Albemarle’s Anti Business Mission Creep

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

Last year, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors passed their Economic Development Action Plan designed to improve economic vitality and business perception of Albemarle County.  It seems as though someone forgot to tell their appointed Boards and Commissions. 

In several different actions over the last two weeks, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning Commission have unnecessarily flexed their regulatory muscles to the detriment of the business climate/perception. 

Before going into detail on these issues, it is important to note, the Free Enterprise Forum does not have a position on any specific project application, we use these examples to highlight the policy positions we do support.

ARB Does Not Like “Wells Fargo” Yellow

 Back in 2008, Wells Fargo merged with Wachovia.  Since that time west coast based Wells Fargo has been steadily working their way east, rebranding Wachovia branches as Wells Fargo branches (Arlington, Texas in photograph). 

In their February 22nd meeting, Albemarle County’s Architectural Review Board reviewed a color sample provided to staff by Wells Fargo prior to submitting an application.   It was clear the ARB did not like what was called “Wells Fargo” yellow.  As with the Giant Food application below, the ARB places no value nor import on established corporate branding.  As one Board member put it, “The corporate standard is not germane to the discussion of the ARB”.

To add insult to injury, the sign in question (Airport Road & US 29) is located just eleven paces south of the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport sign that did not undergo ARB review.  As we wrote in a post earlier this month regarding the red light cameras (which also did not go through ARB approval), such action reeks of a double standard between “county/VDOT” projects and private businesses. 

It is difficult to argue that this sign  is not “advertising” the airport; why then does it not rise to the same level of county scrutiny as the Wells Fargo sign (eleven paces south)?

Giant’s New Logo does not impress ARB  

Giant Food is also in the process of a rebranding effort.  The Seminole Square Giant is located in the City of Charlottesville (see photos) and has completed their new signage project

In September of 2010, The Pantops location applied  to the ARB to change out their sign with a colorful new sign where the logo is larger than the letters of the word Giant.

Working from staff’s recommendation, the ARB was troubled by the difference in size between the logo and the letters.  In discussion, one Board member voiced his concern that “ Graphically the logo is too large for the type”. 

Without any firsthand knowledge of the situation, I would imagine the graphic image that Giant Food is placing on their stores throughout the Mid-Atlantic region has been focus group tested and represents what the company feels conveys its corporate message and will bring in the most business.  The applicant described the logo as a “fruit bowl” that is important to Giant’s corporate identity. 

Rather than follow the the corporate standard (and the sign package located a few miles away in the City), the ARB unanimously chose to dictate that the logo height must be limited to 4’, which is the maximum height of the Giant letters. 

The Free Enterprise Forum questions the impact of this size differential on a sign located approximately 500’ from the Entrance Corridor and if the benefit of the reduction in logo size is really worth the five months it took to get through the ARB process.

Planning Commission Dictates Membership

There has been a significant amount of media attention to the Blue Ridge Pool/Day Camp application.  In considering the application to establish a summer day camp at the existing pool location in Ivy, the Planning Commission heard from neighbors of the facility regarding impacts on their lives.  The applicant agreed to restrictions on the hours of operation, days of operation, number of persons on the property and number of memberships. 

The Free Enterprise Forum is most concerned with the last of these conditions.  The Planning Commission is charged with land use planning and regulation, how does the number of memberships impact the intensity of land use?  It does not. 

Clearly the Planning Commission was within their bounds regarding the number of persons on the property at any one time, this speaks to the intensity of the use.  To limit the number of memberships sold unnecessarily infringes on the applicant’s ability to address the needs of the market.  If the applicant finds that a weekday only membership provides new members (and revenue) to the club and does not impact his maximum capacity, why should this be restricted as a land use issue?

Without having an opinion on the outcome of this specific application, the Free Enterprise Forum hopes that the Board of Supervisors will remove the membership restriction prior to voting on the proposal.

Conclusion

As we reported in our Regulatory Rationale post, Albemarle County’s Planning Commission is clearly pushing the envelope of their regulatory powers by “criminalizing” winery noise violations.  It seems clear from reading the County Attorney’s remarks that this was not the direction provided to the Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors.

Whether or not the ARB’s actions are in concert with the thinking of Albemarle County’s Board of Supervisors is a bit more difficult to determine.  While applicants have the ability to appeal ARB decisions to the BOS, few ever do.  While this is regrettable, it is understandable – applicants have a business to run not windmills to tilt.

Back in 2001, the ARB considered the Albemarle County welcome signs (in the US 29 median) on three different occasions.  It is unclear why Albemarle no longer believes such signs impact the entrance corridor and are not subject to ARB review.  There should not be such a double standard. 

In addition, the Free Enterprise Forum is very concerned that appointed committees and boards may not have a solid understanding of their role on these “advisory” panels.  Too often these positions have become soapboxes for advancing personal agendas rather than promoting the publicly vetted and supervisor endorsed Comprehensive Plan. 

There is no doubt that Albemarle County’s Board of Supervisors is very concerned with changing the County’s anti-business perception and promoting the economic vitality of the region.  The anti-businees mission creep of their appointed boards and commissions actions seem in conflict with this mission.

If appointed committee members are not following Board Policy, they should be reprimanded, redirected or removed.   That’s the level of accountability the community deserves.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

 

Did Albemarle’s Photosafe Cameras Run the ARB Stop Light?

By. Neil Williamson, President

In late November of last year, Albemarle County installed red light enforcement cameras (Photosafe Program) at the intersection of Rio Road and US 29.  As regular readers of this blog know, Albemarle County has designated twenty one of its roadways as “Entrance Corridors” which requires a “certificate of appropriateness” to be issued from the Architectural Review Board (ARB).  Both US 29 and Rio Road are “Entrance Corridors”. 

According to Albemarle’s website:

The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) is appointed by the Board of Supervisors and is charged with the responsibility of regulating the design of development within the County’s Entrance Corridors. The goal of this regulation is to ensure that new development in these corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the area and that development within the corridors is orderly and attractive.

As the only regular public attendee at ARB meetings, the Free Enterprise Forum has witnessed many long discussions about specific sign colors, sign height, massing of letters on a sign, materials used, and much more.

Last week, we watched as the ARB admonished business owners who were placing neon signs in their window or placing their products out in front of their store in the entrance corridor. 

We are aware that there is a well established criteria for cell tower composition (hollow metal painted brown).  So we were most curious how we missed the meeting where the ARB approved the construction of the sleek, tall silver twin towers peering directly on the entrance corridor.

Remembering that these units were placed in the Entrance Corridor at the specific direction of Albemarle County, not the Commonwealth of Virginia and that they reach approximately 15 feet into the view shed; we were more than a little confused to learn that the  cameras were not the subject of a review by the ARB.  Examining the photos in this post, it is difficult to argue these twin towers do not have an impact on the appearance of the entrance corridor.  At a minimum, they have as much impact as a cell tower located much further from the Entrance Corridor.

The ARB has had a significant impact on development (and the cost of development) in the “entrance corridors”.  Last year, the Free Enterprise Forum published the  “Eye of the Beholder” report documenting some of our issues and potential solutions to the delays that often accompany an “entrance corridor” project.

To be clear, the Free Enterprise Forum does not have a position on the effectiveness, legality  or appropriateness of red light cameras, we will leave those discussions to others.  We do take great issue with the double standard that Albemarle County is not required to undergo the same level of ARB review for revenue generating (and perhaps life saving) red light cameras as the businesses located  in entrance corridors. 

Based on our understanding of the sensibilities of the members of the ARB, We believe they would likely have made modifications to the design to improve the project’s “impact on the entrance corridor”.

But instead of adding this delay to the implementation of PhotoSafe Albemarle County choose to simply run the light hoping no one would notice.  Luckily we had our camera.

 Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

 

Albemarle BOS: Economic Development vs. Four Corners Offense

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

Longtime college basketball fans may remember the frustrating four corners offense.  Before the adoption of the shot clock in college basketball, it was most frequently used to retain a lead by holding on to the ball until the clock ran out.  

In the nationally televised 1982 ACC championship game between the University of North Carolina Tar Heels and the University of Virginia Cavaliers, Carolina held the ball for roughly the last twelve minutes of the second half to nurse a small lead.  The next year, the ACC approved a shot clock pilot program

A minority version of UNC’s hated four corners offense seems to be on display at the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. 

On Wednesday, June 2nd Albemarle County’s Board of Supervisors (BOS) will be accepting public comment regarding the Draft Economic Development Action Plan.  This plan is a direct result of the six point action plan passed 4-2 (Mallek, Rooker opposed) by the BOS on January 6th, 2010.

The January 6th action plan set out specific goals and deadlines for government action.  The same ideas are present in the six point action plan with clearly defined strategies, actions and metrics for success.  Clearly, the action plan has a sense of urgency to it.

When presented with the draft Economic Development Action Plan last month, some Board members were upset that they were not consulted in the development of the draft.  

Brandon Shuleetta reported in the Daily Progress:

Independent Dennis S. Rooker called it “completely inappropriate” to work with county staff and community leaders on a major initiative without informing the board. Rooker said that it would have been “the easiest thing” for Boyd to say at a public meeting that he wanted county leaders to start crafting an economic development action plan.

Despite Mr. Rooker’s stated concern, the six point plan that was approved by a majority of the Board 4-2 contained the following verbiage:

Staff should work closely with the Partnership for Economic Development [TJPED] and the Chamber of Commerce to develop a plan in the first six months of 2010 to significantly increase non-personal tax revenue through economic growth and not increased taxes to our business community.

During the meeting on January 6th, Mr. Rooker also expressed his opposition to all of these items coming forward at once without a staff report or public input.

Regarding the January 6th Action Plan, Ms. Mallek explained her negative vote on her blog:

Voting immediately on information in a new form, presenting multiple issues without time for discussion or public input is not necessarily in the best interest of our citizens.

Clearly, the current majority of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors are focused on Economic Development as their priority issue.  The staff has, as directed by formal BOS action, worked with The Chamber and TJPED [The Free Enterprise Forum was not a part of these meetings] to develop an economic development action plan. 

It is not an accident that “action” is a part of the plan.  While the minority of the Board may wish to employ delaying tactics, it is up to the entire community and the majority of the board  to continue to “press the ball up the floor” to address the need for economic development.

Time is short.  While local government does not create economic development it can create a positive (or negative) enterprise environment.  Enterprises mean jobs, good career ladder jobs.  Is that a priority for you? 

In last month’s BOS meeting, several individuals spoke in opposition to the manner the plan was developed and some seemed to indicate economic development could be harmful to Albemarle County.

While I do not expect to see pitchforks and torches at the Albemarle County Office Building on June 2nd, I do anticipate a number of citizens will voice their opinions of economic development to the members of the BOS.

The question is will you? 

The Board’s e-mail is bos@albemarle.org

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson

—————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

 

 

 

Fluvanna Supervisors Poised to Adopt New Sign Rules

 By William J. Des Rochers, Fluvanna Field Representative

At its May 19^th meeting, Fluvanna’s Board of Supervisors was briefed on new amendments to the county sign ordinance that they will vote on next month. According to county staff, the amendments are needed to remove inconsistencies in the current draft, replace inadequate definitions, and address such things as sign size.

The county planning commission will consider the draft at its meeting on May 28^th. There are no penalties outlined in the statute for non-compliance; the zoning administrator merely is tasked with enforcement.

Non-conforming signs will be grandfathered and subject to certain conditions may be repaired. Non-conforming signs, however, may not be altered to reflect a new business.

Real estate signs are permitted but not in the public right-of-way; there are no setback requirements.

The Board also conditionally agreed to refinance nearly $68 million in school bond debt.

The Board directed its new bond counsel, Morgan Keegan, ensure that the interest rate for the refinance did not exceed 4.5 percent. Currently the rate is almost six percent. The county hopes to save some three percent in costs: around 200,000 per year.

Supervisors also dealt with a number of housekeeping chores at the meeting. They:

· Increased the filing fee to place one’s property in – or remove from – an agricultural/forestall district to $500; currently it is $100;

· Agreed to purchase new management software and services from Tyler Technologies for $427,000; and,

· Approved the construction of a Pleasant Grove Comfort Station ($187,000, only $25,000 of which is county funding);

Greene County BOS Approves Revisions to the Sign Ordinance

By. Kara Reese Pennella, Greene County Field Officer

• Motion to award a contract for snow removal to Countryside Landscaping – Approved

• OR #09-004 Revisions to Greene County Zoning Ordinance Article 14 – Sign Regulations – Approved

• 
  

  OR #09-005 Revisions to Greene County Zoning Ordinance Article 21A – Wind Turbines – Deferred

   

The Greene County Board of Supervisors held its continued October meeting on October 27, 2009. Items discussed at the meeting included revisions to the Greene County Zoning Ordinance and several grant opportunities for the county.

First, the Board reviewed changes to the county’s sign ordinance. Most of the proposed changes to the ordinance were intended to clarify revisions made to the ordinance in March of 2008. Additionally, electronic message boards would be prohibited in the proposed version of the ordinance. The signs which were already approved would remain in place; however, new applications for the electronic signs would no longer be permitted. The ordinance also clarified that advertising vehicles are not permitted in the county.

Several citizens and business owners addressed the Board regarding numerous portions of the ordinance that might be confusing or unclear. Business owners were concerned that the prohibition on advertising vehicles might start the county down a slippery slope where business owners would no longer be able to park their company vehicles out from if they have business logos on them. Issues were also raised over whether language regarding the signs at entrances to subdivisions should be clarified.

Business owners also took the opportunity to discuss some of the unintended consequences of the March 2008 revisions to the sign ordinance. Many business owners who supported the revisions believed their signs and most of the existing signs in the county had a permit; however, it turned out that many did not have permits on file. Many owners were unaware that they did not have sign permits. Now small businesses are finding it difficult to come into compliance. Several concerns were also raised that county buildings may not be complying with the new ordinance and that this creates a double standard. Finally, questions were raised about businesses that had similar signs but might not have been notified of a violation.

J. Allen reiterated her position on the sign ordinance noting that so many business owners have already spent money complying with the ordinance that it would be unfair to make exceptions now. B. Peyton also noted that he was not in favor of adding a grandfathering provision at this stage but requested that staff investigate the specific questions regarding some possible nonconforming signs that had not been cited for violations.

The Board discussed some of the issues raised by the public regarding confusing language in the ordinance but ultimately decided to adopt the revisions as advertised. J. Allen moved to approve the ordinance revisions as advertised. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

The Board also considered an ordinance revision that would allow the use of small wind turbines to generate power for personal use. Currently, there is no provision in the zoning ordinance to allow them. The proposed ordinance was created in response to increased public inquiries. Under the proposed ordinance, large scale commercial production would not be allowed. Wind energy systems that produced between 10 kW and 50 kW would be permitted by special use permit and would have accompanying set back requirements. Small roof mounted systems would be permitted by right.

The Board discussed the provisions extensively. J. Allen noted that the idea of these systems going up in Greene County “just creeps me out.” S. Catalano agreed that it represented change that was hard to wrap your arms around. The county attorney noted that similar aesthetic objections were once made about telephone poles and electrical wires. S. Catalano expressed concern that one of these turbines might go up in the low flight area preapproved for Pegasus and asked that staff see if anything could be done to alleviate any problems that might cause.

The Board also asked for clarification regarding colors, lighting and how many units could be installed per parcel. The Board deferred the application in order to allow staff to answer some of its concerns.

The Board also discussed some potential grant opportunities with staff. The schools sought permission to apply for a grant that would help address problems with the school’s roof and windows. The grant is aimed at increasing energy efficiency in schools. It would help cover costs of repairs that need to be made soon. No local match is required if the grant funds are received. The Board encouraged the schools to move forward with the grant application.

Staff also requested permission to pursue grants with from the Department of Forestry to make improvements to the County Park. The grant would require a 50/50 match but the match can be made in kind or with other grant money the county has available. The Board gave staff permission to move forward with these applications as well.

Greene County BOS Discuss Roads and 2010 Legislative Program

By. Kara Pennella, Greene County Field Officer

 Action Summary:

• Motion to approve 2010 Legislative Program – Approved

• Request for a Special User Permit for a residential accessory structure greater than 768 square feet on 4.64 acres of land located on Spotswood Trail – Approved

• Resolution to accept and appropriate $240.00 in grant funds for the Stanardsville Volunteer Fire Department – Approved

• Resolution to accept and appropriate $50,000 in grant funds for the Sherriff’s Department – Approved

             During its regular meeting the Greene County Board of Supervisors received its quarterly report from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).  David Blount presented the 2010 Legislative Program. The only public hearing of the evening was a request for a special use permit. Finally, the Board of Supervisors heard two requests for ordinance revisions from the public.

            VDOT representatives reported that Bacon Hollow Road has been completed and the speed limit has been reduced on portions of Route 29N. They are currently working on a step down from 55 to 25 on Route 230 so that the reduction in speed is not so abrupt.  VDOT has been working with a consultant on a traffic light for 607 and Preddy Creek Road. They may be able to do some preliminary engineering but there is no funding to go forward. Federal funding requires a 20 % state match which is unavailable right now. The Board is concerned because the County has about 1.6 million in proffers for the area that needs to be used.

             David Blount, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission provided a review of the 2010 Legislative Program. He noted that not many of the agenda items had changed from last year. He expects that the legislature will have to start cutting funding from education to make up shortfalls. He predicted that this is will be the toughest budget the state has seen and expects that it will get worse before it gets better. After a brief discussion, the Board unanimously approved the 2010 Legislative Program.

             In the only public hearing of the evening, Wendell & Janice Lamb requested a special use permit for the construction of a covered picnic shelter larger than 768 square feet. The lot is zoned residential, but currently doesn’t have a home on it. The Planning Commission recommended approval with some conditions including that it not be used for commercial or public events, restoration of a stream buffer, a 20 ft screening yard, no pipe will be allowed to drain into the stream, outdoor lighting will be mounted horizontal to the ground and applicant will submit a site sketch for parking.  Applicant did not have anything to add to staff’s report.

             One neighbor addressed the Board regarding his concerns that the shelter might be used for public events. He was not necessarily opposed to the project, but had some questions about the use of the structure and what would prevent it from becoming a commercial enterprise.

             The Board discussed some of the proposed conditions on the special use permit. C. Schmitt wanted more stringent restrictions on the use. He proposed that the Board require that a majority of all persons using the property at any one time be members of the applicant’s family. He also proposed that they limit the time that applicant can use the shelter and place more restrictions on parking.  B. Peyton felt that the conditions sufficiently addressed concerns about the picnic shelter being turned into a business. J. Allen was concerned about other things that the shelter could be used for that were not a public use but might be offensive to the neighbors. Both M. Skeens and S. Catalano felt that the conditions would address most of the neighbors concerns. B. Peyton moved to approve the request with conditions. The special use permit request was passed 4-1 with C. Schmitt voting no.

             In matters from the public, Doug Watson a co-owner of the local BP Station requested that the Board consider amending the sign ordinance to include a grandfathering clause. He noted that he was having difficulty documenting whether his sign went up before the first sign ordinance in the county was passed.

            S. Catalano asked the Board if they would like to revise the sign ordinance and opened it up for discussion by the Board. J. Allen asked staff how many noncompliant signs they had found in the county so far and out of these how many have already made changes to their signs to comply with the ordinance. Staff indicated they had provided notice of noncompliance to about 50 businesses and 30 of those have already made changes to their signs. The Board quickly agreed that it was unfair to revise the ordinance now when so many people had spent money and time complying with the ordinance. 

             Tom Burgess addressed the Board and asked what happened to a county wide leash law.  The issue was discussed with staff who already has a draft ordinance and will schedule a public hearing.

           Finally, the holiday schedule for the Board of Supervisors’ meetings was announced. The Board will meet only once in November and December. Those meetings are scheduled for November 10, 2009 and December, 8, 2009.

Greene County BOS Approves ZTA and Hears Water Concerns from Citizens

By. Kara Reese Pennella, Greene County Field Officer

Action Summary

SUP#09-001 – Request for a Special Use Permit for an Electronic Message Center on a 1.04 acre tract zoned B-2 and located on Route 29 – Approved

OR#09-001 – Revision to Article 19 – Site Development Plan regarding letters of revision – Approved

The Greene County Board of Supervisors met on Tuesday June 23, 2009. J. Allen was not present at the meeting. The Board considered an application for a special use permit for an electronic message center. The Board also heard an ordinance revision request from staff that would allow for letters of revisions in some circumstances. Finally, citizens addressed they Board regarding issues with their water hookup.

The first public hearing on the agenda was a special use permit for an electronic message center. Applicants, Bruce Shifflett and George and Suzanne Haney of Lydia Mountain Lodge and Log Cabins sought a special use permit to place an electronic sign at their new office space located on the southeast corner of the Route 29/33 intersection. They intend to use the space as a central office for several aspects of their businesses including cabin rentals, a dinner show and a new furniture sales department.

On May 20, 2009 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: 1) The electronic message center shall be considered part of the aggregate signage; 2) The electronic message center shall not have neon colored lights and shall not flash, rotate or visually move so as to preserve the aesthetic character of the community and promote traffic safety, except as provided in number six; 3) The message center shall not be animated in any manner; 4) The electronic message shall not scroll across the electronic center; 5) The permitted hours of operation for the electronic message center shall be consistent with the hours of operation of the building located on 60-(A)-20E. The electronic message center shall not be operated after 11pm; 6) The electronic message center may be changed at periodical intervals of every two hours within the hours of operation. 

The applicants spoke briefly and stated that the only condition that caused them concern was the limit on how often the sign could be changed. Applicants will be advertising four separate businesses and felt the two hour interval would limit their ability to advertise all of the businesses. Applicant requested that they be allowed to change the sign every two minutes.

The Board of Supervisors focused their discussion on the time interval that the sign would be permitted to change. The Board was sympathetic with the applicant’s situation. However, there was concern over whether the more frequent changing of the sign would cause a safety issue.  B. Peyton noted that this application for an electronic message center was distinguishable from the recent application for an electronic message center for the proposed Arby’s which was approved with a four hour interval. In the case of Lydia Mountain’s office building the property was further from the highway than the Arby’s sign. He also noted that the sign would be facing the road at a different angle. 

B. Peyton moved to approve the application with the same conditions recommended by the Planning Commission except for condition six which was amended to 6) The electronic message center may be changed at periodical intervals of every two hours within the hours of operation. The motion passed unanimously.

The second public hearing regarded revisions to the Greene County Zoning Ordinance Article 19 – Site Development Plan. This ordinance revision would allow staff to issue letters of revision for minor changes to approved site plans. A plan could receive up to three letters of revision before a new site plan would be required. The purpose of this proposed change is to free up staff time and reduce costs to applicants.

The Board expressed a few concerns during their discussion. B. Peyton inquired whether the $100 fee was sufficient to recoup staff costs. C. Schmitt was concerned that the ordinance didn’t contain more specific guidelines and list items that would not qualify for letters of revision such as proffers.

B. Peyton moved to approve the ordinance revision as written by staff. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.

Finally, in matters from the public two residents who live near Lydia addressed the Board regarding water concerns. Their community of approximately 16-17 households had been notified that they will be taken for the Rapidan Service Authority’s (RSA) water supply. RSA has offered them some financial assistance to drill their own wells; however, residents are concerned that they will not have sufficient lots for the both a well and a septic system. The Board addressed their concerns noting that they could inquire about the situation on their behalf, but the Board has no authority over the RSA to force them to keep the residents on the system.

The Board quickly disposed of the consent agenda and reports from Board Members. The meeting was adjourned until July 14, 2009.

Albemarle Police Remove Road Signs (that they put up)

By. Neil Williamson

Roadway Signs Placed By Albemarle County Police Have Been Removed

Last week (May 15) the Free Enterprise Forum blog featured a post titled “Albemarle Sign Police Look the Other Way?“.  The post highlighted the large number of signs placed in the VDOT right of way Warning of the Seat Belt Enforcement Area.

Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker read the post and asked County Attorney Larry Davis for his opinion of the situation.  

Mr. Rooker forwarded Mr. Davis’ reply to the Free Enterprise Forum and requested it be posted.

“The County’s agreement with VDOT is limited by Virginia Code § 33.1-375.1(D) to only allow the County to remove advertisements, defined as: any sign “intended to invite or to draw the attention or to solicit the patronage or support of the public to any goods, merchandise, real or personal property, business, services, entertainment, or amusement manufactured, produced, bought, sold, conducted, furnished, or dealt in by any person.” (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+33.1-351) The County, under the agreement with VDOT, cannot remove non-commercial signs.  These warning signs fall in the non-commercial sign category.
            VDOT’s sign-removal authority is more expansive than the County’s.  Virginia Code § 33.1-375 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+33.1-375)addresses signs, advertisements and advertising structures. Under this section VDOT can remove any sign that it has not issued a permit to be in its right of way.
            I am informed by Chief Miller that these warning signs were actually put up by our police department with the permission of VDOT.  The signs were obtained from the State as part of the enforcement campaign and are being used by many participating localities.  Because of the blog and other feedback, the signs have now been removed by the police department.”  -  Larry Davis, Albemarle County Attorney

The Free Enterprise Forum sincerely appreciates Supervisor Rooker looking into this issue and agrees the final resolution having the police remove the signs they put up was the proper action. 

We are concerned that The Albemarle County Police, with permission from VDOT, thought this was a good idea at all.  Albemarle County spent over half a year working with VDOT on their sign enforcement strategy.  

We agree that it is important to buckle up this holiday weekend, we also think County Police have better things to do with their time than post signs in the right of way. While it appears the signs were legal, that does not make it right. 

Everyone makes mistakes, kudos to Chief Miller for pulling the signs.

Greene County Board of Supervisors Consider Electronic Message Center and Ordinance Revisions

By. Kara L. Reese

Greene County Field Officer

 

Summary of Actions Taken by the Board of Supervisors:

 

SUP#08-003 Special Use Permit to Allow an Electronic Messaging Center – Approved

Amendment to Greene County Code Chapter 38 Section III Erosion Sediment Control and Stormwater Management – Approved

OR#08-003 Ordinance Revision – Corner Lots – Approved

Resolution to accept and appropriate a grant in the amount of $150,001 from the U.S. Department of Justice for the Sheriff’s Department which requires a local match of $150,000 –Approved

Resolution to accept and appropriate a grant in the amount of $37,500 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for the Sheriff’s Department which requires a local match of $12,500 – Approved

Resolution to accept and appropriate a grant in the amount of $91,540 from the U.S. Department of Justice for the Sheriff’s Department – Approved

 

Greene County Board of Supervisors Consider Electronic Message Center and Ordinance Revisions:

 

            During it regular meeting, Tuesday October 28, 2008, the Greene County Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit allowing an electronic message center along with two ordinance revisions. It also addressed several grant received by the Sherriff’s Office and heard a report on the County’s Radio Communication Project. .

 

Before delving into public hearings the Board received a report on Phase I of the Radio Communication Project from George Conyles of Atlantic Technology Consultants. The project was designed to improve communications for Fire, EMS and Law Enforcement which had previously been operating under three distinct and antiquated communication systems. Conyles reported that Phase I was completed under budget and communication systems had been brought up to federal standards prior to federal deadlines.

 

In the first public hearing of the night the Board considered a special use permit application by Arby’s/Grand Avenue Development/Gateway Market Center LLC for a Special Use Permit Center to allow an electronic message center as part of their sign. An electronic message center is similar to the lighted signs that banks display date and time on. Staff reported that applicant had previously submitted two requests related to this sign to the BZA. First, applicant requested and the BZA approved permitting the applicant to display one sign of 85 square feet in lieu of the two signs of 100 square feet total that are permitted under county ordinances. The BZA denied applicant’s request to increase the total height of the sign to 20 feet tall instead of the 15 feet permitted by ordinance. Applicant now seeks a special use permit to allow it to include an electronic message center in the sign. The planning commission previously recommended approval of the special use permit with conditions.

 

Applicant addressed the Board. Applicant felt that all conditions were acceptable except for the requirement that the message change only every 4 hours. Applicant requested that they be allowed to change messages every 2 hours. This would allow them to better market their product.

 

The Board of Supervisors had a general discuss regarding the 2 or 4 hour limitation on changing the message. J. Allen noted that she this requirement was intended to address a safety concern that frequent changing of the message would distract motorists. Shortening the time frame to 2 hours instead of 4 would not make much difference. B. Peyton stated that he was “delighted that they are coming” to Greene County and that he had no problem with this the sign changing every two hours.

 

J. Allen moved to approve the special use permit with the conditions that 1) The electronic message center shall be considered part of the aggregate signage 2)The electronic message center shall not have neon colored lights and shall not flash, rotate or visually move so as to preserve the aesthetic character of the community and promote traffic safety, except as provided in number six 3) The message center shall not be animated in any manner 4) The electronic message shall not scroll across the electronic center 5) The permitted hours of operation for the electronic message center shall be consistent with the hours of operation of the building located on 60-(A)-20E. The electronic message center shall not be operated after the close of business. 6) Electronic message center may be changed at periodical intervals of every two hours, within the hours of operation.  The motion passed by unanimous vote.

 

The Greene County Department of Inspections requested that the Board amend the County Code to reflect the use of an alternate inspection program for erosion and sediment control. Dan Ratzlaff, Greene’s Erosion and Sediment Control Administrator explained that the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation had already approved use of this alternate inspection in Greene County. The program will allow for a ranking and inspection of sites based on importance. Staff requested that the County’s Code be updated to include this change in procedure. B. Peyton moved to approve the change which was passed by a 5-0 vote.

 

The Board of Supervisors also approved revisions to the County’s Zoning Ordinances aimed at clarifying setback requirements for corner lots. The ordinance also clarified that the shortest side of a corner lot is the front of the lot for the purpose of determining setbacks and made the setbacks for nonconforming lots 25 feet. C. Schmitt moved to approve the ordinance changes. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

 

Finally, the Board of Supervisors addressed their policy for grant applications and accepted three grants applied for by the Sherriff’s Office. Board Members reminded all county offices that their policy remains that the Board should receive advanced notice and an opportunity to approve agencies seeking grants. This policy stems from concerns that matching grants may be received that the County can not afford the match which places the County in the embarrassing position of having to decline grants after they awarded. A second concern is that when grant funding dries up the County may be left with maintenance or other related expenses that it can not pay. The Board made it evident that while they were approving the current grants that in the future they wanted clearer communication regarding grant applications.

 

Greene County PC Discusses Comp Plan, Signs and more

Greene County Planning Commission

Greene County Administration Building

Kara L. Reese, Greene County Field Officer

September 17, 2008

 

Executive Summary:

SUP#08-003: Grant Ave. Development/Gateway Market Center, LLC request for a special use permit allowing an electronic message center on a 0.741 acre tract which is zoned B-3 and located on Seminole Trail – Approved

Adoption of Proposed Planning Commission By-laws - Deferred

 

Work Session – 6:30 pm:

            A work session was held to continue work on the County’s business district zoning. It was determined that many of the business categories still needed to be more clearly defined before they could be placed in a district. Another work session will likely take place in December.

 

Regular Meeting – Call to order 7:31 pm

 

1. Introduction of Bill Martin

            Bill Martin is replacing Phyllis Woodfolk on the Planning Commission. Bill Martin and his family have resided in Ruckersville for two years. He is a Realtor with Charlottesville Country Properties.

 

2. Presentation Regarding the Comprehensive Plan and Multimodal Corridor by Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.

 

Multimodal Corridor Study

            This is a study of the urban areas along 29 North and Route 33 in Greene County. Renaissance Planning Group, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) and W & W Associates will all be a part of the Multimodal Study Team. The goals of the project include to improve transportation within Greene County and to coordinate with the Greene County Comprehensive Plan. Public input on this project will be sought in connection with the public meetings for the Comprehensive Plan.  The project will use scenario planning which utilizes computer modeling to project the impact of the allocation of differing configuration of future jobs and residences on the transportation network.

 

Comprehensive Plan

            Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission will be coordinating the Greene County Comprehensive Plan as well as developing a final written plan. The Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a guiding tool to frame future decision-making in Greene County. TJPDC stated that they wish for this to be a community process. There are three Focus Groups scheduled for October and a Scenario Planning Workshop in November. The dates and times are:

·        Dyke Focus Group – October 4, 2008, 9am-12pm at Dyke Fire Hall

·        Ruckersville Focus Group – October 18, 2008, 9am-12pm at Best Western

·        Stanardsville Focus Group – October 23, 2008, 6pm-9pm at the County Administrative Building

·        Scenario Planning Workshop – November 15, 2008, 9am-12pm, Location TBD

The projected timeline is to present the Multimodal Scenarios in March of 2009. The Comprehensive Plan will be presented to the Planning Commission in June 2009. The projected completion of the plan is December 2009.

 

Comments from the Planning Commission:

D. Lamb noted that he feels that inner cities often die because people don’t want to fight the traffic. He asked VDOT, whose representative was present, whether there was a plan for the 29/33 intersection. The response was no.

 

J. Frydl commented that since the State has no statewide transportation plan or funding available for transportation there is a risk that we will end up with roads to nowhere because there is no guarantee that other Counties will be willing or able to connect to our secondary roads.

 

B. Martin asked for advice on maximizing citizen participation. TJPDC responded by stating that moving the focus groups around will help with this. He noted that the focus groups will be hands on around a worktable.

 

3. Public Hearing regarding Grant Ave. Development/Gateway Market Center, LLC request for a special use permit allowing an electronic message center on a 0.741 acre tract which is zoned B-3 and located on Seminole Trail

 

Staff Report:

            This is a request for a special use permit to allow an electronic messaging center on an Arby’s sign. This is only the second application for an electronic messaging center the county has received. The other sign is at the high school. The BZA has already approved a variance for this particular sign. Applicant would have been able to have two 100’ signs on his property. Instead applicant will now have one sign that is 85’ tall  (see comment below). The electronic messaging portion of the sign will be 20’ and a part of the total allowable 85’. Staff recommends approval of the request with the conditions that it not be neon lights; that it does not flash or move and that the 20’ will be a part of the aggregate 85’.

 

Applicant:

            Applicant introduced himself but didn’t have much comment on the actual sign.

 

Public Comment:

            Andrea Wilkinson spoke in opposition to the sign. She is worried that all of the stores at Gateway will want one if it is approved. She also stated that it could create an opportunity for injury if people are distracted by the sign. She noted that the original reason that electronic message centers were included in the ordinance was to allow for public service messages.

 

Planning Commission Comments:

 

N. Slezak asked the applicant whether the shopping center will have a large sign that lists all the stores in the center and whether Arby’s would be on that sign. Applicant responded that the shopping center will have a large general sign but that Arby’s will not be listed. N. Slezak was also concerned that if approved there will be more applications for these types of signs.  Applicant responded that banks have been using these signs for a long time to display time, temperature and advertising. This will be more attractive than the old fashioned manual message board where letters often fall off.

 

A. Herring wanted to know where the height of the sign was measured from. Staff answered that it will be from the ground to the top of the sign.

 

            B. Martin asked the applicant whether the message board was intended for marketing or public service. Applicant responded that is a marketing tool but might be used for public service in emergency situations.

 

            There was also discussion regarding whether the sign flashed. Applicant stated that it would change messages about every 5 seconds, but does not flash. Staff also noted there is pending litigation in the county over limitations on things that visually move and we might want to look at that before putting more limitations on the sign. Staff also noted that applicant would be bound by some state regulations on sign movement as well.    

 

Vote:

            J. Frydl moved to recommend approval with the conditions recommended by staff. The motion passed 4 to 1, with N. Slezak voting against the special use permit.

 

4.  Proposed Planning Commission By-law

            B. Martin raised two issues with the by-laws. First, he was concerned that a reference to a 2/3 vote might not be relevant to a group of five members and that language should be clarified. Second, he wondered if the by-laws should discuss conflicts of interests. After some discussion it was determined that the language about conflicts of interests may not be necessary but the 2/3 vote should be addressed. Staff will bring revisions back to the Planning Commission.

 

5. Minutes of May Meeting – Approved

 

Meeting adjourned