to get a proffer back to the Board by January 11. Mr. Davis explained that it would need to go in two weeks before January 11, and would have to

be reviewed and approved next week. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the advertisement would actually be sent three weeks before the

meeting, and he does not think the proffer could be submitted, reviewed and ready for that meeting. Mr. Boyd asked if the applicant should weigh in on whether or not they want it deferred. Mr. Blaine stated that they would request that the matter be deferred until the next practical date

for a public hearing. It does not seem that January 11 would be practical. They have some work to do and appreciate the Board’s consideration. He then agreed to indefinitely defer the matter.


Mr. Dorrier moved to defer ZMA-2011-0006 and SP-2011-00014 to the next practical date for

public hearing, at the request of the applicant. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None.

Mr. Cilimberg asked for clarification as to what the County was looking for. Mr. Davis stated that his assumption would be not to advertise this until there is a proffer for a

public roadway with a maintenance assurance for that roadway that meets VDOT standards. It is not clear as to whether the Board wants a roadway built to the anticipated required design standard or some lesser standard.

Mr. Boyd said the alternative would be for the applicant to negotiate an easement and put a

private road through. Mr. Davis stated that that would be unprecedented, and would also require a public hearing. He

also said they would have to know what kind of road would be built. Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to let staff and the applicant work out a practical

solution. There is also nothing that prevents the applicant from coming back and talking with the Board prior to advertising for public hearing.

Ms. Mallek suggesting holding a work session in January and after everything is nailed down and

everyone is in agreement, then schedule the public hearing. That would prevent any wasted effort. Mr. Rooker said the Board does not want to advertise something that will not get approved.

_______________

Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: ZMA-2010-00017. Redfields PRD (Sign # 90).

PROPOSAL: Rezone 58.47 acres from PRD (Open Space) - Planned Residential District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PRD (Residential) - Planned Residential District zoning district which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses. Proposed number of units is 126 for a density of 2.15 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: Located on west side of Old Lynchburg Road and accessed by Sunset Avenue and Redfields Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076R00000000E4 and 076R0000000100. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 28 and December 5, 2011.)

Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board was familiar with the location, and presented a map

showing the general location off of Sunset Avenue. He stated that this ZMA would allow development of property that is currently designated for open space, would amend the application plan and add proffers, noting the location of the area proposed to be added. Mr. Cilimberg said that the open space in the plan was not required open space under zoning, but was an area left reserved by the development of the original Redfields development. He showed the overall plan for Redfields, which is in the rural area – the most significant issue related to this proposal.

Mr. Cilimberg stated that when the Redfields project was originally reviewed by the County in the

late 1980s, the Comp Plan was interpreted to show that the areas were in the rural areas and the areas to be developed were in the development area at the time. He explained that the areas remain in the rural area in the Comp Plan today, and areas on the west side of Redfields that have been developed based on the current Comp Plan boundary as it exists in a more precise way under GIS are also in the rural area – and about two-thirds of Redfields is in the development area under the plan’s designations. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that at the time Redfields was approved originally, all of what was approved was considered to be in the development area – with the subject property remaining in the rural area.

He reported that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of this rezoning as

being inconsistent with the rural areas designation of the plan and preceding any consideration of development area expansion. Since the hearing for Redfields, he said, the Commission has taken up the issue of expansion and their direction to staff has been not to pursue further consideration of this area or other areas brought to them in the work session on development area expansion. Mr. Cilimberg stated that some proffers were not technically and legally acceptable. The signed proffers were provided the day the public hearing ad was sent into advertising – so once that happened there was no further review of those proffers. He said there had been loss of open space that has been used by the community, primarily the trails that had been marked – but that was not required open space to meet zoning requirements in the original approvals. Mr. Cilimberg said there would be an increase in traffic with this development, and there is no affordable housing commitment.

Ms. Mallek said she has associated affordable housing with rezoning where there is increased

density. She asked if that applies in every rezoning regardless of increased density. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the cash proffer policy could be considered when no new units are being added. The affordable housing policy has been different in terms of when that would be considered.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that if the Board should choose to approve this application, action should be deferred to allow acceptance of legally acceptable, signed proffers. He reiterated that the big issue for this application was its location in the rural areas and not in the development area.

Ms. Mallek asked about the expectation if the open space means undeveloped or means

designated open space. Mr. Cilimberg said that the open space in this application had been determined by the Zoning Administrator to not be open space required as part of the development.

Mr. Rooker said there was no provision with the initial approval for this to be required open space,

but the space was designated as open space on the plat. The 1990 minutes show that the County was emphatic about not approving any development on this area because it was in the rural area. It is not required open space in the sense that the area was approved for development; they did not say it had to forever stay in open space. There is a difference between required and designated because when the plats were recorded they said open space.

Mr. Boyd asked if this was zoned RA or PRD. Mr. Cilimberg explained that this was part of the original planned development, and the reason it

was designated as open space was because it was located in the rural area. Mr. Snow said that he shared concern with many attendees that the term “open space” implied

that there would be no development, so perhaps there would be another term that could be used in the future to designate there is a difference.

Mr. Cilimberg stated that this is the fourth or fifth rezoning, and over time there has been

discussion of the status of this particular area. He said it has gotten the designation of open space, but it has also been said that it should only be considered for development if it became part of the development area. It is certainly eligible for rezoning, but staff’s guidance in a rezoning is going to be what the Comprehensive Plan says – and it’s still rural area.

Mr. Snow said that rural area would still be entitled to a certain number of division rights. Mr. Cilimberg responded “no” because it had the rights granted under the planned development. Mr. Rooker stated that, in the minutes, the developer did indicate he might come back and

request development of the property, but none was approved in the original zoning and the designation of it as open space has never changed.

Ms. Mallek mentioned that the original 600+ units that were approved as part of the PRD were

only to the other part that is in the development area. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that there were no units shown in this area, and their development has

turned out to be of a lesser density – and even with the addition of this area, it still would be under the original maximum number of units.

Mr. Rooker commented that very few developments have built out to their maximum density,

citing Forest Lakes as an example of a development built out to only about 65% of approved density. He said there were a number of reasons for that, including topographical and marketing considerations, but the idea that a developer is entitled to more units just because he did not build out fully to the original approval isn’t much of an argument. Old Trail is another good example.

The Chair then opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Blaine addressed the Board, stating that he was representing the applicant. He

explained that the three points they would like to make are that 1) the Comprehensive Plan rural designation for the property is not controlling, but it is the zoning that determines the use and this is zoned PRD so the uses proposed are permitted by right subject to an amendment to the application plan. He said that the actions of the Board in previous zoning actions have made the Comp Plan designation anachronistic; 2) the “open space” definition is proscribed by the County zoning ordinance, not one that the developer has created and used as a marketing term. He said that open space has to do with its current use or its characteristic, not as a permanent restriction on the property; and 3) there is a viable development opportunity that can address impacts to neighbors, and it could be consistent with the Neighborhood Model or more in keeping with the existing Redfields development.

Mr. Blaine presented a map of the overall Redfields development that was zoned in 1991 as PRD

and included the 58 acres known as “Phase V” – approved for 656 units with 441 units developed thus far. He stated that the way the road network is laid out suggests there would be additional development, and around this area there are existing residential subdivisions – Mountain Valley, Mosby Mountain, and Sherwood Farms – technically outside the growth area. Mr. Blaine pointed out the current boundary line of the Comp Plan growth area, stating that the 58 Redfields units are within the rural area of the Comp Plan – and there is nothing different about the nature of this land. He noted the location of the PRD zoning designation and the current Comp Plan boundary line, emphasizing the residential subdivision units surrounding the property. Mr. Blaine stated that outside the growth area boundary are Mosby Mountain and the Whittington PRD which the Board approved extension of the jurisdictional area for water and sewer. This property is within the jurisdictional area for water and sewer and there is infrastructure in place to support the development and there is adequate water capacity. He also said that Cale Elementary was expanded in 2007 to allow an additional 200 students, and it has one of the lowest


student to teacher ratios in the County at 14:1. Mr. Blaine said this Comprehensive Plan designation is not controlling in this decision – it is the zoning that allows these uses, subject to the application plan being amended.

He stated that open space comes from the ordinance, Section 2.1, and just means “land or water

left undisturbed, natural condition unoccupied by lots, structures, streets, etc.” Mr. Blaine said it describes a physical characteristic. There is another section in the Code that deals with when open space becomes permanently restricted, and that is if it’s dedicated to the public or deeded to a homeowners association, and none of those actions have happened here. He reported that since the property was approved in 1991, it was contemplated that it would be developed in phases – and the area in question was then called Phase VI. Mr. Blaine stated that it was clear in the application plan that the intent was to develop it in the future, subject to a PRD amendment. They are amending the existing application plan; they do not need to change the Comprehensive Plan – this action was contemplated.

Mr. Rooker asked about the origin of the map he had presented. Mr. Blaine explained that it was from the application plan, which had a phasing plan and was part

of what was approved in 1991. He stated that opponents have made an issue out of the applicant seeking to have the assessments lowered, and in 2007 the two parcels were assessed at almost $4 million – but the zoning does not permit any uses. The only thing that is permitted is what is being used now at the permission of the owner, letting the neighbors use it for trails. Mr. Blaine said that the assessments are based on current permitted use and there is confusion by opponents that there was a commitment not to develop it, but it is just not the case.

Mr. Snow asked how the Phase VI got taken out. Mr. Blaine responded that they combined phases, doing IV and V at the same time. He said that

each plat has had the words “open space” but has also included the words “future development.” Mr. Blaine stated that there has been no misrepresentation about the developer’s intent, but there is a misunderstanding that has caused the problem.

He said that the applicant has met with neighbors on several occasions and has heard a lot of

information at the public hearings, all of which they have addressed in the plan and proffers. Mr. Blaine stated that there had been concern about overcrowding at the clubhouse and pool, which were never intended as an amenity such as the facilities at Old Trail and Glenmore – but the strategy here is to not allow the owners of Phase V use the clubhouse and pool until the homeowners association would decide to let them join. He said they have heard concerns about additional trip generation on Fieldstone Road, so they have proffered to build a walking trail the full length of Fieldstone Road up to Redfields and they have proffered to replace and expand the trail so it would be one-third mile longer – and it would be given to the homeowners association. Mr. Blaine stated that the applicant has put in a 100-foot buffer in addition to the open space, and there would not be any improvements within 100 feet of the boundary line of any parcel in the subdivision. He said that people have expressed concern about access, so the applicant has proposed emergency access through Ambrose Commons with a gravel road. Mr. Blaine indicated that there would be 41 acres of open space dedicated with this plan, which would mean 42% of the property would be dedicated to open space thus exceeding the one-third promised in the original development.

Mr. Blaine stated that the Sunset Avenue/Country Green intersection has had no personal injuries,

so there is not a safety issue there. He said that they have done a traffic study and VDOT’s comments have been that there are no improvements required by the trip generation. Mr. Blaine emphasized that all of the road improvements were contemplated with the original zoning – 656 units – and there was a staging of the development up until 5

th Street was completed.

Mr. Rooker asked if the existing roads are built to today’s standards. Mr. Blaine replied that there

is an issue with Fieldstone Road regarding scaling of that road, and the applicant has agreed in the proffer to do a pavement analysis and repave it if necessary.

Ms. Mallek asked if the road would be brought up to urban cross-section standards, but with a trail

instead of a sidewalk. Mr. Blaine responded that is correct. Mr. Blaine also said there was not a real sense about the product of housing that was proposed

here, but the villa units proposed are similar to those at Kenridge and Old Trail. He stated that the listings at Redfields range from $290,000 to over $400,000, and these units are in the $399,000 range – with Kenridge units selling for almost $800,000 – so there would not be an impact on housing values.

At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing for further public comment. Ms. Nancy Carpenter addressed the Board, recognizing the “unity of community” present at the

meeting. The “red” is a strong statement as to how some of the Redfields feel. She stated that she lives in Eagle’s Landing located at the end of Sunset Avenue. Ms. Carpenter stated that she opposes the rezoning request for three reasons: 1) the condition of the road, 2) the lack of affordable housing, and 3) the loss of open spaces. She said that the roads both internally and externally have problems, and in a letter from October 18, 2011 from Ms. Grant to Ms. Joseph there is a lot of discussion about the infrastructure of the internal roads. Ms. Carpenter stated that externally, Sunset Avenue would be under a lot of pressure from the proposed two subdivisions as well as the connector road from Stribling Avenue intended to service the Fontaine Research Park. She does not think that the statistics that were shown are an accurate reflection of the site distance issues that are on that road, and the increased vehicular trips per day will only increase the probabilities that those statistics will no longer be accurate. She also


stated her opposition because of the lack of affordable housing offered and the developer is asking the Supervisors to turn a blind eye to that fact. Ms. Carpenter said that she had not read anything indicating to her that this parcel was intended for development, and people need to be considered over profit with this zoning request. She asked the Board to uphold the Commission’s recommendation to deny the request.

Mr. Jack Marshall, speaking on behalf of ASAP – Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle

Population - said that the staff report of September 27 recommends denial of the request to expand the designated growth area to allow Redfields developers to build 126 homes in what is now the County’s rural area. He said that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to sustain the recommendation for denial, and ASAP urges the Board to support the staff and Commission in their move toward denial. Mr. Marshall stated that among the many reasons to deny this request includes the fact that current Redfields residents believed the land would remain in open space, and the Board should not enable developers to “pull off a bait and switch.” He said that another reason as explained by County staff is the 12 expansion area requests that have been made over the last few years, and the Board should judiciously examine the overall principle of growth area expansion rather than tackling any single request individually and thus establishing an unwise precedent.

Mr. Marshall stated that the Piedmont Environmental Council has indicated – and the staff report

has confirmed – that even with the removal of Biscuit Run from the development areas, there exist sufficient residential capacity to accommodate anticipated population growth through at least 2030 without adding any new land area to the development areas. He said this conclusion was made without even considering the huge development potential in the rural areas. Mr. Marshall stated that decisions about whether to forever increase the County’s population size should not be undertaken in the absence of a clear vision about the community they want to leave future generations. Planning in the 21

st Century,

including changes in zoning, should not be undertaken willy-nilly without grasping how any single change contributes to a set of larger planning goals. He emphasized that no decision to increase the potential number of residential units should be made until they reach some consensus about the County’s optimal sustainable population size. Mr. Marshall stated that decisions that affect the future of the community should be made not solely by corporate developers motivated by profit, but by everyone who live there now and care about present quality of life as well as what will be left for the future. He asked the Board to deny the request.

Mr. Tom Foley said that he has lived in Redfields since 1995. Mr. Foley said when he first lived in

Redfields there was an amazing forest of trees visible, and residents walked through the trees to get to the pond. He said now they walk on the nature trails in this undeveloped land, which is an incredibly beautiful piece of land that is used for recreational purposes because that is what they were told by those who sold them the properties. Mr. Foley stated that for the Board to have the opportunity to protect such a place by their votes says something about their leadership of this County and commitment to its citizens. He said that he lives next to the pool and there are a lot of kids in the neighborhood, adding that many of those kids are on Fieldstone, which is not adequate for the construction and truck traffic. He said that he hopes the Board will leave the nature trail where it is and vote to deny this request.

Mr. Bill Jones, a resident of 968 Devon Spring Court in Redfields, said they have lived for about

12 years. Mr. Jones stated that the road between Country Green and Sunset Avenue up to the main entrance of Redfields is quite a patchwork, and the best rating he could give that road would be a Level D or Level D-. He said that the only reason there has not been more accidents is because the drivers there are careful. A County school bus cannot make the turn coming from Country Green without going into opposing traffic. Mr. Jones also stated that currently the road supports 1,237 units – and Phase II of Woodlands would add 157 units, with this proposal bringing the total to 1,520. He said that the number of units would probably exceed the population of Scottsville, on that road alone. Regarding the proffers offered and the proposed trail going from the new phase up to the main road, past experience has been that the developer put in a three-foot asphalt walk that makes it difficult for people to pass – and it should be ADA approved.

Ms. Aliaa Khidr said that she moved into Redfields exactly one week before she delivered twins.

Ms. Khidr said they had a choice between a lot at the pool or the one they chose on Wintergreen Lane, which is right on the edge of the area planned for development. She stated that the developers may not have invented the word “open space,” the office has certainly used it to market the lot she ended up with and she was assured that the space is open space that would remain as open space. Ms. Khidr said that she hoped the Board would make the right decision here, and although there have not been a lot of documented accidents the road conditions there are not great and many people have ended up in the ditch especially during bad weather.

Ms. Susan Murphy said that she and her family have lived on Wintergreen Lane in Redfields since

2000. Ms. Murphy emphasized that Fieldstone is not ready to handle the traffic that would result from this additional development as it is full of children, a narrow road and very steep. She said that there was a five-car accident several years ago during an ice storm, with the cars almost hitting houses there. Ms. Murphy stated that there are so many houses for sale in Charlottesville and Albemarle, and no additional homes are needed here. She asked the Board to deny the application.

Mr. Rex Linville addressed the Board, stating that he is with the Piedmont Environmental Council

but was speaking as a resident of Redfields. He stated that on January 17, 1990 the County approved ZMA-1989-18 granting the right to construct 656 dwelling units on a particular portion of the Redfields property. Condition 8.3D of that approval was “revise land use notes to include Phase VI as open space.” Mr. Linville emphasized that the condition was designed to ensure that none of the 656 homes would go in the rural area portion of the property, and nothing has happened since 1990 to change that condition. He said that in a letter of determination dated June 4, 2008, Mr. David Benish stated to the applicant: “This


area was determined to be within the designated rural area and was approved as open space by the Board of Supervisors…there has been no intent or action since that time to change that land use designation.” He read from Section 4.7 of the County Code regarding open space, which says that “open space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed with any improvements.”

Mr. Linville said that the applicant has wanted to come back later and do something on this

property, with Mr. Montague stating they did not want to indicate the open space – but the Planning Commission recommended, and the Board of Supervisors approved, the project with the open space condition intact. Mr. Linville noted that during that same meeting Mr. Cilimberg said that they could market it as potential for future development; the County cannot control their marketing, but the plan is open space in Phase VI and that is it. He stated that the applicant chose to market the land as open space, and the marketing literature showed the land as undeveloped wood lot with trails, trees, no roads, no lot lines – and it was sold to homebuyers as open space with the full knowledge that land in proximity to open space commands a premium in the marketplace. Mr. Linville said that the applicant recently wrote to the County and claimed that to deny this would remove all economically beneficial use of this land, but that is not a fair or accurate statement. He stated that the economic benefit of this land was its role as a bargaining chip in 1990 in a deal whereby the applicant got to develop 656 units on one portion of the property for placing an open space designation on another portion. Mr. Linville emphasized that the Planning Commission and staff have both twice recommended denial of expanding the growth area here. He encouraged the Board to deny the request.

Mr. Scott Bender addressed the Board, thanking them for the work they have done thus far on this

issue. Mr. Bender said that in a letter from Mr. Joel DeNunzio of VDOT he stated that the “existing Fieldstone Road was designed for the number of trips associated with the existing number of units accessing the existing road…the new proposed development adds about 1,000 trips per day and over doubles the existing traffic. The existing Fieldstone Road was not designed for this volume of traffic and requires additional pavement thickness, etc…” Mr. Bender said that they proposed a two-inch overlay of the road to get the needed pavement structure, but this would not be adequate for this road. He stated that he has many concerns about the proposal, but would limit his comments to problems associated with increased density. Mr. Bender said the developers proposal claims that residential density would be about two units per acre, but in reality the plan is to put 126 units on about 17 acres – so that is 7.5 units per acre, or 18 units per acre for townhouses – and these numbers are well out of proportion with the existing density of the properties in Redfields. He stated they were also out of proportion with the density in Mountain Valley, Mosby Mountain and Sherwood Farms, which are all adjacent to this proposal. Mr. Bender said that the developer claims they are generously leaving open space, but in reality almost all of the land is unusable as it is full of critical slopes.

Mr. Bender stated that increasing density in this manner has highly negative impacts on home

values, road values, road safety, and existing architectural aesthetics [and is] wholly incongruent with the nature and character of Redfields and the neighboring communities. He said that to residents there it appears to be a desperate attempt to force high-density housing into a piece of property that they know is poorly suited for development. Mr. Bender noted that there are approximately 8,000 units available for development in the County, or 16 years of housing already available. He added that the Commission unanimously recommended rejection of this application, and nothing has changed since then. The impacts on Redfields, neighboring communities and the County are still negative. He asked the Board to deny the application.

Mr. Barry Condron stated that he built his house in Redfields 15 years ago at a premium and he

chose the development because the sales center showed him a big piece of open space. Mr. Condron stated that two years after he built the house, the developers had a town hall meeting in which they wanted support for a new zoning amendment for another part of Redfields. He said that Phase V was brought up again and they assured residents that at most it would become a rurally developed area, and he believed them. Mr. Condron stated that he was begging the Board to protect their land, deny this application and not change the rules here.

Mr. Otto Friesen, a resident of 999 Kelsey Drive, said that he has lived in the neighborhood of

Redfields and would share a personal recollection of his experience when moving to the area. Mr. Friesen stated that he spoke with Mr. Gaylon Bates, who is the actual developer of the property, and spoke about the open area because it was evident that the lots were small – but there was open area nearby. Mr. Friesen said that residents asked Mr. Bates specifically if the open space would be developed, and he assured them that “at most there would be a few houses” on large lots and it would not impact the nature area or Kelsey Drive because they would be away from everything. He emphasized that this was a critical reassurance from someone who knew what the plans might be, and it was on that basis that he decided to build his house there. Mr. Friesen said that he would move out if the 126 units are put there, and what the developer is asking for is to make money at the resident’s expense. Their property values will certainly decrease.

Ms. Mary Brents addressed the Board and asked which Board members were familiar with Sunset

Avenue Extended and Fieldstone Road, and asked if they had been on the trails. She said that she and her family moved here from Atlanta, and having seen firsthand what overbuilding does to the tax base and infrastructure, they were very specific about which properties they wanted to look at. When they looked at 998 Kelsey Drive, they saw the forest and red flags went up. They specifically asked Roger Voisinet of ReMax Realty if the grove of trees would remain. Ms. Brents said that Mr. Voisinet showed them the plat marked “open space” and indicated it would not be developed – and there was nothing indicating it was open for discussion or interpretation. She stated that if there had been the slightest hint of the space being bulldozed and filled with villas, they would not have come to this property. Ms. Brents said that property owners are not cheating the developer out of any investment, and asked him to quit trying to


cheat them out of theirs. She said that they are depending on the Supervisors to know the difference between an investment and a bait and switch. Ms. Brents stated that anything to put a chill on a housing market that is already compromised and gasping for breath is an obstacle for growth, and the push to destroy this beautiful open space terrain is driven by the wants of one individual. She said that this development would change the peace, quiet and safety of Redfields forever and would lower property values – as well as taking away enjoyment for many people. She asked the Board to vote “no” on this request.

Mr. Steve von Storch addressed the Board, stating that he has lived in Sherwood Farms since

before Redfields was built and was involved with conversations with the developer in the late 1980s that led to the 1990 rezoning. He stated that the approved application plan accurately reflects what was understood to be “the ask and the offer” at that time, and it was understood that the line of the growth area was the boundary of the Phase VI. It was understood, generally accepted that that was the boundary. Mr. von Storch said that the lack of objection by neighboring residents at the time was based on an understanding that Phase V would be undeveloped because it was in the rural areas, and the application plan as written is perhaps an indication of the “agreement to disagree,” but the agreement was undeveloped open space because it was in the rural area. He stated that nothing has changed other than the development of Mountain Valley as a rural area subdivision, with large lots, 21 acres. He emphasized that it was agreed that the fragment of land between the urban area and rural area would be open and nothing really has changed to encourage it to be otherwise.

Ms. Cathy Cassety said that she has been asked to speak on the architectural issues of this plan

because she is an architect. She stated that this plan represents a mismatch between their neighborhood – the character, the walkability, the single-family homes on quarter acre lots – and the planned development. It is an urban type plan being grafted onto a rather densely populated suburban plan. It makes no sense; furthermore it’s an urban plan at the tail end of a suburban community; no planner in their right mind would put this kind of density at the back end of this development. Ms. Cassety said that the roads leading to it were not planned for it and are only 23 feet wide, with no median marker, and the sides of the road are sloping drainage culverts. Approximately 75 children walk on that road every day. She stated that the top elevation for this land is at 665 feet, and the mountaintop ordinance begins at elevation 700. She asked why they would put an urban design at the highest elevation of this community approaching the mountaintop ordinance design height. It doesn’t make any sense. Ms. Cassety also said the densities are way out of whack with the community, and the area is “bordering on ‘townhouse ville,’ as there would be 1,500 townhomes facing Sunset Avenue once Woodlands is completed – with 234 units to be built and 91 units to be sold there as well. They just do not need another 123 units.

Mr. Rob Fahrenkroq, a resident of 989 Laurel Glen in Redfields, said that the plan presented by

the developer is completely out of synch with the character of the rest of the Redfields development. Mr. Fahrenkroq said that the developer has indicated that the townhomes proposed would be similar to those in Old Trail in Crozet, but the nature of the community there is to have townhomes within walking distance to shops and restaurants – which reduces the need for residents to own cars. There are no shops or restaurants within walking distance of Redfields. The closest bus stop is a long walk from Redfields and there are no sidewalks to accommodate foot traffic to the bus stop. Mr. Fahrenkroq said these factors increase the need for the residents to have cars, and the plan clearly shows townhomes with crowded driveway access to the street and on street parking, and the parking in this plan appears to be a major problem. He stated that the 39 single-family lots are much smaller than existing lots in Redfields and add to the inappropriateness of the development. In this plan, the developer would build two houses in the same size space as existing single homes are built. Mr. Fahrenkroq said that the plan shows a long, mostly straight section of road on Fieldstone with no houses on either side, which allows cars to pick up speed just before they enter the established rural residential neighborhood characterized by single family homes with children cycling and walking on the street because no pedestrian safety infrastructure is in place. This creates a serious hazard for the children who walk in the street to the bus stop each morning.

He stated that the developer portrays himself as a victim in this presentation, merely asking for what they believe is owed to them, when in reality they have historically engaged in deceptive selling practices to maximize their profits. Mr. Fahrenkroq quoted his neighbor, Mr. Jack Stoner: “This plan represents the worst kind of unimaginative, land-desecrating neighborhood blighting, money-driven development that I have seen since the developer’s last plan for this property.”

The mother of Miss Amber Parker, Ms. Kristina Parker, addressed the Board and presented a

recording of her daughter expressing concern for the children of the Redfields neighborhood. She said that she is eight years old and her family owns a home on the corner of Laurel Glen and Fieldstone Road. Miss Parker stated that the kids there ride bikes, walk to catch the bus, and walk to the pool – but there are few enough children there that it is safe. She addressed the Supervisors and expressed her concern that a child is going to get hit by a car or construction truck if the development is approved. She said they need their safe street, they want to play in the woods, they like walking to and from the playground and pool. She asked the Board to vote “no” for the development.

Ms. Kristina Parker said that pedestrian safety is a major concern for the neighborhood and noted

that there are no speed-slowing devices currently in place on Fieldstone Road, nor are there any sidewalks. She stated that the new development would mean the number of homes off of Fieldstone Road would double, as would traffic, and with the proposed road there would be about 1,200 feet of straight road coming off a significant hillside. Even if your foot is off the gas, she said, a car could easily go from 25 mph to over 40 mph just on that stretch. Ms. Parker said the life of a child or an adult is not something that should be risked. Fieldstone and the homes already there were not built to take this type of through traffic; the homes are right there. She stated that even Redfields Road does not have homes this close to it until the end of the neighborhood when traffic has been reduced to serve less than 50


homes; Fieldstone would serve over 200 homes. Ms. Parker said that if the developers were really intent on building out this area of the PRD, as the developer claims, why they would locate the swimming pool and the playground at the busiest intersection of the entire community with no sidewalks to get there. This is an insane and major threat to child and pedestrian safety. She stated that the walking trail “proffered” by the developer would have to be put into drainage swells because of the slope. It is pretty much of a joke. Ms. Parker said that the homeowners there had already spent two years fighting with the developer to fix a sidewalk there, and they still have proffers in the back of the neighborhood that have not been fulfilled to the satisfaction of County staff. She said she does not believe one word they say about proffers; she does not trust them.

Ms. Adele Kofler said that she and her family moved here from Atlanta recently, where they lived

in a townhome on a busy street. She said when they moved here they looked for quiet streets, a private backyard and a safe child-friendly neighborhood – all of which they found on Kelsey Drive in Redfields. She said when they moved in at the end of March 2011, they knew nothing about any of this and the realtor assured them that the forest behind their homes would remain as it is. To find out about this proposed rezoning shortly after was just disgraceful, and with no benefit whatsoever to Redfields residents, it is simply a way to fill big pockets. Ms. Kofler stated that the kids in the neighborhood are always outside, and to allow this immoral development to go ahead would take that away from them – as the additional traffic would affect their safety and ability to play freely. This is not what they signed up for. She also said that the elementary school is at high capacity with 640 students, and adding more would impact the quality of education. Ms. Kofler stated that you cannot have it all, and a developer cannot simply decide to add more to an existing development. She said that accepting this request would be inviting accidents to happen. She urged the Board to vote “no” to this request. The developers do not live in Redfields and they do not care about this neighborhood.

Mr. Carlos Armengol said he has lived on Grayson Lane in Redfields since 2005, and uses the

trails along with his kids and others. He said that he also helps with maintenance of the trails, which has been done on an ad-hoc basis with residents. Mr. Armengol stated that during his recent presentation to the Planning Commission on behalf of developers, Mr. Blaine used language that suggested the proposal before the Board was a “compromise” – but that is a misleading term. He presented slides from November 2006 showing their development team, their timetable, and their site plan, which were all presented then as foregone conclusions. The plan before the Board tonight is essentially the same. The residents have asked for less density, a clubhouse, another pool, and larger lots – all to no avail. Mr. Armengol said that the Commission meeting also had comments from the County Attorney to the Commission regarding the appropriate issues to consider when voting on the ZMA, including density, affordable housing, and critical slopes. The elevation change from the eastern to the western extremes of the nature trail is approximately 220 feet over an approximate 2,000 feet, an average 10% grade on much of the site. This is not flat land as the developers schematic drawings might suggest. The lawyer went on to say that none of the complaints about broken promises or misleading marketing should matter, nonetheless, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the ZMA and stated that “This is an often-used nature trail, promised as such. The Planning Commission does not find this plan to be consistent with current zoning principles. The developer has been unwilling to make substantive changes to change this plan over many years.” Mr. Armengol emphasized that this plan does not merit approval and represents broken promises, misleading marketing, and a failure to compromise. He asked the Board to deny the request.

Mr. David Brent, a resident of 998 Kelsey Drive, said that originally Sunset Avenue, the only

access to Redfields, was a narrow country road without lighting, sidewalks or shoulders, serving a dozen homes; today it has the same characteristics but serves 441 family homes in Redfields and 840 multiple-occupancy units in four complexes. The neighborhood has changed, the road is not. Sunset Avenue in ideal conditions and full sunlight is barely adequate. He said that at night in inclement conditions, Sunset Avenue is a pretty exciting drive, declining to a three-way stop around a curve then inclining across the intersections into Redfields and the complexes. The intersection is essentially a large bowl. Mr. Brent stated that there were 15 disabled and abandoned vehicles during the major snowfall a few years ago, but it doesn’t have to be a record storm to cause problems – just garden variety icy conditions. It is a bad idea to add 1,000 trips per day to this road without improvements. He said that the cost of making improvements to Sunset Avenue to make access to the proposed project safe and efficient is prohibitive, and to go forward with the project without improving Sunset is to place an untenable strain on existing infrastructure, and to place County residents in danger unnecessarily. He asked the Board to not make a marginal situation a dangerous one – vote no for this proposal.

Mr. Tom Campbell addressed the Board, stating that his section of Redfields – the courtyard

section – was marketed very successfully as an “age in place” development, so there are a lot of seniors in that part of the development. Mr. Campbell said that the intersection became absolutely impassible during the bad snowstorm, when his wife needed medical attention, and a medical emergency SUV had to be sent in. The emergency exit proposed by the developer, means a gravel road, will not do any better. He stated that this proposal is unnecessary, it is unsightly, it is unsafe, and the residents are universally against this – with absolutely no upside to this. Mr. Campbell encouraged the Board to deny the application.

Mr. Bob Yarbrough said that he lives on Hayrake Lane in Redfields. He said that the assessment

on this land has risen on this land from $400,000 in 1996 to approximately $1.5 million in 2006; in 2007, the assessment jumped dramatically to $3.1 million and at that time the applicant made his first attempt of many to develop this property – and at that time he was aware that the open space designation was a known impediment, with the application signed by both Justin Beights and Gaylon Beights stating the reason for the rezoning as “this portion of originally approved PRD was designated as open space.” Mr. Yarbrough also said that Justin Beights had called the assessment office in 2007, and the notes in the


Assessment file show that Mr. Beights said, “Planning turned down 150 units who can’t even build two houses,” and the Assessment office then consulted with the County Attorney’s office. The County Attorney’s letter is not public but he must have agreed with the applicant.

He stated that in January 2008, the Assessment office reduced the 2007 assessment to only

$782,200 and dramatically reduced previous assessments. Mr. Yarbrough emphasized that the notes in the file from January 11 stated that “although the property is zoned PRD, it cannot be developed as PRD at this time.” He explained that nearly five years ago the applicant submitted an application ZMA-2006-020 stating that the land was designated as open space; when they could not get their project approved, they lobbied the Assessment office for lower assessment because it was rural area and open space and could not be developed. He said they won, and got a big tax refund. Mr. Yarbrough said now they are claiming that they had always planned to develop this land but just want the density the County “owes” them. Mr. Yarbrough said the developers simply cannot have it both ways. You cannot tell one story to everyone else and then turn around and tell another story to the tax man so you can receive a sizeable benefit. He asked the Board to follow the Comprehensive Plan and the many determinations of the Planning Commission and recommend denial of the ZMA request.

Mr. Jeff Werner said that the PEC urges the Board to deny the zoning request. He said that the

development of this parcel has come to the County at least four times in the last five years. In 2006 the applicant requested that the parcel be rezoned from PRD open space to PRD residential to allow for 153 dwelling units. Mr. Werner said that the application was reportedly withdrawn after staff indicated it was unlikely to be approved. In November 2010 the proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission as a proposed Comp Plan Amendment, and the Commission voted 4-2 to defer the request until it could be included in a planned review of the Comp Plan. He stated that on September 27, 2011 the project returned as a rezoning request for 126 units – and at that public hearing the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend denial. On October 11, 2011 during a work session on the Comp Plan, the Commission voted 4-2 to instruct staff not to review additional expansions for residential use and to limit their evaluation to growth area expansions for commercial uses at two specific interchanges on I-64.

Mr. Werner said that it is the applicant’s right to make this request, and within the Board’s

authority to consider, review, and decide on it. He stated that the regulations are clear that the decisions be based on valid planning and in the interests of the community – not on the financial interests of the applicant. He said that in 1990 the applicant was granted the right to build 656 dwelling units, but opted to build 441 – perhaps based on the market and that building fewer units was a profitable use of the land. Mr. Werner stated that regardless of the reason, it is hardly valid to argue that this rezoning should be granted so that the applicant can now build the units he had previously decided not to build under the original rezoning. Here is another example in the County of a developer failing to build to the approved capacity, so remember this the next time someone claims that it is the Board that limits how many houses are built in Albemarle County. He urged the Board to support the Commission and deny this request.

Mr. Stuart Lowson said that the Commission unanimously rejected this application and after the

meeting a Commissioner came up to him and said, “I’m a pro-growth type of person, but there is absolutely no way that I could vote for that ridiculous plan.” Mr. Lowson said it really is a ridiculous plan because there is no place for this proposed density at the back of an established, 15-year-old, very family oriented neighborhood. He stated that it is understandable that there is a perception of loss of growth because of Biscuit Run – but that was over 800 acres and this is just 17 acres. Mr. Lowson asked the developer, if it was his intent to develop this, why it was not reflected in the sales brochures, website, and in the message realtors conveyed to prospective buyers – because it really wasn’t. He said that the people here are not confused, they are grossly misinformed. He also stated that the Redfields controversy is all of the developer’s making. Mr. Lowson said that citizens look to the Board as being stewards of the community and to stand up to sales misrepresentation and thoughtless planning. The residents really are counting on the Board.

Mr. Wayne Parham, a resident of 942 Canvas Back Drive, in Redfields, said that he was not an

original owner of his property when he bought it, and the corner of his neighbor’s home is just 18 inches from his driveway. Mr. Parham said that the building mentality there has been, “let’s just get one more in here,” and he has almost run into his neighbor’s house three times on snowy evenings when he has to go down his driveway which goes down a hill. This is on a single family home that is supposed to be on one of the larger lots. He said that he cannot trust what he is being told because things just do not work out. He sees people who do not live in their development coming down to the lake walking their dogs because they live across the street. This is not a gated community and everyone comes in to walk around the lake. He stated that he fears for the life of the community if this is allowed to happen, as the existing problems there can only get worse.

Ms. Christine Andersen addressed the Board, stating that she lives on Morningside Lane in

Redfields and had not planned to speak until she heard Mr. Blaine state that the nature trail was allowed to be used out of the kindness of the developer’s heart – as there has been a prominent emphasis of the nature trail onsite and in printed materials. It was sold as part of Redfields, not a charitable gift from the developer.

Ms. Maria Stein addressed the Board, stating that she is speaking on behalf of her daughter, Ms.

Sarah Meyer – who spoke directly with Mr. Snow earlier. Ms. Stein said that her daughter has grown up in Redfields and is having some confusion about truth-telling on the part of adults, as she was told that the trail would always be there for residents to use. She stated that her other concern is that there won’t be a place for the animals and birds to live if trees were cut down.


Mr. Rocky Moulton, a resident of 1424 Cedarwood Court in Redfields and a member of the Board of Directors, said they have been dealing with the developers for several years on the proffers from the original development. Mr. Moulton emphasized that there is still a walking trail around the perimeter of the property that was proffered but not completed, and County staff has assembled civil penalty packets related to this matter – and he cannot understand why the County would let the developer go ahead with additional proffers when they haven’t been able to complete those that have been on the books for years.

Ms. Mary Lou Hayden, a resident of 454 Heritage Court in Redfields, said that she is a bicyclist

who works as a nurse at U.Va. Ms. Haden urged the Board to think about the volume of traffic that this development would bring that would endanger residents there, especially bicyclists and pedestrians.

Mr. Robert Warner addressed the Board, stating that the County would get more taxes from

surrounding communities by maintaining the value of existing homes. He added that converting the buffer area to townhomes would yield lower overall tax revenue in the future.

Ms. Kristina Parker readdressed the Board. As President of the Board of Directors for Redfields,

they are unanimously opposed to the ZMA. There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter

before the Board. Mr. Rooker said that this could not be approved even if the Board chose to approve it. Staff made

it clear the proffers were not adequate as presented. He stated that both staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request, and after hearing both sides tonight he said that he thinks their recommendations are sound. Mr. Rooker said that in 1990, the County approved development on the rest of the property – making it clear that this part was not being approved for development – and certainly the applicant could have chosen to exercise his full development rights on what was approved, but for whatever reasons he decided not to do so. He stated that this proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks the applicant presented a good case for getting the application approved, but Ms. Mary Brent raised the issue of what people are expected to do when they buy into a development and they have a plat that shows “open space” and base their purchase decision on that location. He asked what message the Board sends to people in the County if you have all of this history that ultimately gets pulled out from under them. Mr. Rooker said that there are traffic issues and the streets are not up to the standard that would be required today for the amount of traffic they are serving. He stated that the developer built this development that everyone loves, and he did a great job – which is why residents like it so much, despite some problems with proffers and such.

Mr. Rooker stated that there are some “legal holes” with this development, as the open space was

never conveyed to the homeowners association and was never actually formally dedicated as open space. The developer has stated on previous occasions his intent to come back and try to develop the property. This is not entirely a one-sided issue, but he thinks when you weigh all the factors here this should not be approved for the reasons he stated earlier. Mr. Rooker said he would not support the request.

Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Rooker had summed it up pretty well. He added that he was concerned about

the open space designation put on the deed – which the whole community relied upon. He stated that everyone is “singing off the same sheet of music” and relied on the open space, hopefully not to their detriment, and the idea of putting 157 units on space so tight and small should not be approved. Mr. Dorrier said that he would vote against this request.

Mr. Rooker added that technically the applicant could say “you can’t use the property,” so there

are some reasons for the community to sit down with the applicant and discuss the possibility of any type of development that would be acceptable to them. The project that comes to the Board is when there is unanimity about what should be done in a given circumstance.

Mr. Snow stated that he has spent hours on this matter and got overwhelmed with comments

from the community, as well as meeting with many residents and the developers. He said that he felt the developer had planned to build this out from the beginning, but he is troubled that all of the sales brochures did not show a single road down through it and did not show any development in that area. Mr. Snow stated that he could possibly support it with one-half the density that are similar to what are already in Redfields.

Mr. Boyd said that he cannot support this project. Mr. Thomas said that he cannot support the application, but also expressed dismay over the

confusion over wording – which has happened with two other applications at this meeting. Ms. Mallek stated that she would not support the ZMA, adding that sorting out all of the history of

this project is stressful, and said the element of trust is important for people everywhere. She expressed concern about the density, the steep slopes, the construction traffic and extra traffic associated with new homes, and the compatibility with the rest of the neighborhood.

Mr. Snow moved that the Board deny ZMA-2010-00017. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None.


Mr. Blaine asked if the Board would reconsider the decision, allow the applicant to defer the request, and allow the applicant to take the information from the Board in order to address their concerns. He said they would like an indefinite deferral. He mentioned that he did not have the opportunity to re-address the Board after the public hearing. Mr. Blaine stated that the applicant had not resolved the issues about the “open space” property, as it is still private property. His client does not know what he can do with it. This plan is a nonstarter and his client needs to go back to the drawing board. He said if it is not down-zoned to rural area, it can only be given to the homeowners association, but there are options besides starting over again. He thinks there has been enough invested that this plan is not going to fly but they would like an opportunity to discuss a plan that will be acceptable and one that is more in keeping with the existing Redfields.

Mr. Rooker said there is nothing that prevents the applicant from returning and filing a different

application. Mr. Davis stated that the only restriction is he cannot submit substantially the same application

within one year. Mr. Rooker suggested that the applicant sit down with the neighborhood and talk about possible

options, adding that the denial does not really slow that down. Mr. Blaine said they would have to start the process over. Mr. Rooker said they would have to start it over anyway; it would not be the same plan. Mr. Blaine stated that they had the opportunity to resolve issues at this meeting, but just got a

denial of the plan. He thinks they made a good case as to why the Comp Plan is not germane here. Whatever the plan is, it is going to be inconsistent literally with the Comprehensive Plan designation.

Mr. Rooker said the minutes of the 1990 meeting make it clear that this property remains in the

rural area and was only approved for the property designated for open space. It is in the rural area and remains in the rural area.

Mr. Blaine asked why this property was put in the jurisdictional area when there is limited

infrastructure, and that just does not square up. He added that there is no guidance to applicants with a decision like this, as they would just like to go back and rework the plan.

Mr. Rooker stated that this Board would not vote tonight as to whether this property is in the rural

area, and re-designating it is another question. Mr. Boyd said that the only problem he has with this is that the Board usually gives the applicant

the option to defer, and they did not do so tonight. He asked Mr. Davis if that was an issue. Mr. Davis said it was not. Mr. Rooker stated that he didn’t see a whole lot of difference between where they would be with a

deferral and where they are if they came back, because they would be bringing back a different plan regardless.

Mr. Boyd asked if it would have to go back to the Commission. Mr. Rooker and Mr. Davis said that it would. Mr. Blaine said that the Planning Commission is locked in on the Comp Plan, and the Board would

need to direct them. Mr. Rooker said he is also locked in on the Comp Plan. Mr. Blaine said that he feels that the applicant has been prejudiced by not having an opportunity to

speak after two hours of public comment. Mr. Snow suggested the Board allow the applicant to speak. Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Blaine could certainly speak but the matter would not be before the

Board until there is a motion to reconsider the disapproval by four members of the Board. Mr. Boyd said the applicant just wants to ask for a deferral, which the Board would traditionally

allow. Mr. Rooker said he had no problem with him being heard, but with respect to this application the

Board needs to make a decision. He cannot imagine this application would be approved. Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Blaine could go ahead and make his rebuttal, then the Board could

decide whether or not to reconsider its denial. Mr. Blaine said the hour is late; they have heard two hours of comments, most of which the

applicant has addressed in his arguments. There were new issues raised tonight that they have not had an opportunity to address in their application plan or proffers. He also stated that they object to the


characterization of the proffers, as they got comments from the County in October but they were just verbiage – language suggestions – which were incorporated into the proffers. There is nothing substantively wrong with the proffers. The staff has just chosen not to read the proffers since they were submitted on November 21

st. Mr. Blaine said they could add further proffers to address what they heard

tonight; they have not had that opportunity. He asked the Board for the right to defer the application. If the applicant cannot meet the reasonable objections of the neighbors, the Board can then deny the application or consider an amended plan.

Mr. Davis stated that there is no legal requirement for the Board to allow an applicant to defer a

zoning application or to further amend the plan; it is all totally within the discretion of the Board. Mr. Rooker said, personally, it would be wasting everyone’s time – including all of the residents

who have attended these hearings with respect to the plan the applicant filed – as there is no impediment for the applicant to come back with a separate proposal. They are going to have to go through the same process either way. He added that he thinks the decision the Board made tonight on this plan should stand.

Ms. Mallek agreed, stating that there is a disservice to the community when proposals are brought

forth over and over again. She encouraged all the parties to work toward something that is more compatible with the neighborhood.

Mr. Snow said the vote should be left as is. Mr. Dorrier stated that the issue was resolved as the development is too dense for the area. He

reiterated that he thinks that 157 units is too many units for the area. Mr. Blaine asked if the Board would consider waiving the fee for reapplication. Mr. Rooker responded that the Board does not have that authority. Mr. Blaine commented that the applicant will be back.

_______________

Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Boyd wanted to discuss the Economic Vitality Plan at this time.

Mr. Boyd said that the reason he does not like the Board’s current policy is because they have to discuss an issue at this late hour when everybody is tired and wants to go home. Despite Mr. Werner’s comments, there was no conspiracy. He does not think it is appropriate to amend the agenda and deal with issues at the end of the meeting. The Board’s prior rules would have allowed him to bring this issue up at the beginning of the meeting.

Mr. Rooker suggested that he could have made a motion to put it on the agenda. The Board’s

rules are intended to prevent someone from bringing up an item that had never been mentioned. Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to request that staff put together a “SWAT” team, whereby a

high-visibility economic project could be moved through the process faster – like a Cracker Barrel. They have to figure out some way to fast track these things. He said that other communities have joint meetings with groups such as the Board, Commission and ARB. He is talking about a high-visibility, revenue positive project; he is not talking about a housing project. He would like to ask staff to look at and come back with a proposal on how it could be done.

Mr. Snow said that at VACo, other Supervisors had indicated they convene a three-board meeting

and resolve everything at that meeting. Ms. Mallek stated that joint work sessions have worked well here in the past. Mr. Boyd said that he was trying to find a way to “circumvent” the process that takes 18 months so

that the County can fast track these projects, and his request tonight is to have staff come up with a plan on how to do this.

Mr. Foley stated that staff has already considered this and currently has an economic

development project that is sitting now if they are prepared to come back, but it is not a formalized process.

Mr. Boyd said that he would like for Supervisors to be involved from the start when it is in their

district. Ms. Mallek said that people usually call her and ask her to get involved. Mr. Boyd added that the County has a reputation where people say it will take 18 months to two

years to get through the County’s process. Ms. Mallek responded that that hyperbole is the source of the problem rather than the actual

schedule of what happens. Mr. Boyd commented that all he wanted to do was make a fast track for high-visibility projects, but

only projects that are “desirable.”


Mr. Rooker asked if every restaurant was desirable. Mr. Boyd responded that the Board can determine that. Mr. Rooker asked why one project should be accelerated over another. He said that he wants to

ensure good public comment and quality development. The County has no interest in slowing people down just to slow them down.

Mr. Boyd said that he has talked to so many people who say it is impossible to get anything done

in this County and that is what he wants to circumvent. He is not saying the County should approve everything carte blanche. There must be a faster way to get through the process if it is a good business opportunity that can bring in tax revenue to the community.

Mr. Rooker stated that there is about two million square feet of zoned space, and it does not take

18 months to get an approval to build for something that is previously zoned for that use. Mr. Boyd said the County should not deny other rezonings just because there is a lot in inventory. Mr. Rooker said he was not suggesting denial, as there are other businesses that have certainly

located here successfully. Mr. Snow stated that Mr. Foley said staff had a plan, so the Board should talk about it when that

comes back. Mr. Foley said that in the past, Boards have set high standards and have required a lot of process

– but staff can bring forward the specific items where there is flexibility for this Board to consider. Mr. Boyd stated that some post-mortem should be done on projects like Wal-Mart, which took an

inordinate amount of time for its expansion. Mr. Rooker said he does not think anyone disagrees with staff coming back with a

recommendation. Mr. Thomas noted that there were three items tonight that had insufficient information, i.e.,

Albemarle Health and Rehab Center, and the Redfields proffers. Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, to address that issue. Mr. Brooks said the Board cannot believe all those claims. Staff had identified all of those issues

very early on, but some of those things the applicant chooses not to hear until Mr. Davis or someone on the Board says them.

Mr. Boyd stated that he just wants to come up with a way to get items through faster. Ms. Mallek said that Mr. Boyd was a member of the Development Review Task Force and they

looked at a series of projects that all followed the same rules and had the same staff. She noted that Old Trail sailed through in eight months – start to finish – because of the attitude [the developer] had, whereby they asked questions and handed necessary materials in on time. Some projects took five years and that was not because of the rules or staff, but instead it was because of different ways to approach the project. It gets really old when people have different expectations about what they want to put in as far as the quality of the project, and then it is always the County’s fault. She is happy to learn more but she also knows that it does not take 18 months to do every project in the County.

Mr. Boyd stated that Ms. Mallek has been a part of the workshops where people come in and talk

about how long it takes to get things through here when compared to Greene and Nelson Counties. Ms. Mallek said that she has heard that, but has also heard from many business people who

chose Albemarle because of the standards here. Mr. Rooker stated that sometimes the process creates the differentiation. Mr. Boyd said sometimes the County does go overboard, in fact, the RWSA actually spends more

on public input than it does on consultants designing the projects. Mr. Rooker said they have voluntarily chosen to go way beyond the normal level of input. Mr. Foley said it is important to have a good discussion with the appropriate information. He

emphasized that it is a different world altogether in Greene; their standards are considerably lower than Albemarle’s standards. This Board has the ability to influence that by its policies and ordinances. He said the Board should discuss this in depth at a future meeting. He said he would love to get to the point where the value of the process is discussed. This constant criticism will never go away unless they have some kind of discussion that is simple enough to understand the reasons it takes longer – and the Board can set different policy if it wants to.

Mr. Rooker noted that they created a Development Review Task Force at Mr. Boyd’s request and

supported all of the recommendations.


Mr. Boyd said a lot of the recommendations got killed in the task force. Mr. Rooker commented that that was the task force. Ms. Mallek stated that the grand majority did get adopted. Mr. Foley suggested that they start with some productive items and, if that leads to some broader

discussions, then perhaps some policy items could be discussed. Mr. Boyd said that if the County wants to move forward, it needs projects that are very revenue

positive. Mr. Rooker stated that those projects are happening here right now, and asked Mr. Boyd to name

other communities that have as much going on. Mr. Boyd asked why the Wal-Mart distribution center was in Louisa and not here, and why the

Home Depot was in Waynesboro and not here. Mr. Rooker responded that this County is not going to get everything. The sales in this County far

exceed those of neighboring communities. These other communities do not have hundreds of the particular stores Albemarle has. _______________

Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn to December 15, 2011, 12:00 Noon, Room 241.

At 11:18 p.m., Ms. Mallek moved that the Board adjourn to December 15, 2011 at 12:00 noon, in

Room 241. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. ________________________________________ Chairman

Approved by Board Date: 03/07/2012 Initials: EWJ

Documents

December 14, 2011 (Afternoon-Adjourned and … 14, 2011 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) transfer $1,498,000 to CIP for schools and local government projects,