Charlottesville Tomorrow Blog

County Planning Commission mixed on wind turbines

 

With the rising cost of electricity, many homeowners are seeking ways to generate power on their property. Could wind turbines be part of the answer for Albemarle County residents?

That was the basic question explored in a work session held by the County Planning Commission on May 13, 2008. Mark Graham, the Director of Community Development, briefed the Commission on how wind power works, and explained that the structures are currently not permitted under existing zoning. He also assessed the viability for a commercial wind farm, and the results aren’t promising.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080513-APC-Turbines.mp3

To generate enough electricity to be commercially successful, an operator needs sustained winds, close access to the national power grid and transmission lines, as well as roads that can transport very heavy components. A wind resource map created by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) shows only a handful of spots in Albemarle County, such as Bucks Elbow, where a commercial site might work. However, Graham suggested the site’s proximity to Shenandoah National Park would likely prevent any application from being permitted by the State Corporation Commission.

An example of a small wind turbine

However, the bulk of the work session dealt with whether the County zoning ordinances should be amended to allow small wind turbines for residential or agricultural use. To be effective in generating a current, a turbine must be tall enough to catch sustained winds. The taller the tower, the more power is generated. Turbines also need enough clearance to avoid causing turbulence in surrounding structures.  Graham said the bottom of the rotor needs to be at least thirty foot above rooftops or landscaping. 

“Right now under the zoning ordinance with residential properties, the maximum height for structures is 35 feet,” Graham said. He also pointed to a chart that showed how taller towers can greatly maximize the voltage generated, but said the smaller ones could power well pumps. 

Graham said mountainsides and hilltops are the best locations for turbines in Albemarle County, but if they are permitted, a land-owner would need to clear-cut several acres around the turbines in order to provide for enough space for the wind patterns to be sustained.  That would conflict the County’s comprehensive plan, which calls for protecting tree cover in rural areas.

However, Graham said the technology is changing, particularly in European countries that are rapidly developing wind power. Firms are experimenting with using different shapes to capture wind in urban environments, and also to minimize noise and wildlife issues. Graham also suggested wireless providers might also develop wind turbines as way of getting taller cell towers through co-location, though the technology for this does not currently exist.

Commissioner Tom Loach (White Hall) asked Graham if anyone had approached the County about installing a turbine. Graham said no one had yet officially sought a permit, but he was aware of a couple of interested parties in the County. He said investigating those is a very low priority for his department, but the Board had directed staff to do this preliminary investigation.

Commissioner Marcia Joseph (At-Large) said she would be interested in pursuing a way to allow for small wind turbines. Graham suggested one course of action would be to allow them as an accessory to a building, which could be regulated with a special use permit.

This wind resource map from the U.S. Department of Energy shows that Albemarle County is "wind poor"

Loach said given community opposition to cell phone towers that are only seven to ten feet taller than surrounding trees, he could not see a future for small wind turbines. Loach said residential structures are capped at 35 feet in the County, and questioned what wind turbines twice that height would look like.

Joseph said she did not want to preclude a farmer from constructing one in a field, and that she wanted staff to work on an ordinance change.  She said the country needs to be looking at other energy resources, and said she was concerned that land owners can’t currently even consider putting up a wind turbine. Chairman Calvin Morris (Rivanna) agreed that residential wind turbines should be allowed in specific cases.

Commissioner Linda Porterfield (Scottsville) was another voice against pursuing the ordinance change, given the current work load of planning staff. Instead, the County should encourage residents and businesses to invest in solar technology. Commissioner Eric Strucko (Samuel Miller) said because of Albemarle’s “wind-poor” status, other options should be explored, but said a way should be found to allow small-scale ventures. Commissioner Bill Edgerton (Jack Jouett) agreed that owners of large tracts of land should be able to experiment, given rapid changes in technology.

Commissioner Jon Cannon (Rio) said he thought the permitting process would be just as controversial as the one for cell towers, but that the County should take a deeper look. He wanted staff to find out more about the feasibility of turbines before making a commitment.

Sean Tubbs

Land use taxation program reviewed in Albemarle

On May 14, 2008, the Lane Auditorium at the County Office Building was packed with residents interested in the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors’ discussion of the land use taxation program.  In their afternoon work session, the Board unanimously directed staff to begin planning for a revalidation program for property receiving the land use tax subsidy, a program which lowers the tax burden for land used for agriculture, open space and forestry.  Determining whether to make other adjustments to the program revealed a diversity of viewpoints on the Board.  Ultimately, by a 4-2 vote (Boyd and Dorrier against), the Supervisors decided to hold another work session this Summer on one potential change to the program.  All Board members made it clear that they want the land use taxation program to continue in Albemarle County.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast:Download 20080514-BOS-landuse.MP3

While they did not get an opportunity to speak to the board, the public in attendance did make their opinions known.  Despite being warned by Chairman Ken Boyd (Rivanna) to show respect for all Board member viewpoints, there was an occasional outburst of applause for any expression of support for the status quo that demonstrated that the majority of those in attendance had concerns about the Board’s potential tinkering with the program.



As of 2008, 59.8% of the land in Albemarle County is enrolled in land use, which includes parcels in both the rural area and growth areas (where undeveloped).  That results in deferred taxes of $18.78 million this year.  Land use is viewed by County officials as one strategic tool for protecting the County’s rural fields, farms, and forests.  However, some Supervisors and members of the public have encouraged the Board to take another look at the program to see if it is accomplishing that goal most effectively.

Revalidation is one way to address real and perceived abuses of the program and it has been considered by the Board, but not implemented, three times since 2001. Revalidation will require property owners to confirm on an annual basis that their property still meets the program’s requirements.  The Supervisors directed staff to bring back a formal revalidation proposal and sample documentation for consideration at a meeting in June 2008.

The lengthier discussion related to the merits of tinkering with the program to allow use value taxation only on parcels with the “open space” designation and which are located in agricultural/forestal districts.  The discussion ultimately focused on what is known as “Option 2” from the Board’s 2001 land use report.  This approach, as presented in 2001, would: 1) effectively eliminate land use from the County’s growth areas; 2) require property owners to place their land in an ag/forestal district and qualify for the open space designation; and 3) require a commitment from the property owner to not develop their land for 4-10 years, or permanently protect it with a conservation easement.  The Board did not get into an in-depth discussion of these details, and decided that work would be the focus of a future work session.

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) expressed a preference for having a citizen committee conduct an in-depth assessment of the land use program to bring recommendations back to the public and the Board.  “I definitely don’t want to eliminate the land use tax program, because I do think it provides a value to the community,” said Slutzky.  “For me, the intended purpose is to motivate property owners in the rural area to preserve the use of property in its natural state.” 

Slutzky suggested a committee could evaluate ideas like requiring conservation easements to access the land use program.  Slutzky said his concern about the current system was that some property owners, those who intend to sell their rural land for future development, were getting subsidized by making their “holding costs on the land cheaper on an annual basis.”

That proposal was vigorously opposed by Ken Boyd (Rivanna). “I don’t think that this is something we need to take this community through. I really do not think that we have a program that is broken.  I think we have a program that is very beneficial to preserving land use,” said Boyd. “Every time we start tweaking with these things we always end up with unintended consequences….I don’t want to drag this community through what I think would be a gut wrenching discussion of the pros and cons...” 

Ann Mallek (White Hall) said she preferred to see what the revalidation program revealed before making further adjustments.

Slutzky focused his remarks on encouraging the Board to determine if land use, as currently defined, was optimally designed to achieve rural protection goals.  Boyd reflected that the public has told him they do not want their land locked up in conservation easements, or other non-development commitments, in exchange for the tax break.

Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) said he thought land use was a popular program that has worked well and deserves continued support.

Borrowing from the suggestions of Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller), Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) made a motion to study further the Option 2 recommendation first brought to the Board in 2001.  A citizen committee would not be involved in this review.  He asked for a work session on that matter after which the Board would vote to determine whether to send the matter to the community for a public hearing.  Thomas said she was not committed to supporting the approach in Option 2, but that she thought it would be helpful to have the public focus their comments on this one item.

The motion passed 4-2 with Boyd and Dorrier voting against.  County Executive Bob Tucker did not give a date for the work session, but said staff would bring back information on land use revalidation at one of the Board’s meetings in June 2008.

Brian Wheeler

Board of Supervisors denies Highway Commercial rezoning near I-64

John Chavan sought a rezoning of his property, which is outlined in red

The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has voted 6-0 to deny the rezoning of land on Route 250 East near the Interstate 64 interchange, citing the project’s inconsistency with the County’s comprehensive plan. 

The applicant, John Chavan, had sought a rezoning from Rural Areas (RA) to Highway Commercial (HC) in order to construct a storage facility adjacent to the Comfort Inn and just East of the I-64 interchange. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080409-BOS-HC-Denial.mp3

The Planning Commission recommended denial at its meeting on February 5, 2008. Since then, the applicant proffered a further reduction in the by- right uses allowed to light warehousing, electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, public uses and buildings. That was not enough to convince staff, who continue to recommend denial of the rezoning because the project is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would generate traffic in a rural area, and would place HC zoning in an area surrounded by conservation easements. Staff said the proffer to limit uses would not mitigate the potential negative impacts of the rezoning.

But John Grady, who represented Chavan, said that the Comprehensive Plan is not a perfect tool and that sometimes special actions are required by the Board.  He said there are at least 26 businesses in the immediate vicinity of the property, and Chavan’s land is one of the only strips left on the northern side of Route 250 zoned as RA. Grady said if the Board chose to rezone, they would be correcting a situation that he said needs to be changed.

“You can call it Rural Area if you like, but I don’t think anybody  here would buy it, build a house, and raise their children there,” Grady said. He added a mini-storage facility would be a good use for the land, and that Chavan would be willing to work with the Architectural Review Board when choosing building materials. Grady concluded his testimony by saying that the existence of nearby easements on other properties should not hinder Chavan’s property rights.

Property owner John Chavan

When Chavan got up to speak, he pleaded with the Board to rezone his property so that he can provide a better future for his children. He and his wife are registered nurses who work for the University of Virginia Health System.

“I have chosen this particular business because it has the lowest impact on traffic, it utilizes the least of County resources, and it will be local and consumer friendly,” an emotional Chavan said, holding back tears.

Several members of Chavan’s church spoke on his behalf and asked the Supervisors  to approve his application.  Sylvia Mills said the area is already mixed-use, and she could see no reason why Chavan should be denied.

However, Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council reminded the Board that they
had a duty to uphold the Comprehensive Plan, which designates the land as being in the rural area.  He told the Board they would soon see a similar rezoning application for the East Pantops Sports Complex across the street, and that if they sought to change the comprehensive plan, they should do so in a holistic way for the entire stretch of Route 250 between I-64 and Route 22.

But Ed Bain Jr, Chavan’s Attorney, asked when that process would happen, given that the Pantops Master Plan was just adopted in March.  The Plan does not extend to the eastern side of the I-64/Route 250 interchange, and Bain said he was concerned that the review process would not occur for another five years.

“Should we be held up because of that for this one use on this one property?” he asked. “We’re not using public services, the traffic is already there.” He reminded the Board that they recently approved a special use permit for the First Nazarene Church to build a 374-seat multipurpose center at the intersection of Routes 22 and 250. [Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) later reminded the Board that the federal Religious Land Use Act makes it difficult for local governments to deny special use permits for churches.]

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) asked if the topic of extending the Pantops Master Plan to cover the area came up in the Planning Commission’s discussion of the plan. Wayne Cilimberg, the County’s Director of Planning and Development, said the Commission decided not to expand the boundaries. He also reminded the Supervisors that they had previously said that they did not want to expand the growth area’s boundaries.

“You said you were not interested in introducing more [land] into the development area, and there was some reference made to a concerted effort to not permit any more intensification of use that would strip Route 250,” Cilimberg said. He also explained that the HC zoning in surrounding properties dates back before the 1980 Comprehensive Plan that created the development and rural areas.

 “We have a very worthy applicant, but the issue before us is really a land use decision,” Rooker said. “I think it would be very bad precedent to start going down the road of spot rezoning rural area land to Highway Commercial without going through a decision of whether or not it ought to be in the growth area in the first place.” Rooker said he could never remember a situation when property in the rural area was rezoned for commercial use.  

Slutzky said the same issue had come up last year when the Soccer Organization of Charlottesville Albemarle County sought the rezoning of rural land for playing fields. The Board voted to deny that application.

“We made the land use decision that we’re compelled to make that it wasn’t consistent with our rules that we’ve set for ourselves,” Slutzky said. He said that he would support a discussion on whether the area should be brought into the growth area.

Chairman Ken Boyd (Rivanna) asked Cilimberg if it really would be five years before the Board can take up the issue of whether or not to expand the growth area to cover the area.

Cilimberg said unless the Board directed staff to put the topic to the top of its project list, it would be “a while before we would be looking at this from a land use stand-point.”  He said this year’s review of the County’s economic development policy could begin the conversation.
The County is looking for ways to increase the amount of land that can be made available for Light Industrial uses.

Supervisor Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) said Chavan’s application was worthy, but he could not violate the Comprehensive Plan. So, he made a motion to deny the application, which was seconded by Rooker.

Before the vote, Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) said she did not like being “mean” to the applicant, but that the County had a duty to protect its entrance corridors.

“I have consistently been mean along 250 and said no to almost every  proposal that’s anything like this,” Thomas said. “Our decisions are made on land use… When you go to communities that haven’t been mean to some individual applicant and end up with businesses going for miles out every road.”

The vote to deny the application was 6-0.

Thomas raises concern about traffic light for White Gables Condominiums

When the Board of Supervisors approved the White Gables Condominiums in 2003, one of the conditions of the special use permit was that the developer pay for a traffic signal at the development‘s entrance onto Route 250. However, The Virginia Department of Transportation says the existing conditions do not warrant a light at the intersection. Supervisor Sally Thomas raised the concern that VDOT ‘s decision could nullify Weather Hill Homes’ obligation to build the light, creating a traffic nightmare.

“If the warrants aren’t met and yet we force people to not use the entrance to White Gables, but everyone use Kenridge, there’s going to be traffic right and left against the flow of traffic there,” Thomas said.  She suggested VDOT be pressured to accept a yellow caution light at the location.

Mark Graham, the County’s Director of Community Development, said the developer had a ten-year window to install the light, but the traffic conditions do not merit a light because the project is taking longer than expected. Graham said his interpretation of the condition was that the developer could be required to build the physical structure of the light, which could be switched on at a later date.

Sean Tubbs

Supervisors approve rural area ordinances... and more

PLUS: Crozet project moves ahead, a traffic signal for Glenmore, Advance Mills Bridge faces setback, sewers for Albemarle Place, and the rising water and sewer rates

Rural Areas Ordinances

At their meeting on February 6, 2008, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved three rural area ordinance changes related to holding periods on family sub-divisions, stream buffers, and driveways across steep slopes.  The approvals came in front of an audience of about 100 community members, thirty-four of whom spoke during the public hearing.  Identical 4-2 votes on each ordinance broke the stalemate in the Board’s work to support the goals in the rural areas portion of the County’s Comprehensive Plan.  Supervisors Ken Boyd (Rivanna) and Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) both voted against the ordinance changes.

Crozet Gateway

Adnan Yousef and his family lobby the Board to approve Crozet Gateway

In other business earlier in the day, the Board of Supervisors approved a site plan for a new development at a key intersection in Crozet.  The Crozet Gateway project will redevelop a 2 acre site at the corner of Route 240 and Route 250 near Brownsville Elementary School.  The existing convenience store will be replaced with two multi-story commercial buildings, a use allowed by-right on the property.  At issue was a request to lower the number of parking spaces provided in the development.  The developer was proposing 99 while the County was recommending 118.  County staff recommended that the Board uphold the prior decisions of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator to keep the parking expectation at the higher figure.

Adnan Yousef shared his frustrations with the Board about how long it has taken him to get his development approved.  He first submitted his plans in July 2006.  Yousef said he was upset that the County's concerns about the parking matter were not raised earlier in the process when he could have made adjustments to his engineering plans.  He said the delays had resulted in potential tenants opting to locate in other new developments along Route 250 near Crozet which were able to be built more quickly.

Supervisors apologized for the delays that occurred and unanimously voted to approve the parking waiver and Yousef's final site plan.

Transportation Matters

In the Board's monthly transportation update, the Supervisors learned from VDOT’s Allan Sumpter that a traffic signal is moving forward for the Glenmore intersection on Route 250 East.  Sumpter said the “warrants” had been recently re-evaluated by VDOT and that this assessment indicated a signal was now justified.  Planning and engineering work will commence immediately.

The Board also heard a report on the Advance Mills Bridge situation.  The bridge in Northern Albemarle was closed for safety reasons in 2007 and the community had been working with VDOT to have a temporary bridge installed while a permanent bridge plan was completed.  Sumpter said a recent call from the Federal Highway Administration had put the brakes on the temporary bridge and that VDOT was going to have to focus only on the permanent solution, something that might not be complete until mid-2010 or early 2011. VDOT's Quintin Elliot said any other course of action could jeopardize Federal funding for the permanent bridge project.

Members of the Advance Mills Neighborhood Association and Supervisor Ann Mallek (White Hall) will be going to Richmond tomorrow to meet with Federal Highway officials to understand the reversal of their October 2007 endorsement of the two bridge plan just days before the temporary structure was supposed to go to bid.

Sewers for Albemarle Place

RWSA's Tom Frederick (Left) and ACSA's Gary Fern (Right) report to the Supervisors

The Supervisors also received updates from both the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA).  RWSA's Executive Director, Tom Frederick, started with some good news that the Sugar Hollow Reservoir had completely refilled and was spilling for the first time since the drought conditions worsened in late 2007.

ACSA Executive Director, Gary Fern, updated the Board on sewer capacity issues at the Albemarle Place development.  Fern said the new Albemarle Place developer, Edens & Avant, was meeting with his staff to plan for the site's sewer needs.  According to Fern, Albemarle Place will be connected to an upgraded Meadowcreek Interceptor by December 2009.

Water & Sewer Rates

Supervisors asked if the water and sewer rates being discussed would cover the costs of the Community Water Supply Plan and a growing list of sewer infrastructure needs.  Fern indicated he was still preparing his capital budget for FY 2009 and carefully reviewing the rate information from RWSA.  The RWSA provides water and sewer services to the City of Charlottesville and the Albemarle County Service Authority. 

Frederick said the RWSA was trying to find the right balance in its rate structure to be sensitive to ratepayer concerns.  The sewer needs will be better understood after the completion of a major sewer interceptor study later this year.  With respect to water rates, in January, the RWSA projected increases of 1.3% in the City and 2.5% in the County for each of next five years to support the construction of the new Ragged Mountain Dam. 

County Executive Bob Tucker told the Supervisors that if the community wanted to expedite the pipeline phase of the water supply plan, rates would go up more steeply.The pipeline will connect the expanded Ragged Mountain Reservoir to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.  To support both the dam and the pipeline being built at the same time, water rates would increase  7% for the the City and 11.7% for County for each of next five years.

Brian Wheeler

Rooker says proffer bill could have devastating impact on Albemarle

Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker was a guest on WINA's Charlottesville Live radio program as part of the station's monthly Government Day feature.  Hosts Rick Daniels and Jane Foy interviewed Rooker about legislation in the General Assembly that would eliminate Virginia's cash proffer system in favor of impact fees with a capped rate.  Rooker said Albemarle's proffer expectations for each single family home would go down from $17,500 to $5,000 and the County would no longer be able to accept cash contributions into its affordable housing fund.  The Board of Supervisors just adopted new cash proffer expectations last June which raised the amount from $3,200 per home.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080205-WINA-Rooker.mp3
 

Rooker encouraged the public to lobby local legislators in opposition to Senate Bill 768 which he said would have "a devastating impact on the ability of communities to somewhat recover the costs of growth as it impacts infrastructure."  The bill is being pushed by home building industry. Jane Foy asked if an unintended consequence of the caps might be that local governments stop approving new developments.  Rooker referred to a Washington Post article (Bill Could Force Curb On Growth, Fairfax Says, W. Post 1/4/08) that reports some Northern Virginia localities as saying the bill will curtail or freeze rezonings.

The public can read the bill and post comments at the Richmond Sunlight website.

In the remainder of the interview, Dennis Rooker responded to questions about the proposed changes to several rural area ordinances which are scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors tomorrow.

Brian Wheeler

 

Board postpones action on rural protection ordinances

The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has postponed action on three ordinances to increase protection of the County's natural resources. Chairman Ken Boyd (Rivanna) recommended that the public be provided the opportunity to weigh in on changes that have been made since the Board held a public hearing last October.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080123-BOS-Rural-Ordinances.mp3

“I believe it’s very important that we always have as much public input as we can,” Boyd said shortly after introducing the item at the Board’s January 23 meeting.  Boyd felt not enough notice had been given to the public and he exercised his prerogative as Chairman to allow public comment on the discussion. However, time constraints prevented that from occurring at this meeting as two Supervisors, Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) and David Slutzky (Rio),  had to leave the meeting to attend an MPO Policy Board meeting.

Supervisor Rooker said there had been no rush to judgment, pointing out that the Board had a lengthy public hearing in October.  On October 10, 2007 over 80 speakers addressed the Board for four hours providing input on the rural area ordinance changes.

“This process has gone about six years, of trying to adopt some of these rural area provisions that are included in our land use plan. There have been more than seventy meetings held dealing with these and other recommendations that are in the rural area plan,” Rooker said.

Rooker said the changes to the ordinances were scaled back due to public feedback, and that the public had a right to a decision.  He said Boyd had previously brought items up for action without any public input, citing the Board’s 2006 decision to join the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Boyd thought the public needed to know what changes had been made before the Board takes action. For instance, he said he disagreed with the science behind the proposed requirement that no construction can occur within 100 feet of a stream. He said he felt the Planning Commission had not done enough to investigate the issues. 

Mark Graham, the County’s Director of Community Development, said that the County’s authority to impose a 100-foot buffer is granted by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, adopted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1988.  Currently, half of Albemarle does have a 100-foot stream buffer in place, and the ordinance change would apply it to the entire County.

Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) said she had not taken the two recent holidays  into consideration when she made her motion to place this item on the agenda, and she noted the Board could not have predicted the snow storm that closed the County Office Building the previous Thursday afternoon. She agreed that more time should be given for the public to study the changes.

After some discussion, the Board agreed to delay action until another public input session can be held. That date was set for the February 6 Board meeting, and the item has tentatively been scheduled for that evening. Boyd asked for staff to prepare a Frequently Asked Questions page to provide a place for citizens to find answers about the proposed ordinance changes.

Sean Tubbs

Boyd discusses rural area ordinances on WINA

Ken Boyd, the Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, appeared this afternoon on the Schilling Show with host Rob Schilling on WINA AM 1070.  Schilling asked Boyd to respond to the decision made last week, during a meeting which Boyd missed while traveling out of town, that put on the Supervisors' agenda for action tomorrow three changes to rural area ordinances related to holding periods on family sub-divisions, stream buffers, and driveways across steep slopes.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast:Download 20080122-Boyd-WINA.mp3

Boyd said he was surprised by the Board's action which came on a 5-0 vote which Supervisor Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) unsuccessfully tried to have reconsidered.  The agenda item for rural area ordinances was added to the end of a previously scheduled work session which does not have time allocated for public comment. 

"It is my full intention...as chair, if I can exercise my prerogative as chair, I’m going to open up [this item] to public input if there are people who want to speak about this, because I don’t think that we can ever hear too much from the public, and I think it would be an injustice not to listen to them one more time," said Boyd on Schilling's radio program.  "I guess there are some parliamentary procedures that my colleagues could take to prevent that from happening, but I have intention of taking public input on this tomorrow."

Boyd expressed his preference for additional review of each ordinance individually with separate opportunities for additional public comment.  The following changes are under consideration [all details are available on the Albemarle County website]:

• Family sub-divisions
  • Currently: No waiting period to create a new lot for a family member.  A two-year holding period exists today for the lot after it is created (aka a '0/2' holding period).
  • Proposed: A four-year waiting period before a new lot can be created followed by another four-year holding period afterwards (aka a '4/4' holding period).
• Stream buffers (non development areas)
  
  • Currently: 100' buffers are in place on perennial and intermittent streams in roughly half of Albemarle County that is part of the water supply protection area (i.e. the watershed for public water supply).
  • Proposed: To add 100' buffers to perennial and intermittent streams in the remaining portions of the County's rural area.
• Lot access requirements (driveways across steep slopes)
  
  • Currently: Driveways may cross critical slopes (which are otherwise protected from disturbance) if the owner shows that no reasonable alternative exists.  Waivers to disturb critical slopes are available.
  • Proposed: In order to provide safe and reasonable access for public safety vehicles, driveway grades shall not exceed 16% in the County's rural areas and should provide turn around area for public safety vehicles.  Waivers are available.  Lots already on record will be exempt if property owner is establishing the first dwelling on property and the lot cannot be developed without a driveway with a grade in excess of 16%. [Note: Other zoning text amendments related to critical slopes were withdrawn from consideration in the Board's action last week]

Brian Wheeler

Board votes to take up rural ordinances at Jan 23rd meeting

With Vice Chairman David Slutzky (Rio) presiding, the Board of Supervisors has voted to place a discussion of rural area ordinances on the agenda for its next meeting on January 23rd. The move came over the fierce opposition of Supervisor Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) who initially voted to place the items on the agenda, but later withdrew his support.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080116-BOS-Rural-Areas.mp3

The items were last discussed at the Board's meeting on October 10, 2007. After a public hearing at which more than 80 citizens spoke, the six members of the Board stale-mated on whether or not to pass the three ordinances. One is related to the protection of stream buffers, another concerns holding periods for lots on family sub-divisions, and the third provides for protection of critical slopes.  Supervisors could not reach consensus and were split 3-3 on whether to move the ordinances forward. Three months later, Ann Mallek (White Hall) has replaced David Wyant on the Board, meaning that the vote could be different when it is heard next week.

Board Chairman Ken Boyd (Rivanna) was out of town and Slutzky took the gavel in his absence. As is the custom at Board meetings, he asked Supervisors if they had any business not on the agenda that they would like to bring up and Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) brought the matter before the Board.

“We had a public hearing that filled this room,” she said. “A lot of people spoke to us. We did not take action that night, and that seems to me to be not entirely a good way to deal with those large items that were left hanging.” Thomas said she asked staff in early December to bring back suggestions on how to proceed with the ordinances given the public input given at the October 10, 2007 meeting. She then proceeded to make the following motion:

“I move that the Board place on its January 23rd agenda, for further consideration or action, the following Ordinances which were deferred by the Board of Supervisors at the conclusion of their public hearings on October 10, 2007:

(1)Subdivision Ordinance Amendment STA 2007-00002 with direction to staff to revise the proposed ordinance to provide that the holding period for a family subdivision will be a four year holding period before and after the subdivision;
(2)Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZTA 2007-00003 with direction to staff to revise the ordinance to delete the provisions changing the critical slopes regulation so that the ordinance will now only address safe and convenient access for driveways. In addition, staff is directed to revise proposed §4.6.6(d) to provide that the safe and convenient access regulations will apply to existing lots unless there is a finding by the County Engineer that development of lots for the first single-family dwelling applying those regulations would be impracticable; and
(3)Water Protection Ordinance Amendment WPTA 2007-01 with direction to staff to delete the proposed definition of “rural areas,” because it is a term that is not used in the ordinance; and to revise proposed §17-321 to eliminate the redunancy in subsections (1), (2), and (3) and to simplify the language, this being a non-substantive revision for the purpose of clarity.

After Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) seconded the motion, Dorrier asked if citizens could apply for waivers to bypass the ordinances. Thomas suggested that could be discussed at the next meeting. A vote was taken, and the five Supervisors present voted to place the ordinances on the agenda for next week.

Wayne Cilimberg, the County's Director of Planning and Community Development, asked if there was any additional information that staff should provide on the ordinances in advance of the January 23 meeting. Rooker said only a brief introduction would be necessary.

“We did spend a huge amount of time on these over the last year, and I think it's just a case that we have not acted,” Rooker said.

Slutzky pointed out that the motion identified several changes to the ordinances, reflecting public input. He suggested that staff point out those changes. Dorrier asked if the public would have the chance to weigh in on the ordinances, and Thomas said that they already have.

“I think we had about a six or seven hour  public hour hearing, and I can't imagine that there any opinions that have not been expressed on this on both sides,” Rooker said. He added that the critical slopes portion of the ordinance would not be on the agenda.

Dorrier protested further, and asked County Attorney Larry Davis if his office needed to review the amended ordinances. Davis said his office would amend the ordinances per Thomas' request, and that the amended ordinances would be available in his office and on the County website by Thursday, January 17. 

Dorrier said he wanted Cilimberg's office to prepare a summary of the public comment period.

“I think we need something from those public hearings, I mean, I can't remember it all, I remember the issues, but I don't remember all the comments,” Dorrier said. Slutzky said he thought all the Supervisors heard the input.

“I actually learned things in the public hearing that made me rethink my position a little bit,” Slutzky said. “And I think at this next meeting, it's closing the loop on an issue that's sort of been hanging out there and the public doesn't really know what we're doing because we haven't done anything. We had a public hearing and then we've been silent.”

Thomas suggested Dorrier listen to the public hearing again via the County's podcast center.

The conversation continued for several minutes, with Dorrier protesting that acting on the ordinances is not legal without an additional public hearing. Rooker pointed out that the Board could have changed the ordinances and voted immediately after the October 10 public hearing, but chose not to. Slutzky exercised his powers as temporary chair to move on from the debate, pointing out that the motion to bring up the ordinances next week had already passed.

But, Dorrier brought up the issue two more times during the rest of the Board meeting.

During matters before the public, Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum stood up to say the public would only have two business days to review the amended ordinances in the County Attorney's office.  County offices are closed on both Friday, January 18 and Monday, January 21 due to public holidays.

“This board generally goes above and beyond any legal requirement to make certain the public has the opportunity to review the legislation that you're planning,” Williamson said. He asked for the item to be moved into February to give the public more time to review the changes.

After Williamson's comments, Dorrier said the public would be more accepting of the ordinances if they had more time to consider them. Slutzky said that's why the public hearing had been previously held.

At the end of the meeting, Dorrier once again raised his concern that the Board was acting inappropriately. He asked again for the Board to reconsider and wanted to make his case. Rooker said he doubted that Dorrier would find anyone to second a motion to rescind the vote, but Dorrier made his case again, but did not receive a second.

Slutzky again explained that the public had had plenty of time to a lot of give feedback, and the Board has the right to vote on ordinance changes at any time after a public hearing has been held.

“We're allowed to vote on it at that time or later, so long as we don't exceed the extent of those ordinances, and in this case, Ms. Thomas's motion is a scaled-back version of the ordinances that the public has already had significant opportunity to comment on,” Slutzky said. “We wouldn't consider moving today to actually vote on it, frankly, because Ken [Boyd] was not here, so it was out of deference to that fact in part that the decision was made to bring it on the agenda for a later date.”

Dorrier asked if he could change his vote to place the item on the agenda, but was told by Slutzky that his displeasure would be noted in the minutes, but he could not actually change his vote on the record.

The January 23 meeting will begin at 12:30 PM.

Sean Tubbs

Supervisors want more info on impact of paving rural roads

The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors are giving further review to a recommendation from the Albemarle County Planning Commission to stop using money from the Virginia Department of Transportation to pave gravel roads in the rural areas of the County. At a work session on the Six Year Secondary road plan held on January 9, 2008, the Board asked for more analysis from County staff on the relationship between paving and development rights.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080109-BOS-6-Year-Podcast.MP3

The County does not currently know how much transportation funding it will receive from the state for the next year. Last year, it received just over $4.4 million, according to Juandiego Wade, the County’s transportation planner. Next year, the County is estimated to receive just over 5 million, though that number will not be finalized until the Commonwealth Transportation Board adopts a budget in the summer. Before that happens, the Board will approve an updated list of projects that will receive money from the fund now and into the future.

Georgetown Road is scheduled for improvements - eventually

“The priority list of secondary road improvements is a list of projects that's much more expensive than what can be funded over the six year planning period for the VDOT six year secondary plan,” said David Benish, chief of planning for Albemarle County. In all, 22 projects are identified as priorities. A 23rd slot is reserved for paving projects in both the rural and development areas of the County.

For the last several years, only three projects have been allocated any funding: The Meadowcreek Parkway, safety improvements on Georgetown Road, and a new section of Jarman’s Gap Road in Crozet. Those projects will continue to accrue money for the next few years, but the remaining slots allow the County to specify what road projects have the community’s highest priority. For instance, a project to improve Proffit Road between US 29 and Baker-Butler Elementary is the first strategic priority after Georgetown Road Improvements.

A drawing of the proposed Southern Parkway (Source: VDOT)

Changes to the list year include moving up the Southern Parkway, adding a Fontaine/Sunset Connector, and the addition of a Berkmar Bridge project that would allow Berkmar Drive up to Hollymead Town Center. Projects are deleted when they are no longer deemed to have community support, as in the case of the Northern Free State Road, which is being suggested for deletion because of the possibility of using proffer money to help extend Berkmar.

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) said the addition of the Berkmar project on the list would have important symbolic value.

"I think putting it on our priority list doesn't mean it's actually going to get funded because we know we don't have enough money but it might signal to the developer community and to VDOT how high of a priority we're putting on having that parallel road system completed,” Slutzky said.

Supervisor  (Samuel Miller) said the Fontaine/Sunset Connector would help alleviate traffic congestion in the area of the County that is just south of the University of Virginia.

Other changes to the strategic priority list include the addition of the Main Street extension project for Crozet and intersection improvements along Route 29 at Hydraulic and Greenbrier Roads. Again, David Benish said most of these projects would be paid for using proffers. All bridge improvement projects will now be listed under one category, placed on the draft priority list at number 10.

Most of the discussion at the January 9 work session centered on the Planning Commission’s recommendation to stop paving rural roads, unless there’s an overwhelming safety issue.

Every county in Virginia is allocated money through VDOT for the paving of unpaved roads according to a formula. If a county decides instead to spend this money on other road projects, VDOT will penalize the County in future allocations for rural paving. The Commission had recommended taking the penalty because paving roads in the rural area is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive plan.

David Benish

Benish said County staff has not yet calculated how much the rural paving fund allocation would be reduced if the County were to use paving funds on other projects. Allan Sumpter, director of VDOT's Charlottesville residency, said he thought the penalty would amount to about $200,000.

“And to kind of quantify that to you in terms of roadwork, would amount to about one rural rustic road," Sumpter said.

In response to a question from David Slutzky, Sumpter said funding for paving projects could be used to pave gravel roads in the development area without incurring a penalty. But that wouldn't go very far, according to Benish, because most of the County's unpaved roads are in the rural area, with the exception of Dickerson Road and Rio Mills Road, which are on the cusp of the growth area.

Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) said he did not agree with the view of the Planning Commission.

“Every rural road that I know in my district that has been done for safety issues and that's the predominant reason why we do it, because there's safety issues and in particularly because of school buses,” Boyd said. “We like to talk about all the things we don't want to do in the rural areas to prevent growth out there, but we'll run a school bus up the smallest little dirt road that we can find.”

David Slutzky pointed out that the Planning Commission did acknowledge a need for rural paving for safety issues, but that it would come with a cost. He specifically mentioned Fox Mountain Road and other roads in the northwest quadrant of the County.

“I guarantee you that the day that those roads get paved, particularly Fox Mountain Road going over the mountain to 810, you will see a whole bunch of development activity going on that road,” Slutzky said.

Supervisor Dorrier asked if those kind of roads could be paved under VDOT's Rural Rustic program. That program allows a slightly lesser standard of road to be built, but VDOT’s Allan Sumpter said not many would qualify.

"Part of the rural rustic program, that's one of the requirements of it, and, it says, I'll read directly: The County Board indicates growth and traffic generated by the land are not expected to increase significantly over the next ten years,” Sumpter said.

Supervisor Boyd repeated his concern that the Planning Commission’s recommendation would penalize the County, and would add to more paving requests from citizens going unanswered. For instance, he pointed to Doctor’s Crossing road, which is ranked third on staff’s draft list of Regular Paving priorities, at a cost of over $1.8 million. Construction isn’t scheduled until August of 2011.

“I look on [the draft list] and I see as an example Doctor’s Crossing Road. I can tell you I’ve been out there to talk to those people many times over the last four years and their request,” Boyd said. “If we’re going to say, we’re not going to pave Doctor’s Crossing because we don’t think that, it’s, you know, there’s issues there, then we need to be upfront about it and say you’re being removed because you’re in the rural area and you don’t deserve paving.”

Boyd asked staff to suggest criteria that could be used to help determine when paving projects should be taken off of the list.  Slutzky said he would be having some measurements taken to help County leaders make decisions about strategic paving priorities.

“It might be useful to get some sense of where the greatest density of development potential is on one road versus us another, not in the entire county, but if we’ve got say, the top ten roads,” Slutzky said. “Maybe just for those roads we should look to make sure we don’t have any inadvertent instances where we’re proposing to pave a road that’s going to invite a bunch of development.”

Deputy County Executive Tom Foley said staff would be able to perform that kind of analysis in advance of the public hearing, which had been scheduled for February. Supervisor Boyd said he thought another work session would be necessary to review that work before proceeding.

Supervisor Thomas reminded her colleagues and staff that it has been the goal of the County since 1980 to discourage the suburbanization of the rural points of the County.

“And having a nice paved road is every body’s definition of suburban type of road and development,” Thomas said. “I think the planning commission is kind of taking us to task for letting that happen, and I think Ken is absolutely right, if we want to remind the public that that’s not our policy to suburbanize the rural area, we ought to perhaps make it a strong policy.”

The Board will hold a second work session on the issue in February, with more input from staff.  After the second work session, a public meeting will be held at the Board’s night meeting on March 12.

Sean Tubbs

 

























 

Top-10 Growth & Development Stories of 2007

In my weekly appearance today on WINA AM 1070 on the Charlottesville Right Now program, Coy Barefoot and I counted down Charlottesville Tomorrow's top-10 growth and development stories of 2007.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: 20080103-RightNow.mp3

Charlottesville Tomorrow's Top-10 Growth and Development Stories of 2007

1. County Elections 2007—Ann Mallek elected Supervisor in White Hall District
2. 4,800 new homes approved at Biscuit Run, Hollymead Town Center, and Rivanna Village
3. Wendell Wood’s projects around National Ground Intelligence Center on Route 29N get new scrutiny by media, public, and local government
4. Albemarle Supervisors set new cash proffer expectations
5. Proposed rural area protection ordinances stalemate Board of Supervisors
6. Lack of rain leads to drought warnings
7. City Planning Commission debates ethics, communications with the public and developers, impartiality, and starts holding pre-meetings off camera
8. Water and sewer infrastructure needs get increased community attention
9. City approves another nine-story downtown building and receives recommendations to limit future building heights in some areas
10. Major capital projects continue facility improvements at the University of Virginia

Brian Wheeler