Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-21 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of March 21, 2001 March 23, 2001 ASSIGNMENT 1. Call to order. AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. · A citizen, Jayce Overstreet, said many Police officers are not wearing seat belts. They should lead by example. 5.1 SP-2000-64. David Weber (Triton PCS) (defer to April 4, 2001). DEFERRED. 5.2 Resolution to accept Stratford Glen in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, Subdivision, into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED. Service Authority for water and sewer service to Glenorchy Subdivision. APPROVED. 8. PH to receive comments on local community development and 6. PH to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 & 30A (Baker-Butler Elementary School). APPROVED, 7. PH to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County housing needs and potential projects in relation to Community Development Block Grant funding for a project in the County. Set PH for April 4, 2001. 9. SP-2000-75. Howell (Triton PCS-CVR 370A) (Sign #60). APPROVED wi11 conditions, with change to condition #1. 10. SP-2000-79. East Belmont Farm (Sign #99). APPROVED wi4 conditions. 11. SP-2000-80. Colonial Baptist Church (Sign #43). APPROVED wi3 conditions. 12. ZTA-2000-009. Holly Memorial Gardens. ADOPTED ORDINANCE. 13. SP-2000-49. Holly Memorial Gardens (Sign #29). APPROVED wi2 conditions. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Sally Thomas. All BOS members )resent. Clerk: Laurie Bentley. None. None. Clerk: Send signed resolution (Attachment A) and VDOT form to Glen Brooks. None. ~lone. Clerk: Advertise PH. Clerk: List conditions (Attachment B). Clerk:. List conditions (Attachment B). planning staff; See if there is another method that can be used to show that FEMA requirements have been met that will result in less cost and effort to the applicant. Clerk: List conditions (Attachment B). Clerk: Forward signed ordinance (Attachment C) 14. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. · Mr. Dorrier said he recently attended an event and was approached by 2 City Council members who expressed interest in a joint meeting with the Board to discuss both entities' Comprehensive Plans and transportation issues. Due to differences of opinion, it Was the consensus of the Board to allow Ms. Thomas to make the final decision. She will advise the Board of her decision at a later date. to Marsha Davis and Zoning to be incorporated into next Zoning Ordinance revision. Clerk: List conditions (Attachment B). None. Attachment A The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in a regular meeting On the 21st day of March 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, Subdivision de- scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated March 13, 2001, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's OffiCe of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated March 13, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-oF way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: Charlotte Y. Humphris David P. Bowerman David P. Bowerman; Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte Y. Humphris; Charles S. Martin; Walter F. Perkins; Sally H. Thomas None The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Stratford Glen from the intersection of Ashwood Boulevard (Station 0+52) edge of roundabout, to the intersection of Stratford Glen Way( Station 2+21.84), as shown on plat recorded 7129198 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle Coun{y in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.032 mile. Total Mileage - 0.032 mile. Attachment B CONDITIONS SP-2000-75 Howell (Tdton PCS;CVR 370A) 1. The top of the pole, as measured Above See Level (ASL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility, as meesured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole; 2. The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The pole shall be painted dark brown in color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached plan entitled "Howell (Triton PCS)" and dated 1/19/01. e. A grounding rod, not exceeding two feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not to exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapedng to a point, may be installed atthe top of the pole. f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one. g. Within one month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, meesured both in feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level. h. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit; The pole shall he located as follows: a. The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled ~Howell (Triton PCS)" and dated 1/19/01; Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled 'Howell (Triton PCS)" and dated 1/19/01. b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole. c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than twelve (12) inches; Pdor to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arbodst, specifying tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Commun'~y Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the twO hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; 6. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; o The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the pole is in compliance With condition number one; No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminaries is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply; 10. 11. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; and A maximum 6-foot high ;barbed wire fence with a metal gate, as shown on the attached plans entitled "Howell (Triton PCS)" and dated 1/19/01 shall be permitted around the perimeter of the lease area. SP-2000-79 .1. The applicant must submit all plans, calculations, and documents required in conditions 2 through 4 within four months of the approval of this permit; Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after constructions. Sections 18~30~3.02~2 and 18~30.3~03.2 allow no increase in flo~d levels. HoweVer, in areas of approximated floodplain, FEMA map accuracy is within one (1) vertical foot; 3. Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands; and 4. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. [17-322] SP-2000-80 Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non-worship uses will require amendment to this petition; Print shop and mailing service is limited to distribution of church related items; five (5) volunteers; hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; and, no more than twelve (12) commercial delivery truck trips per month as described in memorandum dated August 10, 1998, from Colonial Baptist Church to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Section I. Facts, Item No. 8 (on file in the Clerk's office); and 3. Additional development shall be limited to the final site plan revised May 29, 1998. SP-2000-49 1. The cemetery and accessory structures shall comply with the minimum yard requirements of Section 21, Commercial Districts; and ~ 2. The location of the mausoleum shall be in general conformity to the preliminary site plan dated January 17, 2001, prepared by Valley Engineering. Attachment C ORDINANCE NO. 01-18(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions. Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit. Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Definitions. Cemetery: Any land or structure used or intended to be used for the interment of human remains, either by earth burial, entombment in a mausoleum, inurnment in a columbarium, or a combination thereof. The sprinkling of ashes or their burial in a biodegradable container on church grounds, or their placement in a columbarium on church grounds, is not a cemetery. Article IlL District Regulations Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit. 1. Community center (reference 5.1.04). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.02). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenm~ces, unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). 8. (Repealed 3-5-86) 9. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). McGuireWoods LLP Court Square Building 310 Fourth Street N.E., Suite 300 RO. Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288 Phone: 804.977.2500 Fax: 804.980.2222 www. rncguirewoods.corn Valerie W. Long Direct: 804.977.2545 McGUIREWC DS viong@mcguirewoods.com Direct Fax: 804.980.2265 March 14, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE 296-5800 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk Albemarle County BOard of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: SP-00-64 Weber (Triton PCS - CVR 347D) Dear Ella: On behalf of our client Triton PCS, I respectfully request a deferral of the Board of Supervisor's consideration of the above-referenced special use permit application until the next available hearing date. In response to the Board's request, I am sending information to the Planning Department regarding the issues we were asked to research, so the staff will have an opportunity to evaluate and comment on our proposal. In the event you have any questions or require anything further to accomplish this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at 977-2545. Please contact me once the new hearing date has been set. I appreciate your assistance with this matter. Very truly yours, Valerie W. Long VWL/hll CC: Ms. Joan McDowell, Department of Planning & Community Development Mr. Dale Finocchi, Crown Communications, Inc. Mr. James Baran, Triton PCS, Inc The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in a regular meeting on the 21st day of March 2001, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, Subdivision de- scribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated March 13, 2001, fully incorporated herein bY reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated March 13, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to .§33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Charlotte Y. Humphris David P. Bowerman David P. Bowerman; Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charlotte y. Humphris; Charles S. Martin; Walter F. Perkins; Sally H. Thomas Nays: None A Copy Teste: Iia W. Carey, C er , ,3MC// Board of County Supery, is'ors The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Stratford Glen from the intersection of Ashwood Boulevard (Station 0+52) edge of roundabout, to the intersection of Stratford Glen Way ( Station 2+21.84), as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.032 mile. Total Mileage - 0.032 mile. Form SR-5(A) ADDITIONS FORM SR-5 (A) - PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS At~oh~ent to (check one only) [] Board of Supervisors Resolution ~ Suret~ Instrument Dated: 13 Mar 2001 Attachment i of I Name of Subdivision: Forest Lakes South~ Sections L and M Albemarle County Ref. Name of Street Street Addition Termini R-O-W Miscellaneous Notes A~_~4 tion Length No. Width (ft.) Centerline Miles 2 Stratfo=d Glen Fro~ Xnte~le~tion of Ashwood Boulevard (station 0+52 edge of 40 0.032 ~oundabout) To: Int~lrJection of Str&tfo~d Glen Way (station 2+21.84) pl&t ReOOT~_~_ Date: 7-29-98 Deed Book: 1730 Pages: 37-53 3 Ft0m: TO: Pla~ _~-~=ded Date= Deed Book: Page: · o: ~l&t ~ocded Date: Deed Book: Page: TO: Plat ~)e~_~-"ded Date: Dee~ Book: ,Page: Total Mileage 0.03 Notes: Guaranteed width of right-of-way exclusive of any necessar~ easements for cuts, fills, and drainage. CERTIFICATION OF ATTACHMENT This attachment is certified as a part of the document indicated above: and Title) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RCVO AGENDA TITLE: Allocations for Interstate, Primary, and Urban Highway System-Albemarle County SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: Comparison of FY 1999/2005 and FY 2000/2006 Primary Plans STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: March 21,2001 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: Yes ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The following information compares the Primary Road Final Allocation Plan for FY 2000-2006 to the FY 1999-2005 Plan. The Plan contains a new funding source for priority transportation projects. The new funding source is called the Virginia Transportation Act (VTA). According to the forward of the Primary Road Final Allocation Plan for FY 2000- 2006 (page 1 ), "new sources of transportation funding and new transportation initiatives were created in the Virginia Transportation Act of 2000 (VTA), which adds and accelerates almost $3 billion for transportation projects over the next six years. VTA creates the Priority Transportation Fund and permanently commits General Fund revenues to transportation in an unprecedented manner. It also accelerates the receipt of federal funds to move critical projects forward today". Please find a letter from Shirley Ybarra, Virginia Secretary of Transportation further explaining the Virginia Transportation Act (VTA) (Attachment A). Several projects in the County received funding from VTA. They are identified in the project discussion below. DISCUSSION: The following is a summary of the thirteen (13) projects common to both plans: 1. 1-64 Fog Detection System: Alton Mountain fog detection upgrading. Construction price increased $703,000. 1-64 Rest Areas: Sewer upgrade of the eastbound rest area 3E at mile marker 105 and the westbound rest area 3W at mile marker 113. Funding over the five common years of each plan increased $335,000. Total project cost increased $913,000. 3. Rt. 29: Widening from City line to Rio Road. This project is complete, but there is still funding necessary to complete paying for improvements. No changes. (VTA project) 4. Rt,29: Widening from 4 t° 6 lanes frOm Rio Road to South Fork Rivanna River. This project is complete, but there is still funding necessary to complete paying for improvements. (VTA project) Rt. 29: Widening from Rio Mills Road to Airport Road. Funding decreased due to the elimination of the right-of- way cost, which was $7,855,000 in last year's plan. The cost of preliminary engineering has increased from $2,060,000 last year to $3,005,000 this year. (VTA project) Rt. 29: Bridge Replacement at South Fork Rivanna River. The preliminary engineering cost decreased $379,000. (VTA project) 7. Western Bypass: Construction cost eliminated. Funding over the five common years of the each plan decreased $18,834,000. Total cost decreased $118,019,000. 8. Rt. 29: Access Management Study from Airport Rd. to Greene County line. No changes; project not currently fUnded. AGENDA TITLE: Allocations for Interstate, Primary, and Urban Highway System-Albemarle County March 21, 2001 Page 2 9. Rt.29: Improvement to vertical alignment near Rt. 641. No changes. (VTA project) 10. Rt. 29: Bridge replacement at S. Fork Hardware River (southbound lane). No changes. 11. Rt. 20: Bridge Replacement at Hardware River. Preliminary engineering increased $300,000, right-of-way increased $35,000, and construction cost increased $313,000. Funding over the five common years of each plan increased $317,000. (V-FA project) 12. Rt. 20: Preliminary engineering to widen to four lanes from Rt. 53 to Mill Creek Drive. Funding over the five common years of each plan increased $775,000. Total cost increased $800,000. 13. Rt. 250: Intersection improvement at Rt. 809. Construction cost increased $257,000. Funding for Albemarle projects in the five common years of each plan, FY 00-01 to FY 04-05, decreased by $20,137,000.The total project cost for all thirteen projects in the 1999-2005 Plan is $228,208,000 as compared to $106,222,000 in the 2000-2006 Plan, a $121,244,000 decrease. The major reason for this decrease is the elimination of construction costs and/or ROW costs for some projects, particularly the Western Bypass and the Rt. 29 widening from Rio Mills Road to Airport Road. VDOT eliminated the construction cost estimates for projects that were scheduled for construction beyond the 6-Year Plan because the estimates have proven to be inaccurate in the past. VDOT believes it can estimate the construction cost more accurately as the construction advertisement date gets closer. RECOMMENDATION: Provided for information only. 01.052 COMPARISON OF FY99-05 (Fna ) AND FY00-06 F NAL PR MARY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ALLOCATION PLANS FISCAL YEAR FUNDING pER EACH PLAN IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) I FY00-01 FY01-02 FY02-03 J FY03-04 FY04-05 J TOTAL- over TOTAL PROGRAM J 5 yr period PROJECT COST ELEMENT J 99-05 J 00-06 99-05 J 00-06 99-05 00-06 J 99-05 00-06 99-05 00-06 J 99-05 J 00-06 Changefron 99-05 J 00-06 JChangefrom I PLAN I PLAN PLAN I PLAN PLAN PLAN I PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN I pLAN I PLAN ~-o, ...... PLAN I ~L~:N ~ :~ 703 703 703 Fog Detection ~?i 400 303 ~![ ~! 0 I~ ~i 0 ~ 0 RE Rio Miffs Rd 0 to ~po. Rd (2) ~'~1 0 o o 0 Replacement over ~ ~ ~ 380 0 0  ~ ~ ,j~ 250 752 Replacement I~; 550 inte~ection near ~- 384 ~$~ 0 ~[$ ~[~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 384 257 257 TOTAL ~ 7,671 (1) Project completed. (2) Project in Feasiblity Phase (as opposed to Capital Improvement Phase) (3) COnstruction underway (4) Accrual of funds toward construction ( ) Negative number. * Does not include construction cost. ** Does not include construction or right-of-way cost. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Building Report Distribution List Tex Weaver, Manager, Office of Mapping, Graphics and Information Resources February 26, 2001 Building Report Format Change for 2001 Attached please find the 2000 Fourth Quarter and Year End Building Reports. To print these reports from Excel, using the Chart tabs at the bottom bring up each page and print them individually. Beginning with the 2001 First Quarter Building Report Certificate of Occupancy data will no longer be included, as Certificate of Occupancy data is not directly comparable to building permits issued over time. Building permit data more accurately reflects development trends. A new table will be added to the Building Report tracking building permit data issued by elementary school district. Should you have questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me by email (tweaver~albemarle.org) or phone (804-296-5823). 2000 FOURTH QUARTER BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 INDEX i. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C & D) III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart E) IV. Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F-H) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF SFA SFFFH DUP MF MHC AA Single-Family (includes modular) Single-Family Attached Single-Family Townhouse Duplex Multi-Family Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) Accessory Apartment '2- - During the fourth quarter of 2000, 146 building permits were issued for 146 dwelling units. In addition, 1 permit was issued for a mobile home in an existing park at an average exchange value of $2.500, for a total of $2,500. I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH Chart A. Nine Year Companson of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month MONTH 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 JAN 183 49 190 50 26 54 38 49 52 FEB 72 56 53 43 44 44 39 84 43 MAR 64 58 72 47 61 57 65 65 54 APR 72 76 69 46 71 75 62 102 63 MAY 62 45 60 41 63 118 65 55 72 JUN 48 79 70 62 41 89 85 75 50 JUL 62 81 186 51 87 59 74 69 56 AUG 126 116 49 44 105 34 221 56 65 SEP 48 45 47 56 64 48 68 68 49 OCT 43 68 51 42 186 216 61 48 48 NOV 49 65 60 66 43 49 48 42 49 DEC 37 67 32 48 44 62 48 57 49 TOTAL 866 805 939 596 -835 905 874 770 650 Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month 24O 22O 2OO 180 160 140 120 100 80 Chart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by Month z 0 40 0 z 20 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL' AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 131998 131999 12000 Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources (OOMGAIR), · -3- Quarter 4 I1. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS Chart C. E~reakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNITTYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. D.U. RIO 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 8% JACK JOUETT 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2% RIVANNA 47 6 0 0 0 1 0 54 37% SAMUEL MILLER 24 4 0 0 0 0 2 30 21% SCOTTSVI LLE 15 4 0 0 0 2 0 21 14% WHITE HALL 26 0 0 0 0 1 0 27 18% TOTAL 125 14 0 0 0 4 3 146 100% Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SFFFH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 12 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 CROZET COMMUNITY 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 9 6 0 0 0 1 0 16 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVANNA VILLAGE 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 62 14 0 0 0 1 1 78 RURAL AREA 1 18 0 0 0 0 1 0 19 RURAL AREA 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 RURAL AREA 3 18 0 0 0 0 0 2 20 RURAL AREA 4 13 0 0 0 0 2 0 15 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 63 0 0 0 0 3 2 68 TOTAL 125 14 0 0 0 4 3 146 Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping Graphics, and Information Resources (OOMGAIR) Quarter 4 III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS -4' Chart E. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-~; No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ RIO 11 1,959,112 13 282,498 8 5,877,961 8 502,750 40 8'622,321 JOUETT 3 503,500 6 155,600 0 6 997,500 15 1,656,600 RIVANNA 54 11,606,788 28 862,576 8 1,150,500 19 3,573,901 109 17,193,765 S. MILLER '30 5,289,028 49 4,005,880 5 7,000 2 22,000 86 9,323,908 SCOTTSVILLE 21 2,982,550 20 491,762 1 4,000,000 9 592,560 51 8,066,872 WHITE HALL 27 8,364,529 31 1,107,585 1 35,000 6 111,900 65 9,619,014 TOTAL 146 30,705,507 147 6,905,901 23 11,070,461 50 5,800,611 366 54,482,480 * Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential AlteratiOn categorY~ IV, CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY Chart F. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School Distdct and Dwelling Unit Type SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL PERCENT DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH I DUP MF MHC AA D.U. TOTAL D.U. : Agnor-Hurt 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 8 4.73% Broadus Wood/Sutherland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Broadus Wood/Jouett 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3.55% Brownsville 12 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 8.88% Crozet 10 0 0 0 0 I 0 11 6.51% Greer 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.78% Hollymead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Meriwether Lewis/Henley 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.96% Meriwether Lewis/Jouett 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.73% Murray 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 5.92%' Red Hill 7 0 0 0 0 1 2 10 5.92% Cale/Burley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Cale/Walton 22 6 0 0 0 0 0 28 16.57% Scottsville 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.96% Stone Robinson/Burley 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 10.06% Stone Robinson/VValton 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.18% Stony Point/Budey 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.73% Stony PointJSuthedand 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 6.51%i Woodbrook 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 18 10.65% Yancey 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2.37% TOTAL 141 19 2 , 0 0 5 2 169 100.00% Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources (OOMGAIR) -5- Quarter 4 IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (continued) Chart G. Breakdown of CO's for Residential ~)wellin9 Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA RIO $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 JACK JOUETT 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 RIVANNA 42 11 2 0 0 0 0 55 SAMUEL MILLER 36 2 0 0 0 3 2 43 SCOTTSVILLE 20 6 0 0 0 0 0 26 WHITE HALL 30 0 0 0 0 2 0 32 TOTAL 141 19 2 0 0 5 2 169 Chart H. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 11 2 2 0 0 0 0 15 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 14 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 RIVANNA VILLAGE 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 69 19 2 0 0 0 0 90 RURAL AREA 1 16 0 0 0 0 1 0 17 RURAL AREA 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 RURAL AREA 3 28 0 0 0 0 3 1 32 RURAL AREA 4 14 0 0 0 0 I 1 16 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 72 0 0 0 0 5 2 79 TOTAL 141 19 2 0 0 5 2 169 Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources 2000 YEAR END BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 INDEX I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B) I1. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C & D) II1. Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart E) IV. Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (charts F-H) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF SFA SFFFH DUP MF MHC AA Single-Family (includes modular) Single-Family Attached Single-Family Townhouse Duplex Multi-Family Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) Accessory Apartment During the year of 2000, 649 building permits were issued for 650 dwelling units. In addition, 17 permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $42,500. I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month MONTH 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 JAN 183 49 190 50 26 54 38 49 52 FEB 72 56 53 43 44 44 39 84 43 MAR 64 58 72 47 61 57 65 65 54 APR 72 76 69 46 71 75 62 102 63 MAY 62 45 60 41 63 118 65 55 72 JUN 48 79 70 62 41 89 85 75 50 JUL 62 81 186 51 87 59 74 69 56 AUG 126 116 49 44 105 34 221 56 65 SEP 48 45 47 56 64 48 68 68 49 OCT 43 68 51 42 186 216 61 48 48 NOV 49 65 60 66 43 49 48 42 49 DEC 37 67 32 48 44 62 48 57 49 TOTAL 866 805 939 596 835 905 874 770 650 Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month 24O Chart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by MonthI 220 200 ~ao 160 140 120 100 so 4o 2o 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH r'11998 121999 12000j Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources (OOMGAIR), -3- YEAR END II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. D.U. RIO 42 0 0 0 0 0 1 43 7% JACK JOUETT 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 2% RIVANNA 192 33 6 0 0 10 3 244 38% SAMUEL MILLER 101 10 0 0 0 3 5 119 18% SCOTTSVILLE 76 20 0 0 0 6 1 103 16% WHITE HALL 119 2 0 0 0 '7 1 129 20% TOTAL 540 65 6 0 0 26 13 650 100% Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SFfT'H DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 58 10 6 0 0 0 0 74 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 22 20 0 0 0 0 0 42 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 38 8 0 0 0 0 0 46 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 CROZET COMMUNITY 51 2 0 0 0 0 0 53 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 44 21 0 0 0 9 1 75 PINEY MQUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 RIVANNA VILLAGE 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 287 65 6 0 0 9 2 369 RURAL AREA 1 61 0 0 0 0 5 1 67 RURAL AREA 2 54 0 0 0 0 0 3 57 RURAL AREA 3 79 0 0 0 0 5_ 3 87 RURAL AREA 4 59 0 0 0 0 7 4 70 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 253 0 0 0 0 17 11 281 TOTAL 540 65 6 0 0 26 13 650 Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources (OOMGAIR) -4- YEAR END III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Chart E. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ RIO 42' 7,115,840 128 5,440,079 22 13,396,961 108 6,836,130 300 32,789,010 JOUETT 12 2,879,500 44 1,508,759 1 1,987,000 27 1,773,020 84 8,148,279 RIVANNA 245 41,599,808 175 4,088,749 24 13,209,473 69 7,446,575 512 66,344,606 S. MILLER 118 26,674,825 197 9,049,540 12 1,655,900 25 1,975,061 352 39,355,326 SCOTTSVILLE 103 11,083,192 163 5,258,152 13 5,591,500 36 2,454,986 315 24,387,830 WHITE HALL 129 26,627,170 163 5,208,497 7 860,416 41 565,854 340 33,261,937 TOTAL 649 115,980,335 870 30,553,776 79 36,701,250 306 21,051,626 1,904 204,286,988 * Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential Alteration Category. IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY Chart F. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL PERCENT DISTRICT SF SFA SFFFH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. TOTAL D.U. Agnor-Hurt 14 3 18 0 0 0 0 35 5.49% Broadus Wood/Sutherland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Broadus Wood/Jouett 23 0 0 0 0 5 0 28 4.40% Brownsville 40 0 0 0 0 4 0 44 6.91% Crozet 31 3 0 0 0 2 0 36 5.65% Greer 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 1.26% Hollymead 8 8 10 0 0 0 0 26 4.08% Meriwether Lewis/Henley 10 0 0 0 0 · 0 0 10 1.57% Meriwether Lewis/Jouett 29 0 0 0 0 1 0 30 4.71% Murray 21 3 0 0 0 ' 0 0 24 3.77% Red Hill 24 0 0 0 0 3 2 29 4.55% Cale/Burley 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 28 4.40% Cale/VValton 63 22 0 0 0 0 0 85 13.34% Scottsville 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2,20% Stone Robinson/Burley 65 8 0 0 0 0 2 75 11.77% Stone Robinson/Walton 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1.41 % Stony Point/Burley 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 4.24% Stony Point/Sutherland 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 7.22% Woodbrook 60 12 0 0 0 0 0 72 11.30% Yancey 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 11 1.73% TOTAL 500 59 28 0 28 17 5 637 100.00% Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources -5- YEAR E ND IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (continued) Chart G. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA I~10 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 JACK JOUETT 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 RIVANNA 188 31 28 0 28 4 2 281 SAMUEL MILLER 105 9 0 0 0 5 2 121 SCOTTSVILLE 58 16' 0 0 0 2 0 76 WHITE HALL 94 3 0 0 0 6 0 103 TOTAL 500 59 28 0 28 17 5 637 Chart H. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 · 1 0 0 0 0 0 0. 1 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 42 3 18 0 10 0 0 73 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 25 8 0 0 18 0 0 51 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 22 16 0 0 0 0 0 38 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 44 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 3 ' 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CROZET COMMUNITY 45 3 0 0 0 0 0 48 HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 39' 9 10 0 0 4 0 62 PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 RIVANNA VILLAGE 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 263 59 28 0 28 4 0 382 RURAL AREA 1 55 0 0 0 0 4 1 60 RURAL AREA 2 61 0 0 0 0 0 2 63 RURAL AREA 3 76 0 0 0 0 6 1 83 RURAL AREA 4 45 0 0 0 0 3 1 49 RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 237 0 0 0 0 13 5 255 TOTAL 500 59 28' 0 28 17 5 637 Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources (OOMGAIR) AX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Vkginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TTD (804) 972-4012 March 8, 2001 John B and Diann R. Fiery Box 10 Earlysville, Virginia 22936 RE: Official Determination of Division Rights, Tax Map 9, Parcel 20A Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fiery: I have reviewed the title information you have submitted for the above-noted property. It is my official determination that this property consists of two (2) separate parcels: Parcel A - 8.39 acres (4 development rights) Parcel B - 36.84 acres (5 development rights and one 21-acre parcel) Each Of these lawfully separate parcels is entitled to the associated hypothetical development rights noted above. This determination results in one more parcel than is shown With a parcel number on the County tax malSs. As separ.ate parcels, they may be conveyed separately. This determination considered the descriptive clauses of the deed and the manner in which the properties were acquired as well as the plat entitled: Plat of a 45.23 Acre Tract Comprised of Parcels 'A' and 'B' drawn by O. R. Randolph and dated 1-26-67. At that time, parcel A consisting of 8.39 acres was already a separate parcel having been recorded in Deed Book 404, page 187. Parcel "B" consisting of 36.84 acres was created by that plat which was recorded in Deed Book 425 page 353. Furthermore, the property was acquired in two separate deeds. In each deed, the parcels are separately described and are referred to as "that certain tract or parcel of land" noting the acreage. This consideration is based on the findings of the Virginia Supreme Court in the case, Faison v. Union Camp 224 VA 54. The development rights are only hypothetical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots of less than 21 acres allowed, In addition to the development right lots, a .. C:Wfy Documents\Current Review~Letters\DR Der 9-20A. doc Fiery Division Rights, TMP9-20A Page 2 03/08/01 "parent parcel" may create as many parcels with a minimum of 21 acres as it has land to make. The subject property of 36+ acres would have a maximum development potential of six lots. So as not to exceed the 31-aggregate-acre limitation on small lots, one lot must be a minimum of 21 acres. The other five would be required to have a minimum of 2 acres each. Those same rights apply to dwelling units, in other words, the maximum number of dwellings allowed for this 36+ acres would be six, also. In order to utilize the rights, either for subdivision construction, you must meet all applicable regulations. these would include but not be limited to: purposes or for dwelling unit For dwelling unit construction, · demonstrating that you can meet regulations for subdividing, e.g., siting dwellings at least 50 feet apart so that a property line could be placed between dwellings and both lots meet their individual 25-foot side yard requirements; · demonstrating Health Department approval of septic disposal field sites for both primary and 100% reserve areas; · submitting a site plan if 3 or more dwellings were to be located on one parcel; and, · providing adequate frontage and road access. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia, If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. In order for an appeal to be considered complete, it shall include a completed application and $95 fee. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. Sincerely, Jan Sprinkle Deputy Zoning Administrator cc: Yadira Amaranthe, Planning Department Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey Clerk, Board of Supervisors Reading Files NOTE: One (1) additional parcel C.'~My Documents~Current Review~Letters~DR Det 9-20A. doc February 27, 2001 STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUE000584 APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, FOR APPROVAL OF A FUNCTIONAL SEPARATION PLAN UNDER THE VIRGINIA ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING ACT To: Local Government Officials Pursuan{ to the Order for Notice and Hearing (the Order) issued by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia on February 22, 2001, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Virginia Power") is hereby serving a copy of the Order on the Chairman of the Boards of Supervisors of each county and upon the mayor or manager of every county or city or equivalent officials in counties, towns and cities having alternate forms of government in Virginia Power's service territories. Please take notice of the contents of the Order. Thank you. Karen L. Bell Senior Counsel Enclosure 01 STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION AT RIC ~.,~OND, FEBRUARY 22, 2001 APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER CASE NO. PUE000584 COMPANY For approval of a Functional Separation Plan under the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act ORDER FOR NOTICE AND HEARING On November 1, 2000, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Virginia Power" or the "Company") filed with the Virginia State Corporation Commission ("the Commission") an application pursuant to Virginia Code § 56-590 B of the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act ("Restructuring Act" or "the Act"). The application seeks approval of a plan for the functional separation of the Company's generation, transmission, and distribution functions (the "Plan"). On December 12, 2000, the Company supplemented its application by filing its functionally unbundled cost of service study and tariffs as part of what it characterized as its "Phase II" filing. Under the Plan, the Company proposes to structurally separate its operations by transferring $6.7 billion in generation assets~ to Dominion Generation Corporation ("Dominion Generation"), an entity the Company has created, or will create. Dominion Generation would be engaged in the sale of electricity within the wholesale market, and its sale of electric power in that market would, therefore, be regulated exclusively by the Federal Energy Regulatory ~ This is the approximate value calculated by Virginia Power as of December 31, 1999, based on the Company's proposed methodology. The actual amount transferred will be based on book values at the date of transfer and the allocation methodologies approved by the Commission. The Company's generation asset values are detailed in the Plan's Appendix C. Commission ("FERC") and not by the Commission? The Company further proposes to distribute the stock of Dominion Generation to Virginia Power's parent company, Dominion Resources, Inc., in a tax-free spin-off. The Company also proposes to transfer to Dominion Generation the Company's rights and obligations under its non-utility generation contracts, together with other rights and obligations related to its generation operations. Virginia Power would, under the Plan, retain its transmission and distribution assets and operations, doing such business under the name "Dominion Virginia Power." This proposal, described in pp. 6-11 of the Plan, requires approval by the Commission pursuant to the Restructuring Act and also under the provisions of the Affiliates Act3 and the Utility Transfer Actfi According to the application, Virginia Power currently has outstanding approximately ~;3.8 billion in long-term debt. The Company states that essentially all of its assets are subject to liens of its mortgage bond indenture; the Company has covenant obligations in that indenture and other of its financings. The Company proposes, however, that following the transfer of Virginia Power's generation assets to Dominion Generation, Virginia Power's existing debt would nevertheless remain the obligation of Virginia Electric and Power Company, albeit operating under the trade name, Dominion Virginia Power. The Company proposes to reallocate payment responsibility for this debt between Dominion Virginia Power and Dominion Generation. In order to reallocate debt and to transfer the generation business out of Virginia Power, the Company states that it will undertake debt restructuring actions, which may include market-based -' Under § 201 (b) of the Federal Power Act (16 USC § 824), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") has exclusive jurisdiction over the sale of electric power in the wholesale market. 3 Chapter 4 (§ 56-76 et seq.) of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia. 4 Chapter 5 (§ 56-88 et seq.) of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia. purchases of debt obligations, defeasance, alternative security, and trustee or bondholder consentsfi According to the'Company's Plan, Dominion Virginia Power will be part of the Dominion's delivery business, which includes electric transmission operations, customer service and metering, and gas and electric distribution operations in Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Moreover, the Company proposes that Dominion Virginia Power would be deemed the "incumbent electric utility" under the Act, with all of the attendant responsibilities associated with that designation.6 5 According to the Company, the debt payment allocations will be performed with the assistance of outside investment bankers with the objectives that: (i) D~minion Resources maintain its current BBB+/Baal credit rating, (ii) Virginia Electric and Power Company doing business as "Dominion Virginia Power" maintain credit ratings as strong or stronger than the current A-/A3 senior unsecured rating it currently enjoys doing business as Virginia Power, and (iii) Dominion Generation achieve an investment grade credit rating. According to the Company, credit ratings will depend not only on the degree of financial leverage of the various entities, but also on measures of cash flow coverage. The extent of the debt realignment will therefore be significantly affected by the level ofunbundled rates received by each of the entities, as well as the operational expenses of each. For these reasons, the Company states in its filings that it is currently not possible to predict the level of debt at each of the entities, nor the precise form that the debt will take. Thus, the Company asserts, until such time as the Commission has approved the Plan, much of the financial restructuring will remain indeterminable, except in broad general terms. After determination of the unbtmdled rates in this case, and before any restructuring activity, the Company states that it will engage outside parties to undertake an analysis of the revenues associated with the unbtmdled rates, and the operational expenses of the entities, for the purpose of credit rating agency analysis and review. To the extent necessary, and insofar as practicable, the Company states that it will adjust the capital structures of the entities so as to achieve its ratings targets. With respect to the obligations of the Company other than taxable debt, such as tax-exempt financing and preferred stock, the Company has stated in this filing its plan to effect the transfer of these, or replacement obligations, to Dominion Generation, either by assumption or issuance of refunding obligations as part of the overall reallocation of debt obligations. The proceeds from any new issuances would be used to rebalance debt loads by paying down obligations of Dominion Virginia Power, including any required call premiums. The Company states that if it is unable to proceed with its proposed restructuring plan as detailed in its application, it may propose an alternate approach: transferring the transmission and distribution assets out of Virginia Power, rather ihan the generation assets. In that case, which would involve a revision of the Plan (including, according to the Company, shifting "incumbent electric utility status" under the Reslmcturing Act to a new entity created to hold the transmission and distribution businesses), a subsequent exchange offering would be made with the goal of achieving ratings objectives similar to those outlined above. 6 As discussed below, as the incumbent electric utility under the Restructuring Act, Dominion Virginia Power would be solely responsible for the former, vertically integrated utility's (Virginia Power) current statutory obligation to The Company's Plan further proposes that following its functional separation, Dominion Virginia Power will collect nuclear decommissioning funding costs (pursuant to the Company's Nuclear Decommissioning Funding Plan)? and wires charges8 from retail customers on behalf of Dominion Generation. Dominion Virginia Power (if designated the "incumbent electric utility" under the Act) would also be responsible for providing retail customers with capped rate service until July 1, 2007;9 it also will provide default service under the Act, if it is designated a default service provider pursuant to § 56-585. The Company's proposed Plan provides further that Dominion Generation will supply Dominion Virginia Power with electric power during and after the capped rate period pursuant to a power purchase agreement ("PPA") between Dominion Virginia Power and Dominion Generation. Upon expiration of the capped rate period, the Company proposes that any power purchases by Dominion Virginia Power from Dominion Generation under the PPA for the Company's default service customers will be at "prevailing market prices." ~0 According to the Company, the PPA, as described above, will ensure the provide capped rate service under § 56-582 and default service under § 56-585 for those customers who cannot or who choose not to shop for competitive generation suppliers. ? The proposal for Virginia Power to collect decommissioning funds from its ratepayers is discussed on pp. 20-22 of the Plan; the proposed Agent Agreement between Dominion Virginia Power and Dominion Generation is contained in the Plan's Appendix D. Virginia Power's Virginia jurisdictional ratepayers collectively pay $29 million annually toward the Company's nuclear decommissioning trust fund as set forth in the Company's Phase II filing in this proceeding, Volume 1 of 4, Appendix A, Schedule 4, page 1. 8 The Company's proposed accounting for the wires charges collected from ratepayers is discussed on pp. 22-23 of the Plan. o Capped rate service can be terminated on and after July 1, 2004, in an incumbent electric utility's service territory if the Commission, upon application of an incumbent, terminates such service pursuant to § 56-582 C of the Act. As a prerequisite to such early termination, however, the Commission must fred that an "effectively competitive market" exists in that service territory. lo Specifically, the Company states that "... Dominion Generation will be compensated at rates consistent with prevailing market prices for service provided to Dominion Virginia Power necessary for it to meet any assigned default service role for customers who still need a transitional safety net. Dominion Virginia Power's rates for default service would be subject to Commission review to ensure they are fairly compensatory and reflect prudently procured energy costs." Plan, pp. 33-34. 4 availability of generation assets or their equivalent for services to Dominion Virginia Power's retail customers.~ ~- It should be noted, however, that the proposed PPA's pricing provision for default service at "prevailing market prices" after July 1, 2007, is not consistent with the provisions of Senate Bill 1420 ("SB 1420") passed by the 2001 Session of the Virginia General Assembly and currently awaiting action by the Governor. SB 1420 amends § 56-585 of the Restructuring Act, requiring that default service provided by incumbent electric utilities after July 1, 2007, be priced with reference to competitive regional electricity markets? Consequently, the Company's Plan must be amended to reflect the changes this legislation makes to the Restructuring Act-- including those that change the pricing of generation default service provided by incumbent utilities on and after July 1, 2007. Accordingly, we hereby direct the Company to supplement its application, by May 1,2001, to conform the provisions thereof concerning the pricing of default service to the requirements of the new law.~3 For use on and after January I, 2002, Virginia Power's functional separation Plan proposes an index-based fuel cost recovery mechanism that forecasts generation by fuel types and uses projected fuel price indices. The new fuel factor proposal provides for a true-up, or reconciliation of forecasted fuel prices with historical prices. Any under-recovery or The proposed PPA is described in the Plan on pp. 28-36; the proposed PPA is included in the Plan's Appendix E. ~2 SB 1420's revisions to § 56-585 further provide that in the event the Commission is unable to identify competitive regional electricity markets where competition is an effective regulator of rates, then the Commission is required to establish default service generauon rates by "setting rates that would approximate those likely to be produced in a competitive regional electricity market." ~3 The Commission recognizes that the provisions of SB 1420 will not become effective until July 1, 2001. However, given the short period of time in which the Company's functional separation plan must be considered, it will be crucial to the Company, this Commission and all interested parties to have available for full review and consideration as early as possible, the Company's plans for default service generation procurement on and after July 1, 2007, that conform to the requirements of SB 1420. 5 over-recovery balance would be carried forward to the next fuel period. This process would continue until the fuel factor terminates at the end of capped rate service.TM As required by the Commission's functional separation rules, the Company proposes in its Plan to unbundle its rates to reflect the separation and deregulation of its generation business. The Company's proposed unbundled tariffs, rates, and terms and conditions of service are included in its December 12, 2000, filing. The unbundled rates are based on a functionally unbundled cost of service study for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 1999. Significantly, Virginia Power proposes a "minimum stay" period of twelve consecutive months for those of its customers who return to the Company for capped rate generation service following such customers' switching to competitive suppliers. 15 According to the Company, while its customers do have a statutory right of return under the Restructuring Act,~6 a minimum stay period is necessary to prevent inappropriate supplier "gaming" of the market. On page 41 of its Plan, the Company has also requested waivers of certain requirements within the Commission's functional separation rules. The waivers requested concern the following filings required by these rules: (i) jurisdictional breakdown of the cost of service 14 The proposed fuel cost recovery mechanism is described on pp. 23-28 of the Plan. A supplemental filing concerning the Company's proposed fuel factor methodology was filed with the Commission on November 29, 2000. Fuel factor recoveries include the cost of assessments made by the federal government for (i) permanent disposal of spent fuel and, (ii) the decommissioning and decontamination of government owned nuclear facilities. The Company advised in its 2000 Fuel Factor proceeding (Case No. PUE000585), that for calendar year 1999, the Company expensed approximately $25.5 million for both of these items on a Virginia jurisdictional basis. ~s Virginia Power's "Phase II" filing, filed December 12, 2000, Volume 4 of 4, Appendix F (Unbundled Rate Schedules), pp. 2 and 3. 56-582 D. 6 studies, (ii) proposed systems of account for Dominion Generation, and (iii) estimates of costs to unbundle the Company. t7 In a separate filing dated November 29, 2000, the Company furnished updated data for its proposed fuel factor methodology. The Company's December 12, 2000, filing included: (i) a cost of service study, (ii) unbundled rates, and (iii) proposed terms and conditions of service. The Company's December 12 filing also requested a waiver of the requirement that its cost of service study be subdivided by class costs for metering and billing.~ ~ In conjunction with Virginia Power's proposed transfer of its generating assets and operations to Dominion Generation, Dominion Generation plans to own and operate the generating assets transferred to it by Virginia Power as an exempt wholesale generator, or EWG, not subject to regulation by the Commission. An EWG's generation assets are denominated "eligible facilities." According to the Company, the federal Public Utility Holding Company Act ~? The Company provided no explanation in its application for the waiver request concerning the requirement (under the Commission's functional separation roles) that the Company file cost of service studies reflecting total company and total Virginia operations, and separating total Virginia operations into Virginia jurisdictional operations and Virginia non-jurisdictional operations (20 VAC 5-202-40 B 7). However, the Commission has been advised by the Commission Staffthat the Company desires to furnish a cost of service study separating its operations into the following four categories corresponding to methodology it has employed in prior rate proceedings: Virginia jurisdictional. Virgima nonjurisdictional, FERC, and North Carolina. The other two waivers correspond to 20 VAC 5-202 40 B 6 e (proposed system of accounts for any affected, affiliated generation company), and 20 VAC 5-202-40 (estimates of the cost of functional separation, and an explanation of how these costs will be shared by proposed functionally separate entities). With respect to the waiver requested concerning Dominion Generation's system of accounts, the Company simply states that the same has not yet been developed (Company's November 1, 2000, filing, pg. 41). ~8 The waiver is requested in the Company's December 12, 2000, filing in Volume 1, pg. 4 thereof. The requirement to subdivide class costs for metering and billing services within the Company's cost of service study is established under 20 VAC 5-20240 B 7 c of the Commission's functional separation roles. The Company proposes that this information not be required until the Virginia General Assembly acts on the Commission's draft plan for competitive metering and billing services. That draft plan was presented to the General Assembly's Legislative Transition Task Force in December 2000; the plan's principal recommendations for competitive billing were incorporated into Senate Bill 1420("SB 12420") passed by the 2001 Session of the General Assembly. SB 1420 also establishes competitive metering as part of Virginia's restructuring implementation--an element not present in the Commission's Plan which had proposed that competitive metering receive further study and consideration. Thus, the Virginia General Assembly has acted on these issues. of 1935 ("PUHCA") requires under 15 U.S.C.A. § 79z-5a(c) (1997) thereof, that as a prerequisite to the treatment of Virginia Power's generating facilities as "eligible facilities" utilized by an EWG in the wholesale market, and no longer subject to regulation by the Virginia State Corporation Commission, this Commission must determine that such treatment (i) will benefit consumers, (ii) is in the public interest, and (iii) does not violate State law? Virginia Power has requested that this Commission make such findings in conjunction with its review of this Plan. The Company is also asking for additional Commission findings under PUHCA. These findings relate to the proposed wholesale purchased power agreement between Dominion Virginia Power and Dominion Generation (described above and referred to as the "PPA"). As noted by the Company, since Dominion Generation will be an EWG affiliate of Dominion Virginia Power, federal law prohibits Dominion Virginia Power and Dominion Generation from entering into a wholesale power purchase agreement unless this Commission finds that it has sufficient regulatory authority, resources, and access to books and records of Dominion Virginia Power and any relevant associate, affiliate, or subsidiary company to exercise its duties under 15 U.S.C.A. § 79z-Sa(k)(2) (1997). Those duties, imposed upon the Commission by federal law, require the Commission to determine that the proposed transaction: (i) will benefit consumers; (ii) does not violate any state law (including where applicable, least cost planning); (iii) would t9 As noted by the Company on pp. 4 and 5 of its Plan, an EWG must be directly (or indirectly through an affiliate as defined in 15 U.S.C.A. § 79b(a)(11)(B) (1997)) and exclusively engaged in the business of owning and/or operating "eligible facilities" and selling electric energy at wholesale. 15 U.S.C.A. § 79z-5a (a)(1). An "eligible facility" is a facility used exclusively for the generation of electricity for sale at wholesale or used for the generation of electricity and leased to one or more public utility companies. 15 U.S.C.A. § 79z-5a(a)(2) (1997). Moreover, because the generating facilities to be transferred to Dominion Generation were in the rate base of Virginia Power on the date that section 32 of PUHCA, 15 U.S.C.A. § 79z-Sa (1997) was originally enacted (October 24, 1992), these generating facilities cannot be considered "eligible facilities" for EWG purposes unless the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the North Carolina Utilities Commission each make a specific determination that allowing the facilities to be deemed eligible facilities (1) will benefit consumers, (2) is in the public interest, and (3) does not violate State law. 15 U.S.C.A. § 79z-5a(c) (1997). not provide Dominion Generation any unfair competitive advantage by virtue of its affiliation or association with Dominion Virginia Power; and (iv) is in the public interest.2° Virginia Power has asked in its Plan that the-Commission make such findings. The Company states that the proposed legal separation of the generation operations from the transmission and distribution operations complies with the Act, and specifically § 56-590 of the Code of Virginia. The accounts and employees of the two operations will be separated.21 Virginia Power further asserts that its Plan (i) provides safeguards against cross-subsidies between regulated and unregulated entities,22 and (ii) ensures that its generation assets or their equivalent remain available for electric service during the capped rate period and any period during which Dominion Virginia Power serves as a default supplier. Finally, Virginia Power asserts that the proposed functional separation of its regulated and unregulated business activities, its proposed internal controls, and the terms and conditions of the PPA will prevent anti-competitive behavior or self-dealing and discriminatory behavior toward non-affiliated units. Virginia Power further declares that its Plan will not jeopardize or impair the safety or reliability of the Company's transmission and distribution systems and service. Likewise, the Company declares that the Plan will neither jeopardize nor impair the safety or reliability of the generation system and service to customers. Additionally, the Company states that the generation, transmission, and distribution assets will continue to be operated by the same 20 15 U.S.C.A. § 79z-5.a(k)(2)(A)(1997). ~' The account balance allocation methodology proposed to accomplish this is described on pp. 15-20 of the Plan; the proposed unbundled balance sheet is included in Schedule C. 22 The proposed internal controls for avoiding cross-subsidies and anti-competitive behavior are set forth in the Plan's Appendix B. 9 personnel and according to the same standards that in the past have allowed Virginia Power to achieve high levels of safety and reliability. Virginia Power states that its plan to separate its generation assets and operations from its transmission and distribution assets and operations is consistent with the intent of the Virginia General Assembly as reflected in the Act and ensures that the Company's high standards for reliable electric service will be maintained. Moreover, the Company states that "Virginia Power's provision of adequate, reliable and safe service, at just and reasonable rates, will not be impaired or jeopardized by the Commission's approval of the Plan."23 Thus, the Company requests approval of the Plan, including: (i) the proposed transfer of its generation assets and operations; (ii) the Nuclear Decommissioning Funding Plan; (iii) the fuel cost recovery mechanism; (iv) the proposed form of the PPA; (v) findings required by the Public Utility Holding Company Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § § 79 to 79z-6 (1997); and (vi) any other approvals required under §§ 56-76 to 56- 87, 56-88 to 56-92, 56-582 E, and 56-590 B of the Code of Virginia. Finally, we note that Virginia Power filed a motion with the Commission on November 21, 2000, seeking a protective order concerning certain information it will disclose in supplemental filings that it deems "confidential" or "competitively sensitive." Specifically, the information in question concerns (i) information required to determine the Company's annual billing factors and pr/ce indices for purposes of fuel cost recovery under the fuel factor methodology proposed in the Plan, (ii) information contained in its cost of service studies, 23 Plan, pg. 40. 10 unbundled tariffs, rates, and terms and conditions of service included in its December 12, 2000, filing, and (iii) information to be furnished in this matter in response to data requests from the' Commission's Staff, the Office of the Attorney General, and other parties participating in this proceeding. The Company asserts that unlimited public disclosure of this information will place Virginia Power and its affiliates at a competitive disadvantage relative to other competitors. Consequently, the Company desires that access to information deemed competitively sensitive be restricted to Virginia Power, the Commission's Staff, the Attorney General, or other parties in this proceeding, together with their counsel, expert witnesses, and support personnel working on this matter. The Company further requests that any such persons execute a document described as an "Agreement to Adhere to Protective Order," a copy of which is annexed to the Company's motion. Such persons, however, are subject to further procedures and restrictions including restrictions concerning access to such information, the information's introduction at any hearing, and other such restrictions as are outlined in the Company's motion. Moreover, the Company states that it reserves the right to withhold information where it considers the information to be so commercially sensitive that it should not be disclosed to a particular requestor. NOW THE COMMISSION, upon consideration of this matter, is of the opinion that notice should be given of Virginia Power's filing in this matter, that interested persons should have the opportunity to comment or participate as protestants, and that a heating should be scheduled in this proceeding. The Commission has also reviewed the Company's requests in its initial application for waivers of the following filings required by the Commission's functional separation rules: (i) jurisdictional breakdown of the cost of service Studies, (ii) proposed systems of account for 11 Dominion Generation, and (iii) estimates of costs to unbundle the company. We also note the Company's request in its December 12, 2000, filing for waivers within its cost of service study of the subdivision of metering and billing costs by class. We will grant, in part, Virginia Power's waiver requests, as follows. We will grant the Company's request for waivers pertaining to jurisdictional breakdowns of its cost of service study. Accordingly, the Company may determine fimctionally unbundled rates by class based on a jurisdictional cost of service study prepared consistent with the methodology employed by the Company in prior rate proceedings, i.e., utilizing four categories: Virginia jurisdictional, Virginia nonjurisdictional, FERC, and North Carolina. The other two waiver requests concerning (i) proposed system of accounts for Dominion Generation, and (ii) an estimate of the cost to functionally unbundle the Company will be denied. Accordingly, such information shall be provided once it is available, but not later than May 1, 2001. We believe this information is necessary to the Commission in obtaining a complete understanding of the Company's proposal. With respect to information concerning Dominion Generation's system of accounts, we note that the Company's Plan has various proposals to transfer costs between Dominion Generation and Dominion Virginia Power (including the PPA, nuclear decommissioning funding, wires charges, and debt payment responsibility). An understanding of the transaction flow to both companies' books of account is essential to the Commission's complete analysis and understanding of the proposals. We further find that provision of an estimate of the cost to accomplish the Company's unbundling plan is a reasonable requirement. The Commission may want to require specific accounting treatment for this cost. We emphasize that what is called for here is,'in fact, an 12 estimate and that we understand and anticipate that the actual mount will vary based on any number of factors. However, the Company should provide an estimate of the costs of the proposals submitted in its Plan. Should the Plan change significantly, updated estimates may be required. With respect to the Company's request for waivers within its cost of service study of the subdivision of metering and billing costs by class, that request is denied. As required by the Restructuring Act, the Commission presented its plan for competitive metering and billing to the Virginia General Assembly's Legislative Transition Task Force ("LTTF") in December 2000. As part of its 2000 proceedings, the LTTF recommended an omnibus bill to the 2001 Session of the General Assembly, making several significant changes to the Act. This bill, introduced in the 2001 Session as Senate Bill 1420 ("SB 1420"), includes virtually all of the commission's recommendation for competitive billing, i.e., competitive supplier direct and consolidated billing.24 SB 1420 also authorizes competitive metering services to begin as early as 2002.25 This bill has been passed by the 2001 Session of the General Assembly, and thus it is expected that competitive metering and billing will be part of the Restructuring Act as of July 1, 2001. Consequently, class costs for metering and billing by this and other companies will be essential to the Commission's implementation of competitive billing and metering services. Accordingly, we direct the Company to promptly provide that information on or before May 1, 2001, such information to be consistent with then existing statutory requirements, including any 24Under the bill, competitive service provider ("CSP") direct billing would be authorized in 2002, with CSP consolidated billing (billing for both generation and distribution services) authorized to begin in 2003. 25 SB 1420's provisions authorize competitive metering services as early as 2002 for large induslxial customers and large commercial customers of investor-owned disU'ibutors, and for residential and small business customers of investor-owned distributors as early as 2003. 13 amendments to the Restructuring Act concerning competitive metering or billing enacted by the 2001 Session of the Virginia General Assembly. Finally, as part of the procedural schedule established herein, we will direct the Staff to convene a meeting or meetings among the Company, the Office of the Attorney General (should that office participate herein), all Protestants, and Staff for the purpose of identifying and discussing the issues raised by this application and exploring the possibility of narrowing the issues to be presented at hearing through settlement or stipulation. The Staff counsel assigned to this case will be directed to advise the Commission, by letter, of the results of these discussions. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) This matter is docketed and assigned Case No. PUE000584. (2) A public hearing on this matter is hereby scheduled for October 10, 2001, commencing at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's Second Floor courtroom, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond Virginia. (3) Virginia Power shall make its Plan available to the public, who may obtain a copy of this application by requesting it in writing from Virginia Power's Counsel, Edward L. Flippen, Esquire, McGuireWoods LLP at One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia, or who may inspect the Plan, and all materials Virginia Power may subsequently file in this proceeding during regular business hours at Virginia Power's business office located at One James River Plaza, Richmond, Virginia. (4) On or before May 1, 2001, the Company shall file (i) its prefiled testimony in support of its application herein, (ii) all information required to complete the application as directed herein, together with any amendments to the Plan necessitated by the 2001 General Assembly's 14 passage of Senate Bill 1420, and (iii) all other information and data upon which the Company relies in support of its application herein. (5) Any interested person desiring to participate as a protestant in this matter, shall file their notice of protest on or before May 15, 2001, concurrently serving copies thereof on counsel for the Commission Staff, and counsel for the Company. An original and fifteen (15) copies of any such notice of protest shall be filed by May 15, 2001, with the Clerk of the Commission, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, and shall refer to Case No. PUE000584. (6) Staffshall convene a preheating conference of the parties on or before June 22, 2001, and thereafter as the Staff and parties find desirable, to explore the possibility of narrowing the case through stipulation or settlement of particular issues. (7) Staff counsel shall advise the Commission, by letter, of results of the preheating conference(s) on or before July 31, 2001. (8) On or before August 15, 2001, any interested 'person desiring to comment on the Company's Plan shall file an original and fifteen copies of any such comments with the Clerk of the Commission, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218} and shall refer therein to Case No. PUE000584. Such persons shall concurrently serve copies of any such comments on counsel for the Commission Staff, counsel for the Company, and upon any protestants herein. (9) On or before August 24, 2001, protestants shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of their protests and any prefiled testimony with the Clerk of the Commission and shall concurrently serve copies thereof on counsel for the Commission Staff, counsel for the Company, and on other protestants herein. (10) The Commission Staff shall review the proposed Plan and, on or before September 7, 2001, shall file with the Clerk of the Commission an original and fifteen (15) 15 copies of its prefiled testimony concerning the same and shall concurrently serve a copy thereof on counsel for Virginia Power and any protestants. (11) On or before September 17, 2001, Virginia Power shall file with the Clerk of the Commission an original and fifteen (15) copies of its rebuttal testimony and shall concurrently serve a copy thereof on counsel for the Commission Staff and any protestants. (12) Virginia Power and any other parties shall respond to interrogatories and data requests within ten (10) days of service. Exceptions to any such interrogatories or data requests shall be filed within seven (7) days of service. Except as otherwise modified herein, discovery shall be in accordance with Part VI of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. (13) Pursuant to Rule 7:1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing examiner is hereby appointed to adjudicate any disputes concerning interrogatories, data requests, or any other discovery requested or made in this proceeding. Any such adjudication shall be made expeditiously with due regard to the timetable for this proceeding established by this Order. (14) The Commission's Staff, protestants, and other parties to this proceeding shall file responses, if any, to the Company's Motion for a Protective Order on or before March 15, 2001. Virginia Power may submit a reply thereto on or before April 2, 2001. Pending the Commission's determination of such motion, the Commission's Staff, together with any experts or consultants it may employ in conjunction with this matter, may review, on a confidential basis, any information previously or subsequently filed by the Company with the Clerk of the Commission in this matter and designated as "confidential" or "competitively sensitive." (15) With respect to Virginia Power's requests within its application herein for waivers of certain provisions of the Commission's functional separation rules, the Commission hereby 16 grants the Company's request for a waiver pertaining to the jurisdictional breakdown of its cost of service studies. Accordingly, the Company may determine fimctionally unbundled rates by class based on a jurisdictional cost of service study prepared consistent with the methodology employed by the Company in prior rate proceedings, i.e., utilizing four categories: Virginia jurisdictional, Virginia nonjufisdictional, FERC, and North Carolina. However, the Company's requests for waivers concerning (i) the proposed system of accounts for Dominion Generation, (ii) estimates of costs to unbundle the company, and (iii) the subdivision of metering and billing costs by class are denied consistent with our findings and requirements concerning the same set forth above. (16) On or before March 9, 2001, Virginia Power shall cause the following notice to be published as display advertising (not classified) in newspapers of general circulation in its Virginia service territories: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION BY VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN TO SEPARATE ITS GENERATION, TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSETS AND ACTIVITIES CASE NO. PUE000584 On November 1, 2000, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Virginia Power" or the "Company") filed an application with the Virginia State Corporation Commission ("the Commission"), pursuant to Virginia Code § 56-590 B of the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act ("Restructuring Act" or "the Act"), for approval of a plan for the functional separation of its generation, transmission and distribution assets, and activities (the "Plan"). Under the Plan, the Company proposes to structurally separate its functions by transferring its $6.7 billion in generation assets to Dominion Generation Corporation ("Dominion Generation"), a company it has created or will create. Virginia Power proposes to distribute the stock of Dominion Generation to its parent company, Dominion Resources, Inc., ("Dominion Resources") in a tax-free spin-off. 17 The Company also proposes to transfer to Dominion Generation its rights and obligations under Virginia Power's non-utility generation contracts and other rights and obligations related to its generation operations. Virginia Power would retain its transmission and distribution assets and operations, doing business as "Dominion Virginia Power." Furthermore, following the transfer of Virginia Power's generation assets to Dominion Generation, all of Virginia Power's current outstanding long-term debt (approximately $3.8 billion), would nevertheless remain the obligation of Virginia Electric and Power Company, albeit operating under the trade name, Dominion Virginia Power. Virginia Power's existing payment obligations on this debt would be allocated between Dominion Virginia Power and Dominion Generation. As proposed under its Plan, Dominion Virginia Power would no longer own any electric generation assets but would purchase all power used by its customers from Dominion Generation. Following the end of capped rates provided by the Restructuring Act, Virginia Power proposes that it purchase power for any default service customers it is required to serve thereafter, at rates no longer subject to regulation by the Commission. According to the Company's Plan, Dominion Virginia Power will be part of Dominion Resources' delivery business, which includes electric transmission operations, customer service and metering, and gas and electric distribution operations in Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Dominion Virginia Power would be designated an "incumbent electric utility" under the Act. Essentially all of Virginia Power's assets are subject to the lien of its mortgage bond indenture, and the Company has covenant obligations in that indenture and other of its financings. In order to reallocate debt and to transfer the generation business out of Virginia Power in compliance with these obligations, the Company proposes to undertake debt-restructuring actions. These actions, according to the Company, may include market-based purchases of debt obligations, defeasance, alternative security, and trustee or bondholder consents. If these restructuring approaches do not succeed, the Company may propose a different approach: transferring Virginia Power's transmission and distribution assets to a new entity, while Virginia Power would retain the generation assets. In that case, the Company would propose to shift 18 "incumbent electric utility" status under the Restructuring Act from Virginia Power to that new entity. The Company's Plan further proposes that following its functional separation, Dominion Virginia Power will collect nuclear decommissioning funding costs and wires charges from retail customers on behalf of Dominion Generation. Dominion Virginia Power would also be responsible for providing retail customers with capped rate service until July 1, 2007 (or until any earlier date that capped rates are terminated pursuant to the Act); it also will provide default service under the Act, if it is designated a default service provider. The Company's proposed Plan further provides that Dominion Generation will supply Dominion Virginia Power with electric power during and after the capped rate period pursuant to a power purchase agreement ("PPA") between Dominion Virginia Power and Dominion Generation. Upon expiration or termination of the capped rate period, the Company proposes that any power purchases by Dominion Virginia Power from Dominion Generation under the PPA will be at prevailing market prices (although Senate Bill 1420, passed by the 2001 Virginia General Assembly would require that generation default service provided by incumbent electric utilities after July 1, 2007, be priced with reference to competitive regional electricity markets). According to the Company, the PPA, as described above, will ensure the availability of generation assets or their equivalent for services to Dominion Virginia Power's retail customers. For use on and after January 1, 2002, Virginia Power's functional separation Plan proposes an index-based fuel cost recovery mechanism based on forecasted generation by fuel types and projected fuel price indices. The new fuel factor proposal provides for a true-up, or reconciliation of forecasted fuel prices with historical prices. According to the proposed Plan, any under-recovery or over-recovery balance will be added to or subtracted from the next fuel period until the fuel factor terminates at the end of capped rate service. As required by the Commission's functional separation rules, the Company proposes in its Plan to unbundle its rates to reflect the separation and deregulation of its generation business. The Company supplemented its application on December 12, 2000, with the filing of its proposed unbundled tariffs, rates, and terms and conditions of service in what it describes as "Phase Il" of its 19 filing. The unbundled rates will be based on the functionally unbundled cost of service study for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 1999. Significantly, as part of that filing, Virginia Power has proposed a "minimum stay" period of twelve months for those customers who return to the Company for capped rate generation service following such customers' switching to competitive suppliers. That is, a customer who takes competitive service from an alternative supplier would have to subscribe to Dominion Virginia Power service for at least 12 consecutive months if the customer desired to return to Dominion Virginia Power service. According to the Company, this requirement will help prevent "seasonal gaming" by customers who might otherwise choose to purchase generation services from a competitive supplier during low-cost months (i.e., non-summer), returning to the utility for capped rate service during the high cost months (i.e., summer). Virginia Power has also requested Commission findings relative to approvals it seeks under federal law concerning the proposed transfer of its generating assets and operations to Dominion Generation, an entity that will be engaged in the sale of electricity within the wholesale market and not subject to regulation by the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Specifically, under the federal Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 ("PUHCA"), the Commission must find that the proposed generation asset and operations transfers (i) will benefit consumers, (ii) are in the public interest, and (iii) do not violate State law. The Company is also asking for an additional Commission finding under PUHCA concerning the proposed purchase power agreement between Dominion Virginia Power and Dominion Generation. Under PUHCA provisions, Dominion Virginia Power and Dominion Generation cannot enter into a wholesale power purchase agreement unless this Commission makes a determination that the Commission has sufficient regulatory authority, resources, and access to books and records of Dominion Virginia Power and any relevant associate, affiliate, or subsidiary company to exercise its duties under 15 U.S.C.A. § 79z-Sa(k)(2) (1997). Those duties, imposed upon the Commission by federal law, require the Commission to determine that the proposed transaction (i) will benefit consumers, (ii) does not violate any state law (including where applicable, least cost planning), (iii) would not provide Dominion Generation any unfair competitive advantage by virtue of its affiliation or association with Dominion Virginia Power, and (iv) is in the public interest. Virginia Power asks in its Plan that the Commission make such a finding. 20 Virginia Power declares that its Plan to separate its generation assets and operations from its transmission and distribution assets and operations is consistent with the intent of the Virginia General Assembly as reflected in the Act and ensures that the Company's high standards for reliable electric service will be maintained. Thus, as set forth above, the Company requests approval of the Plan, including approval of the following: (i) transfer of the generation assets and operations; (ii) the Nuclear Decommissioning Funding Plan; (iii) the fuel costs recovery mechanism; (iv) the form of the PPA, including the necessary findings required by the Public Utility Holding Company Act; and (v) any other approvals necessary under §§ 56-76 to -87, 56-88 to -92, 56-582(E), and 56-590(B) of the Code of Virginia. A public hearing on this matter before the Commission has been scheduled for October 10, 2001, to commence at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's Second Floor Courtroom, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia for the purpose of receiving evidence related to the Company's functional separation Plan. Any person desiring to make a statement at the hearing should appear in the Commission's courtroom at 9:45 a.m. on the hearing date and identify himself or herself to the bailiff as a public witness. Individuals with disabilities who require an accommodation to participate in the hearing should contact the Commission at 1-800-552-7945 (voice), or 1-804-371-9206) (TDD) at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date. A copy of Virginia Power's functional separation plan is available for public inspection between the hours of 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in. the Commission's Document Control Center located on the first floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, and at Virginia Power's business office located at One James River Plaza, Richmond, Virginia, during its regular business hours. The application may also be requested in writing from Virginia Power's counsel, Edward L. Flippen, Esquire, McGuireWoods LLP at One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030. The Commission encourages the participation of the public in this important proceeding. Any interested person desiring to file a notice of protest and protest concerning the Company's Plan shall file (i) any such notice of protest by May 15, 2001, and (ii) any protest and any prefiled testimony on or before August 24, 2001. Additionally, any person desiring to file comments concerning the 21 Company's proposed Plan shall file comments thereon on or before August 15, 2001. An original and fifteen (15) copies of comments or of any notice of protest and protest, prefiled testimony, or other written communications concerning Virginia Power's functional separation application shall be filed with the Clerk of the Commission, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, referring to Case No. PUE000584, and shall also be served on Virginia Power's counsel at the address noted above. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the Commission's Order for Notice and Comment, establishing the proceeding in this matter and setting forth the complete procedural schedule applicable thereto, from the Commission's web site, http://www.state.va.us/scc/caseinfo/orders.htm, or by directing a written request for a copy of the same to Joel H. Peck, Clerk of the Commission, at P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, referring to Case No. PUE000584. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (17) On or before March 9, 2001, Virginia Power shall serve a copy of this Order upon governmental entities within its service territories as follows: (i) upon the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of any county, (ii) upon the mayor or manager of any county or city, or (iii) upon officials comparable to the foregoing within counties, cities, or towns having altemate forms of governments. Service shall be made by first-class mail, or by delivery.to the customary place of business or the residence of the person served. (18) On or before April 2, 2001, Virginia Power shall file with the Clerk of the Commission proof of the notice and service required by ordering paragraphs (16) and (17). (19) This matter is continued for further orders of the Commission. AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to: all Virginia Electric Cooperatives and Electric Utilities as set out in Appendix A to this Order; the gas utilities subject to the. Commission's regulation as set out in Appendix B to this Order; 22 Edward L. Flippen, Esquire, McGuireWoods LLP, One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030; Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Virginia Electric and Power Company, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261; Guy T. Tripp, III, Esquire, and Evans B. Brasfield, Esquire, Hunton & Williams, Riverfront Plaza, East Tower, 951 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074; Philip F. Abraham, Esquire, Hazel & Thomas, P.C., P.O. Box 788, Richmond, virginia 23206; John A. Pirko, Esquire, LeClair Ryan, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, #200, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060; Donald R. Hayes, Esquire, Washington Gas Light Company, 1100 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20080; Dennis Alexander, and James E. Franklin, Cogentrix Energy, Inc., 9405 Arrowpoint Boulevard, Charlotte, North Carolina 28273-8110; Kathryn Ellerton, Honeywell, 101 Columbia Road, Morristown, New Jersey 07962; Eric R. Todderun, Esquire, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, 200 S.W. Market Street, #1750, Portland, Oregon 97201; Jean Ann Fox, Vice President, Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 114 Coachman Drive, Yorktown, Virginia 23693; John F. Dudley, Esquire, Office of Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, 900 East Main Street, Second Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Dennis R. Bates, Esquire, Office of Fairfax County, 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 549, Fairfax, Virginia 22035-0064; Frederick H. Ritts, Esquire, and Vincent P. Duane, Esquire, 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20007; Andrew Gelbaugh, C.C. Page Resources, 4375 Faiflakes Court, #2000, Fairfax, Virginia 22033; Jim O'Reilly, McKinsey & Company, Inc., 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20004; S. Lynn Sutcliffe, Sycom Enterprises, 1010 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 340, Washington, D.C. 20007; Allen C. Barringer, Esquire, Potomac Electric Power Company, 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 841, Washington, D.C. 20068; Frann G. Francis, 1050 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; David B. Keamey, Esquire, City of 23 Richmond, 900 East Broad Street, Suite 300, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Steven W. Ruback, The Columbia Group, Inc., 785 Washington Street, Canton, Massachusetts 02021; Mid-Atlantic Power Supply Association, Suzanne Daycock, 1153 Sycamore Lane, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430; Jeffrey M. Gleason, Esquire, Southern Environmental Law Center, 201 West Main Street, Suite 14, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902; Douglas D. Wilson, Esquire, Wilson & Associates, P.C., P.O. Box 8190, Roanoke, Virginia 24014; Joe Lenzi, Energy Engineer, CEK Consulting Engineering, P.O. Box 907, Mechanicsville, Virginia 23111; Carter Glass, IV, Esquire, Municipal Electric Power Association, P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1122; James H. Gentry, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801; Louis R. Monacell, Esquire, Christian & Barton, 909 East Main Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219-3095; Dasil R. Sizemore, System Council U-1, IBEW, P.O. Box 6537, Richmond, Virginia 23230; Sarah D. Sawyer, Legal Assistant, Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P., 2000 K Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20006-1872; Karen Sinclair, National Renewable Energy Lab, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401; Albert J. Francese, Esquire, 6597 Rockland Drive, Clifton, Virginia 22024; Pamela Walker, Esquire, and Michael C. Regulinski, Esquire, Virginia Electric and Power Company, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261; Glenn J. Berger, Esquire, Union Camp Corporation, 1440 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-2111; Richard Silkman, Richard Silkman & Associates, 163 Main Street, Yarmouth, Maine 04096; Robert Blohm, 3 Dover Road, Hamilton, New Jersey 08620; James R. Kibler, Jr., Esquire, McCandlish Kaine & Grant, P.O. Box 796, Richmond, Virginia 23218; Sarah Hopkins Finley, Esquire, Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, P.O. Box 1320, Richmond, Virginia 23210; Josh Flynn, KPMG Peat Marwick, 8200 Greensboro Drive, #400, McLean, Virginia 22102; Donald A. Fickenscher, Esquire, Virginia Natural Gas 24 Company, 5100 East Virginia Beach Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23502; Allen Glover, Esquire, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, P.O. Box 14125, Roanoke, Virginia 24011; J. Christopher LaGow, Esquire, Law Office of J. Christopher LaGow, One Capitol Square, 830 East Main Street, Suite 1500, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Susan G. George, Esquire, CNG Energy Services Corporation, 625 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222; Howard Friedman, MC2, Inc., 701 East 22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148-5072; Joelle K. Ogg, Esquire, John & Hengerer, 1200 17th Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20036; Coralette Marshall, Legislative Representative, Department of State Affairs, AARP, 601 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20049; Mary E. Tighe, Statoil Energy Trading, Inc., 2800 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Archibald Wallace, III, Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, P.O. Box 1998, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1998; Edward L. Petrini, Esquire, Christian & Barton, 909 East Main Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219-3095; R. Peter Lalor, Commonwealth Power Corporation, P.O. Box 13066, Norfolk, Virginia 23506; William S. Bilenky, Esquire, 8133 Forest Hill Avenue, Suite 101, Richmond, Virginia 23235; Marc C. Hebert, Esquire, Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P., 2000 K Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20006-1872; Kerri L. Boyer, Multitrade of Pittsylvania, 5301 Wisconsin AvenUe, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015; Jon L. Praed, Esquire, Latham & Watkins, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004; Robert L. Daileader, Jr., Esquire, Ogden Martin Systems of Alexandria, One Thomas Circle, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005-5802; John H. Bucy, II, Esquire, 701 Brazos, Suite 1500, Austin, Texas 78701; Johnson Kanady, III, Esquire, VMH, Inc., 100 Shockoe Slip, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4140; David Boies, Esquire, Doswell Limited Partnership, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015; Anthony Gambardella, Esquire, and Michael J. Quinan, Esquire, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, P.L.C., 823 East Main 25 Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219; William G. Thomas, Esquire, Hazel & Thomas, 510 King Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Michael L. Sarahan, Esquire, Office of the City Attorney, 900 East Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Lisa Yoho, Em'on Corporation, 1775 1 Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20006; Mary A. Hamm, Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative, 10323 Lomond Drive, Manassas, Virginia 20109; James C. Roberts, Esquire, Mays & Valentine, P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1122; Wendy N. Reed, Esquire, Wright & Talisman, P.C., 1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20005; Richard A. Drom, General Counsel, and Carla G. Pettus, Senior Counsel, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 955 Jefferson Avenue, Valley Forge Corporate Center, Norristown, Pennsylvania 19403-2497; Michael S. Wroblewski, Advocacy Coordinator, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; Howard H. Shafferman, Esquire, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, L.L.P., 601 13th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 South, Washington, D.C. 20005; Timothy R. Dunne, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary, Tractebel Power, Inc., 1177 West Loop South, Suite 900, Houston, Texas 77027; Douglas M. Brooks, Senior Counsel Specialist, Regulatory, LG&E Energy Corp., 220 West Main Street, P.O. Box 32010, Louisville, Kentucky 40232; James R. Bacha, Esquire, .and Kevin F. Duffy, Esquire, American Electric Power Service Corporation, 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, Ohio 43215; Thomas B. Nicholson, Esquire, Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, P.C., Two James Center, 1021 East Cary Street, P.O. Box 1320, Richmond, Virginia 23218- 1320; Craig G. Goodman, Esquire, President, National Energy Marketers Association, 3333 K Street, N.W., Suite 425, Washington, D.C. 20007; Kenneth G. Hurwitz, Esquire, and Rita L. Wecker, Esquire, Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, LLP, 1201 New York Avenue, N.W., 1 lth Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005; George O'Nale, Rt. 2, Box 1293, New Castle, Virginia 26 24127; Marleen L. Brooks, Esquire, and Robert T. Vogler, Esquire, Allegheny Power Building, 10435 Downsville Pike, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-1766; Michael E. Kaufrnann, Esquire, and Peter J. Mattheis, Esquire, Brickfield, Burchette &Ritts, P.C., 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., Eighth Floor, West Tower, Washington, D.C. 20007; Julie Simon, Director of Policy, Electric Power Supply Association, 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 760, Washington, D.C. 20005; and the Commission's Divisions of Energy Regulation, Economics and Finance, and Public Utility Accounting. ~,/ Clerk of Lhe ~.(- . "...:' ~b-'tate Corpemiion Comr,~ission 27 ELECTRIC COOPERATWES IN VIRGINIA A&N Electric Cooperative Mr. Vernon N. Brinkley President P.O. Box 1128 Parksley, Virginia 23421-1128 B-A-R-C Electric Cooperative Mr. Richard Weaver General Manager P.O. Box 264 Millboro, Virginia 24460-0264 Central Virginia Electric Cooperative Mr. Howard L. Scarboro General Manager P.O. Box 247 Lovingston, Virginia 22949 Community Electric Cooperative Mr. James M. Reynolds, P.E. General Manager P.O. Box 267 Windsor, Virginia 23487-0267 Craig-Botetourt Electric Cooperative Mr. Gerald H. Groseclose General Manager P.O. Box 265 New Castle, Virginia 24127-0265 Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative Mr. John Bowman Executive Vice President & General Manager Caller 2451 Chase City, Virginia 23924-2451 Northern Neck Electric Cooperative Mr. Charles R. Rice, Jr. President and CEO P.O. Box 288 Warsaw, Virginia 22572-0288 APPENDIX A Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative Mr. Stanley C. Feuerberg President and CEO P.O. Box 2710 Manassas, Virginia 20108-0875 Powell Valley Electric Cooperative Mr. Randell W. Meyers General Manager & CEO 325 Straight Creek Road P.O. Box 1528 New Tazewell, Tennessee 37879-1528 Prince George Electric Cooperative Mr. Dale Bradshaw, CEO P.O. Box 168 Waverly, Virginia 23890-0168 Rappahannock Electric Cooperative Mr. Cecil E. Viverette, Jr. President P.O. Box 7388 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404-7388 Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative Mr. C. Douglas Wine President & CEO P.O. Box 236 Mt. Crawford, Virginia 22841-0236 Southside Electric Cooperative Mr. Larry Longshore President and CEO P.O. Box 7 Crewe, Virginia 23930-0007 ELECTRIC COMPANIES IN VIRGINIA Allegheny Power Mr. James D. Latimer Vice-President, State Affairs 10435 Downsville Pike Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-1766 American Electric Power Mr. R. Daniel Carson, President Virginia/Tennessee Three James Center, Suite 702 1051 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Conectiv Power Delivery Mr. Mack Wathen Director, Planning, Finance and Regulation New Castle Regional Office 401 Eagle One Road P.O. Box 9239 Newark, Delaware 19714-9239 Dominion Virginia Power Mr. Robert E. Rigsby President & COO Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Kentucky Utilities Mr. Ronald L. Willhite Director of Rates and Regulations P.O. Box 32030 Louisville, Kentucky 40232 GAS COMPANIES IN VIRGINIA APPENDIX B Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc. Mr. Mark C. Darrell Executive Vice President &. CO0 9001 Arboretum Parkway P.O. Box 35674 Richmond, Virginia 23235-0674 Commonwealth Public Service Corp. Mr. James Shockley, Manager P.O. Box 589 Bluefield, West Virginia 24701 Roanoke Gas Company Mr. John Williamson, President P.O. Box 13007 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Southwestern Virginia Gas Company Mr. Allan McClain, President 208 Lester Street Martinsville, Virginia 24112 United Cities Gas Company c/o Atmos Energy Corporation Mr. Thomas R. Blose, Jr., President 810 Crescent Centre Drive, Suite 600 Franklin, Tennessee 37067-6226 Virginia Gas Distribution Company Mr. Michael L. Edwards, President 120 South Court Street Abingdon, Virginia 24210 Virginia Gas Pipeline Company Mr. Michael L. Edwards, President 120 South Court Street Abingdon, Virginia 24210 Virginia Gas Storage Company Mr. Michael L. Edwards, President 120 South Court Street Abingdon, Virginia 24210 Virginia Natural Gas, Inc. Mr. Henry P. Linginfelter, President 5100 East Virginia Beach Blvd. Norfolk, Virginia 23502-3488 Washington Gas Light Company Mr. James H. DeGraffenreidt Chairman, President, and CEO 1100 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20080 Central Virginia Small Business Development Center 200(3 Annual Report 2/16/2001 This item was scanned under Financial Reports CENTRAL VIRGINIA SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER ANO NJIRA coNsuLTING, INC. PROUDLY PRESENTS... Development i Centers Get the tools & skills you need to assure your business success with our practical and hands-on programs & workshops. Cancellation policy: Substitutions will be accepted up t° five business days prior t° the event' Cancellations must be received in writing two weeks prior to the event for a full refund less a $10 cancellation fee. Cancellation within ten business days before the course begins incurs a nonrefundable fee of 20%. NxLevel sessions only: Cancellation after the first session of the course incurs a non-refundable fee orS0% of total cost. No other refunds are available. (No show-nO refund) Njira, Inc. ' Consulting, Training, & Facilitation 903 Royer D~ive Charlottesville, VA 22902 804-295-4774 njira~p~y~et.com Http://home.sp~j~et.com/-njira 1001 East Manet S~e~, Suite 101 ." FOUNDATION Chaflo~lle, VA 22902 u~.~ ~ ~ Fax: (~4) 295-7066 : Email:~e.net L E V E L h~://mon~llo.avenue.o~ MaAe~SBDC Th~ Cen~al Mirginia Small Business Dewlopment C~ter operates in p~netship with th~ Virginia Depa~ent of Business Assi~an~ and the U.S. Small Busi- ness Adminis~atlon. The suppo~ given by the U.S. Small Business Administration through C~pe~tiw Agr~ment No. ~620-~53-11 d~s not ~stitute a~ express or impli~ endorsement of the ~s~nsor(s) or pmicip~ts' opinions, pr~u~s, ~ ~ices. All of Ac SBDC's prog~ms and ~rvices are offer~ to ~e public on a nondlscriminato~ basis. Per--ns requirlngsp~ial ac~mm~ati°ns in °rder t° a~d Ihe~ wOrksh°ps sh°u[d c°~c~ ~hc SBDc at g~-295'g 19g' gmall Business Development Centers February 23, 2001 Small Business Development Center of Central Virginia 1001 East Market Street Suite 101 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Phone 804-295-8198 Fax 804-295-7066 Web http://avenue.gen.va.us/Market/SBDC Sponsors: u.s. Small Business Administration Virginia Department of Business Assistance Piedmont Virginia Community College University of Virginia Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce Dear Small Business Advocate: The Central Virginia Small Business Development Center (CVSBDC) is please to provide its 2000 Annual Report for your review. This report outlines the Center activities that took place during calendar year 2000 and the resultant economic impact this had in our regional community. The CVSBDC worked with 384 clients in 2000, and 258 are still active clients. With our assistance, these clients generated over $5.8 million in increased sales and created or saved 474 jobs. Through our local banking and investment community, these clients invested over $4.2 million in their businesses to allow for their growth and/or development. (See Page 8 of Annual Keport.) The CVSBDC and its co-sponsors (SCORE, Njira Consulting, and local lenders) trained 264 individuals in 25 business related seminars. In 2000, the CVSBDC introduced a new ten to fifteen-week seminar series called NxLevel Entrepreneurial Training. These programs are very hands-on workshops that take the entrepreneur through every aspect ofthek business and help them write a business plan to chart their course. Among the region we serve, the top three consumers of our consulting and training resources were the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle, and the County of Fluvanna. Demographically speaking, our client base contained the following: Women 40% Minorities 21% Veterans 10% Existing Business 48% Service Industry 45% Corporations 14°/° The Center thanks you for your continued support of our efforts and those of our local small business community. Should you need more information about our region's small businesses, please feel free to contact us. Also, we appreciate your keeping us apprised of issues that affect your constituents/residents and letting us know when and how we can be of assistance. Sincerely, Tanya F. Brockett Director Additional Sponsors: Bank of America ' Cornerstone Networks ' First Virginia Bank--Blue Ridge · Fluvanna County · Louisa County ' nTelos · Orange County COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Baker-Butler Elementary School - Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for Tax Map 46, parcel 30 and 30A. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to consider amending the ACSA Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide water and sewer service. AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: March 21, 2001 ACTION: IN FORMATION: ..CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: IN FORMATION: J ATTACHMENTS: Yes ,~ ~ STAFF CONTA .C.T(S): . I / BACKGROUND: The applicant, the Albemarle County School Board, is requesting Jurisdictional Area designation for water and sewer service to a 53-acre site (Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A) which is the location for the new Baker-Butler Elementary School. The property is located on the west side of Proffit Road, approximately 1.3 miles east of Route 29 (Attachment A). DISCUSSION: The subject property is located in the Hollymead Community Development Area. The western portion of Parcel 30 is already in the Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer service (Attachment B). The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the Development Areas: "General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)." "Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)." "Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)." RECOMMENDATION: As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of an amendment of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to include Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A for water and sewer service. Attachments: A- Location Map B - Jurisdictional Area Map 01.054 8 ~0 ALBEMARLE 32 298 COUNTY 35 ATTACHMENT A 33F ,," ISB 45 23A 25 22 C 92 -- STILL 4~C RIO RIVANNA DISTRICTS / \ SECTION 4.6 Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas Map ALBEMARLE $2 COUNTY I0 ~. 45 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Request to Amend Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer service to the Glenorchy Subdivision, Tax Map 78B. AGENDA DATE: . March 21, 2001 ACTION: × ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: CONSENT AGENDA: Public hearing to consider amending the ACSA Jurisdictional ACTION: INFORMATION: Area boundary to provide water service to the portion of the Glenorchy Subdivision located within the designated Development Area. ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: This is a proposal io amend the Jurisdictional Area to provide water and sewer service to the Glenorchy subdivision which is located on the north side of Route 250 East in Urban Area Three (Pantops), just west of the 1-64 Interchange (Attachment A). The original application was made by a resident requesting public water service due to a failing well on-site. Upon consideration of the initial request by the resident, the Board proposed considering an amendment to the Jurisdictional Area that would include all of the Glenorchy Subdivision located within the designated Development Area for water and sewer service. DISCUSSION: All of the lots within the Glenorch¥ subdivision are located within the designated Development Area, with the exception of the northern, non-contiguous portion of one parcel, Tax Map 78B, Parcel 1 (Attachment B). The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the Development Areas: "General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)." "Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)." "Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)." RECOMMENDATION: As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This amendment is consistent with public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of an amendment of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to include the Glenorchy Subdivision, as noted on Tax Map 78B, except for the northern (non-contiguous) portion of Tax 78B, Parcel 1, for water and sewer service. Attachments A, B - location maps C - Jurisdictional Area map 01.053 ,. 62 ATTACHMENT A 77 ~:OM 48 49 MONTICELLO 9~ '~'~' '" '"' SCOTTSVILLE AND ':--' ......... ~ RIVANNA 'DISTRICTS Rt. SECTION scc 78 · ALBEMARLE COUNTY . (~)WILTON COUNTRY HOMKS* ATTACHMENT GLENORCHY - SECTION I- D.B. 341Pg 231 GLENOR CHy - SECTION 2- D.B. 34l pg. 2~' RJVAN NA DISTRICT SECTION 78-B Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas Map ~_ATTACHMENT C 77 $ GOTTSVILI_I~ AND / / COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Block Grant SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing - Solicitation of Input for the Development of a Community Improvement Grant Proposal _STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Roxanne White, Ron White BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: March 21, 2001 ACTION: X .CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes ~ IJ Local citizen participation is encouraged throughout the process of developing Community Improvement Grant (CIG) proposals funded through the Virginia Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. To facilitate participation two public hearings are required. The first public hearing is to receive community input on housing needs and priorities tha't'could be addressed by CDBG funding. The second public hearing scheduled for April 4th iS to receive public comment on a proposed project for CDBG funding. Subsequent to the public hearing, the Board will be asked to sign a resolution to the Department of Housing and Community Development authorizing the County to officially apply for the funds. Albemarle County has been successful in receiving a number of CIGs over the years, the most recent being a multi-year funded grant for housing and neighborhood improvements for the Porters Road and Yancey Mill neighborhoods. Staff, in consultation with staff from the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), requests this firSt public hearing to receive input on community needs that may be eligible for a CIG. DISCUSSION: Attached is a brief description of eligible activities under the CDBG program and Albemarle County's past performance with ClGs. Staff may also present some options under consideration for a CIG proposal. Staff will provide this information at the public hearing along with some potential options under consideration for a CIG proposal. ,RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends this public hearing be held to provide information on CDBG funding that may be available and to obtain input from Iow- and moderate-income persons or persons representing Iow- and moderate-income communities. 01.050 ALBEMARLE COU'N Office of Housing The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) administers Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding made available to the state by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The 2001 CDBG Program Design provides funding for Planning Grants and Community Improvement Grants, the latter through competition for available funding. The projected amount available for FY2001 for competitive grants statewide is $13,988,313. Only non-entitlement units of local government are eligible to apply, CDBG-funded projects must meet one of three (3) national objectives: 1 Activities benefiting Iow- and moderate-income persons; 2. Activities which aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight; and 3. ActiVities designed to meet community needs having a particular urgency. The competitive grants are available for five primary project types · Comprehensive Community Development · Economic Development · Housing · CommunitY Facilities · Community Service Facilities Recent Use of CDBG by Albemarle County Albemarle County has had great success over the years in receiving and implementing CIGs funded by CDBG. The primary use of previously funding has been housing rehabilitation. However, funds have been used for housing production and developing infrastructure for housing development, most notably Crozet Crossings subdivision. More recently, the County was awarded CDBG funding totaling approximately $778,000 for neighborhood improvement combining housing rehabilitation, housing production, and blight removal for the Porter Road/Yancey School Neighborhood. These funds will be matched with over $800,000 in other public and private funding to Rehabilitate 26 owner-occu pied homes Rehabilitate 3 rental homes Demolish 15 dilapidated units Create 5 new homeowners through a self-help building project Renovate the W. D. Ward Community Center Construct a new community park The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) implemented the housing activities undertaken with this grant providing grants management and project management. As grantee, Albemarle County acts as co- administrator for the grant with staff participating in a CDBG Management Team and Rehabilitation Advisory Board. Planning Grant Albemarle County also recently received a "Just-in-time Planning Grant" funded through CDBG to study the feaSibility of the purchaSe and rehabilitation of Whitewood Village Apartments. The planning Grant is providing funding for a market study and structural/engineering study. Completion of activities under the Planning Grant is anticipated in time to apply for a CIG for this project. 2 Feb.ruary 16, 2001 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 Valerie W. Long, Esq McGuire Woods LLP P O Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-2000-75 HoWell (Triton PCS-CVR 370A) Tax Map 72, Parcel 21 Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 13, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The top of the pole. as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The pole shall be painted dark brown in color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted: c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole. except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein: d. The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attached plan entitled Howell (Triton PCS) and dated 1/19/01. A grounding rod. not exceeding two feet above the top of the pole. and with a width not to exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the. height of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one. Within one month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree except as described in condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. Page 2 February 16,2001 o The pole shall be located as follows: a. The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled Howell (Triton PCS) and dated 1/19/01. Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled Howell (Triton PCS) and dated 1/19/01. b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole. c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. 6. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year. no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the pole is in compliance with condition number one. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminaries is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 10. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. 11 A maximum 6-foot high barbed wire fence with a metal gate as shown on the attached plans entitled Howell (Triton PCS).and dated 1/19/01 shall be permitted around the perimeter of the lease area. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 21, 2001. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. Page 3 February 16, 2001 The Commission also approved the request for a waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Provision of one parking space. 3. A site plan application shall be required if activity on slopes of 25% or greater is proposed. 4. Conditions of approval for the waiver and for the special use permit, along with the project n~mber, SP 00-75, shall be included on the final plans. 5. Staff review and approval shall be required to ensure that all conditions of the special use permit are reflected in the final revisions of the construction drawings, prior to issuance of a building permit. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Joan McDowell Senior Planner JMD/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Bob Ball STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Joan D. McDowell February 13, 2001 March 21, 2001 SP 00-75-Martin Howell/Triton PCS Applicant's Proposal; The applicant, Triton PCS, has proposed to construct a communication facility consisting of a 98 foot high steel monopole, ground equipment, and flush mounted antenna on a 900 square foot lease area of a 154.939 acre parcel, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. A waiver from the requirement to submit a preliminary site plan has also been requested. Petition: Triton PCS has petitioned for a special use permit to allow a communication facility that includes a 98 foot high steel monopole and ground equipment cabinets on a 900 square foot lease area within a 154.939 acre parcel, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. A site plan waiver has also been requested, in accordance with Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is described as Tax Map 72 Parcel 21 and is located at 5726 Wyant Lane. It has a Rural Area Comprehensive Plan land use designation and is zoned Rural Area 3. As the site is 153.05 feet south of 1-64, it is also within the 1-64 Entrance Corridor District. The property is in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Character of the Area: A mixture of residential, forestal and agricultural land uses characterizes the area. The lease area can be reached through a farm lane and across pasture and fields. No residences are visible from the lease area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the pro¥isions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy and recommends approval of SP 00-75. SP 00-75 Howell 1 02/06/01 Planning and Zoning Hi~tory: The following application has been approved on thc subject property: · ARB-P(BP)-2000-26 Architectural Review Board approval with the following condition: Add a note to the plan stating that no trees will be cut within 200' of the proposed pole. Comprehensive Plan: The site is located in the Rural Area and is within the Open Space Concept Plan Farmlands and Forests designation. The lease area is located within a grove of trees and would be accessed through pastures and fields. Improvements for a stream crossing would be required along with the improvements necessary to construct the proposed access road. The tower would be located less than 500 feet from 1-64 and, therefore, within an Entrance Corridor district. The Open Space Plan's stated objectives include protecting "the County's natural, scenic and historic resources in the Rural and Growth Areas" and preserving "the County's scenic resources as being essential to the County's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life." The Architectural Review Board considered the impacts of this facility on 1-64 and granted a Certificate of Appropriateness on December 18, 2000. STAFF COMMENT: In the following sections, Staff will address the issues of this request: 1. 'Provisions of Section 31.2.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance are discussed below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issues upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such uso will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent proper _ty. SP 00-75 Howell 2 02/06/01 The issue of visibility from adjacent properties has been addressed in the following manner: As the proposed site is located on the interior of a very large parcel and within a grove of trees, visibility of the top of the tower from adjacent properties is minimal. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The agricultural uses on the property would not be impacted by this use. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, with particular reference to Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5. All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service, as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in this technology. Section 1.4.3 states as intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." The visual impact of the facility .would not conflict with the attractiveness of the community. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed pole would not restrict the current uses, or by right uses on any other property. and with the public health, safety and general welfare, The provisions of increased wireless communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services, in the event of emergencies and by increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language: "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof my regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the SP 00-75 Howell 02/06/01 environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet the Federal Communication Commission guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification o f personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or .instmmentali _ty thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. The purpose of this facility would be to provide additional service along the 1-64 corridor, an intent to eventually provide seamless service. However, the denial of this application would not prohibit the personal wireless services in this area. e County of Albemarle Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The following discussion considers the purpose, principles, and intended achievements of the Policy: Visibility. The Policy states that the visibility is the most important principle for siting personal wireless service facilities. Further, the Policy states that these facilities should not be located in Avoidance Areas. Should they be located in Avoidance Areas, they should be denied or mitigated. Although the enclosed photographs taken at a recent balloon test indicate that the tower would be visible, its visibility from 1-64 and other properties has been mitigated by its siting within a large grove of trees and away from adjacent properties. · Utilize existing structure: the applicant has advised that no existing facility within this area would permit the additional equipment due to SP 00-75 Howell 4 02/06/01 height or strUcture; therefore' cOllocation on another facility is not feasible, according to the applicant. · Appropriateness in any zoning district: communication facilities are not restricted by zoning district. Ground based equipment in keeping with the area character: the ground equipment would be painted a dark brown andwould not be visible from any public road or any adjacent property. Limited visibili _ty of the antennas.: the balloon test determined that the tower could be visible from 1-64. However, that visibility is limited, due to the siting on the property and the terrain along the Interstate apProaching the site. During a balloon test to attest the suitability of this site, safety concerns prevented staff from taking photographs while traveling along 1-64. However, the applicants were able to take photographs from the Interstate shoulder and have provided the attached photographs. Some of the photographs provided by the applicant were taken from the within the property, as well. (Attachment E). e Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan, if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the Ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Generally, the Site Review Committee has endorsed the use of site plan waivers for the establishment of telecommunication facilities. This general endorsement has been based on the relatively small area impacted by the proposed use and the ability to obtain the required information through an erosion and sediment control plan and the building permits. Staff supports a waiver of a preliminary site plan, subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment Control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. Provision of one parking space. A site plan application shall be required if activity on slopes of 25% or greater is proposed. SP 00-75 Howell 02/06/01 Conditions of approval for the waiver and for the special use permit, along with the project number, SP 00-75, shall be included on the final plans. Staff review and approval shall be required to ensure that all conditions of the special use permit are reflected in the final revisions of the construction drawings, prior to issuance of a building permit. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request: The facility would provide increased wireless capacity, which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. The facility would not restrict permitted uses on the subject property or on adjacent properties. Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request: 1. The site is within the Entrance Corridor District; 2. The pole could be viewed from 1-64; · The following factor is relevant to this consideration: There is an existing, reasonable use of this property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 00-75, based on the factors listed above, and subject to the follOwing conditions of approval: The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the facility, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. SP 00-75 Howell 02/06/01 The pole shall be designed, constructed andmaintained as follows: a. The pole shall be painted dark brown in color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets, antenna, and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as shown on the attaChed plan entitled Howell (Triton PCS)..and dated 1/19/01. e. A grounding rod, not exceeding two feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not to exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole. f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one. g. Within one month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level. h. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. The pole shall be located as follows: a. The pole shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled Howell (Triton PCS) and dated 1/19/01. Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled Howell (Triton PCS) and dated 1 /19/01. b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole. c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the pole more than 12 inches. SP 00-75 Howell 02/06/01 Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All constrUction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the pole is in compliance with condition number one. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilizatiOn measures acceptable to the County · Engineer are employed. 9. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminaries is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect ~ the lamps to the power supply. SP 00-75 Howell 8 02/06/01 10. 11. 'The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. A maximum 6-foot high barbed wire fence with a metal gate, as shown on the attached plans entitled Howell (Triton PCS).and dated 1/19/01 shall be permitted around the perimeter of the lease area. ATTACHMENTS:, A B. C D E Special Use Permit Application (SP 00-75) Application Plans titled "Howell (Triton PCS)" and dated 1/19/01. Location Map, Aerial Map Site Topography Photos (Provided by the Applicant) SP 00-75 Howell O2/06/01 ,~uu.~. oK ~memarie t ~;. 'lJe~ar~ent of Builaing Code an 00.06 r-, /Appli tion Special Use P rmit 'ExisSng Use Residential and Agricul %uWa~ropose4 Use Wireless TelecaDlllmlnications Faci] it~ 'Zoning District RA 'Zoning Ordinance Section number requested 10.2.2.6 ('staff will assist you with these items) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit ~u · lI~ this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? Arc you submitting n site development plan with this appli~.ation? 154.99 acres Q Ye-~I No ~ Ye~l No Person (Whom should we ~alVw~te con.ming m[~ projea?): Valerie W. Long, Es~., lV~Gu~ weWoods ~ IAddrcss P.O. Box /288 City. Charlottesville' State. VA zip22902~ Daytime Phone ( 804 ) 977-2545 Fax #~ E.maiXVlong.~h~mcguirewoods.con Owner of land (As listed in the County'~ rgcords): MartiI1 D. Howell Address'L:>'5726 Wyant Lane ' City .Charlotte~vill~tate VA Zip 22903 *County's records shc~r 57-18 Wyant Lane, we believe this may be an eliror. Daytime Phone ( '/03 ) 751-4398 _lax # E-mail ~(Who i~ thc contact twa~on representing? Who is requesting the special usc?): tAddress 9211 Arboretum Parkway City Daytime Phone ( 804 ) 323-9500 Fax # (804) .Triton PCS, Ric2nncrnd State VA Zip2.3236 323-4058 _E-mail Ta--~map and parcel Tax Map 72, Parcel 21 , PhysicalAddress.(irassi:ued) 5726 Wyant Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22903 '~'~e~ ~l,~Cc,'J~' ~,LbCW'~.ill~ - Locationofproperty0anm.a.-ks.i.tcrscctions. o,~,~) Take 1-64 West: to Exit #107 (S.R. 250). Go ]right on 250 East. Cont:inue until reach S.R. 635. Go right on S.R. 635 (M/]let cross-s ree , on ucres tim owner ot tills Droncttv own -£,, · r-- r : ~,~rl~ ~_~.j u--ucr~mp Interest tn) any aoutril~ nroocnv* If yes nlra.cc list se mx map anci parcel numbers Yes - Tax Map Parcel 72-18 .... - " ' '~--- OFFICE USE ONLY F,.~ -',,no-n~ s,"=PffO .rD aat, .=id ~O History: 121 Special Usc Permits: CJ Variances: Concurrent review of Site Development 401 McIntire Road -:- Ch~c~ # 0 ZMAs and Proffers: [i~i;'cs I:1 No Charlottesville. VA 22902 -:- Voice: 296-5832 -:- Fax: 972-4126 Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself~the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses. as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be Changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review'of your request. If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? See attached. How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? See attached. How will thc proposed spccial usc affect thc character of thc district surrounding thc property? See attached. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance?. See attached. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? See attached. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?. See attached. How will this use promote thc public health, safety, and general welfare of thc community? See attached. 'Il Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operatiR~ hours, and any unique features of the use: _ ~ zu-~-~,-h,~& ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is n° recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information. If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation,' partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signin~ below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope'of th~ agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature Printed Name Date Daytime phone number of Signatory 12 Howell (Triton PCS - CVR 370A) What is the comprehensive plan designation for this property? Rural/Agricultural How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? The proposed 98-foot monopole will not adversely affect adjacent property, as the pole and antennas will be only 10 feet above the tallest tree in the area, and will be minimally visible from adjacent property. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? The proposed facility is not inconsistent with the existing development in the area, since it will not generate additional traffic or development, and preserves the character of the area. Because the area surrounding the property contains many tall trees and because the proposed pole and antenna will be sited within a grove of tall trees so that it will be only minimally visible, the character of the district surrounding the property will not be affected. The proposed facility will effectively blend with the existing trees on and nearby the property. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The proposed facility is consistent with the County's preference for monopole structures, which extend slightly above the treetops as discussed in the County's wireless design manual. In addition, wireless telecommunications services provide a public service to the community by creating a "convenient, attractive and harmonious community," consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by-right in the district? The proposed facility will not restrict the current uses or other by-right uses available at this property or by-right uses on any other property. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the zoning ordinance apply to this use? Section 5.1.12, which outlines public utility structures and uses. How will this use promote the public health, safety and general welfare of this community? The proposed facility will provide increased and improved wireless telecommunications services to this portion of Albemarle County, especially emergency communications, and will increase overall communication services. Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and unique features of the use: Triton PCS, Inc. ("Triton") proposes to construct, maintain and manage a wireless telecommunications facility on property owned by Martin D. Howell, identified as tax map parcel 72-21. 'The facility would be comprised of a steel monopole with flush- mounted antennas, along with the necessary transmitting and receiving equipment. The pole, antennas and ground equipment would all be painted a flat, dark brown color. Triton operates a Personal Communications Service (PCS) system, providing the most technologically advanced wireless communications throughout Southeastern United States. Triton and AT&T Digitial PCS have undertaken a joint venture to expand the AT&T digital PCS network to over 11 million people in Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia. Triton is a member of the AT&T Digital Wireless Network, licensed to cover more than eighty percent of the United States. AT&T Digital PCS provides convenient and secure mobile communications, combining voice, messaging and paging communications in a single phone. Triton has entered into a lease agreement with the property owner for a 30 foot by 30 foot lease area with the facility located entirely within this area. The lease area is heavily wooded with numerous mature trees. The facility will be accessed by an existing path that will be upgraded, improved and extended to reach the lease area. The location of the extension of the access was carefully designed to allow for only a minimal amount of tree removal to facilitate access. In addition, the lease area itself is within an existing small clearing within the densely wooded area. The facility will emit no noise, odor or glare. Nor will it interfere with television or radio reception in the surrounding areas. The facility will not be lit, unless required by the FAA. To develop its network, Triton has divided the Basic Trading Area region into small geographic sections ("cells"). Each "cell" site holds the equipment that provide the air interface to the subscriber units and must be precisely located relative to other "cells" to create a reliable communications grid system. This grid system must reflect the topography and traffic (use population and building density) of the "cells" as well as the radius of the respective antenna's reliable transmission area. Triton's FCC license requires it to operate its system in a defined service region using designated radio frequencies. Each site must be precisely located relative to other facilities within the network to ensure that Triton complies with the terms of its license. The network requires a facility at this location to avoid a gap in service to this portion of Albemarle County. 'Triton carefully selected and designed the proposed facility to provide a structure that provides adequate height and range of coverage, while meeting the goals of the community by minimizing the impact of the proposed facility on adjacent or nearby properties. Location of the facility on this parcel will enable Triton to construct the facility with only a minimal amount of grading and clearing. The subject parcel is zoned Rural/Agricultural. The surrounding properties within 2000 feet of the proposed facility are primarily used for rural residential and agricultural purposes. Included with our application is a large copy of the topographical map of the property. On this topographical map we have drawn a 2000-foot radius around the 14 centerline of the proposed pole. The tract of land on which the site is located contains 154.99 acres. A surveyor has estimated the tallest tree within 25 feet of the proposed facility to be 88 feet. Other trees within the 25-foot radius are 84, 79, 83 and 74 feet tall. The heights, locations, base elevations and top elevations of numerous other trees within close proximity of the proposed pole are shown on the enclosed plans. We are requesting a 98- foot pole to enable the signal from the antenna to extend over and beyond these trees. We have conducted a visual impact analysis with a balloon to demonstrate that the facility will only be minimally visible, if at all, from the Entrance Corridor and surrounding properties. This lease area is ideally situated for a wireless telecommunications facility, as the mature and numerous trees surrounding the pole will provide excellent screening for the pole when viewed from 1-64. During a recent balloon test at the Howell property, we traveled along Interstate 64 multiple times in each direction. We were never able to see the balloon from the Interstate, despite the lack of foliage on the trees. The top of the balloon was. minimally visible from the Howell property when looking north toward the lease area: With the possible exception of one house approximately 3000 feet south of the lease area, from which the pole might be visible from a great distance, it did not appear that the pole would be visible from any adjacent properties. The proposed facility was designed to strictly comply with the County's wireless design manual. The antenna panels will be flush-mounted to the pole and will not extend above the top of the pole. The pole will be painted flat brown and the antenna panels, equipment cabinet and cables will all be painted to match the Color of the pole. In addition, the concrete pad will be tinted earth tone to blend in with the surrounding wooded area. The design and the siting of the facility will minimize its Visibility from the road and from surrounding properties, as it will blend in with the existing trees in the area. Once constructed, the facility will be visited approximately one time per month for routine maintenance checks. The facility will not impact the provision of services by Albemarle County. As a telecommunications facility, this proposal will serve the community by fostering increased communications, especially emergency communications. Most importantly, due to its design and precise location and siting, the facility will be only minimally visible, if at all, from nearby roads and residences. Finally, we request a waiver of the site plan requirement for this application, in accord with section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. \\REA\44640.1 LIMITED AUTHORIZATION TO ACT AS APPLICANT AND AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT LAND USE APPLICATIONS Martin D. Howell does hereby authorize Valerie W. Long, Crown Communications Incorporated, Triton PCS, Incorporated, and/or representatives thereof' to represent Martin D. Howell before any municipal or County Government for the sole purpose of obtaining land use permits and/or variances as may be required for Crown Communications Incorporated and/or Triton PCS, Incorporated to place telecommunications towers, antennas, transmission lines, mounting devices and other related equipment on the property of Martin D. Howell located at 5726 Wyant Lane D.B. 1460 PG 94. This authorization shall specifically include the right to submit land use applications on behalf of Martin D. Howell, including, but not limited to applications for special use permits, certificates of appropriateness, and variances. WITNESS the following signature: \XREA~25983.2 McGuireWoods LLP Court Square Building 310 Fourth Street N.E. Suite 300 RO. Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288 Phone: 804.977.2500 Fax: 804.980.2222 www. mcguirewoods.corn Valerie W. Long Direct: 804.977.2545 McGUIREWOODS VIA HAND DELIVERY January 11, 2001 vlong@mcguirewoods.c~,,, Direct Fax: 804.980.2265 Ms. Joan McDowell Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902-0245 SP00-75' Howell (Triton PCS CVR-370A) Dear Joan: Enclosed for your review are revised plans for the above-referenced special use permit application addressing your comments and concerns and correcting several errors that you pointed out. I have also enclosed a letter dated January 9, 2001 from Kirk A. Bowers of Techtonic Engineering, the engineering company that prepared the plans, addressing the issues you raised. In addition, there are several issues that we did not discuss that have been slightly revised on the plans that I want to call to your attention. On Sheet SP-2 the original submitted plans showed two separate tax parcels owned by Martin D. Howell, parcels 72-0-0-21 and 72-0-0-38A. At the same time, however, I noted that the survey included a "hook line" indicating that it was the same parcel. I asked the surveyors to research this issue and they have revised Sheet SP-2 to indicate that both parcels are part of parcel 72-0-0-21. 2. One of the issues you pointed out was that several of the match line references were incorrect on the original plan. Techtonics has corrected the references and they now are f correct. I did want to point out, however, that on Sheet Z-5 the match line reference that appears in the top right hand comer which says "See Sheet Z-5" refers down to the next span of the road which appears on the bottom left of Sheet Z-5. So while this item might appear to be incorrect (as I thought it was at first glance), Techtonics has indicated to me that this is the correct way to reference this match line. As always, I am enclosing two sets of 24x36" to-scale drawings along with two sets of the smaller 1 lx17" size plans. I would be happy to provide additional copies of the plans at your request. I trust that the enclosed items address all of your comments and concerns regarding the plans. Should you have any additional comments or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience at 977-2545. In addition, I recall that you were interested in repeating the balloon test that was originally conducted for this application on December 21. Either myself or Mike Fogarty of our firm would be happy to conduct a balloon 17 January 11, 2001 Page 2 test for you at your convenience. One or both of us is available any day between tomorrow and February 2 to accomplish this. Please contact me as soon as possible to indicate the earliest date that is most convenient for your schedule and the time requirements needed to submit your staff report, and we will be happy to accommodate your schedule. Very truly yours, Valerie W. Long VWL/jc Enclosures CC: Margaret Maliszewski, ARB Design Planner (w/enclosures) William D. Rieley, Planning Commission (w/enclosures) Dale Finocchi, Crown Communications Frank Shortall, Triton PCS, Inc. ',.',.REA\48790. l 18 TECTONIC' CONSULTANTS RC. CORPORATE OFFICE: Mountainvilie, NY (800)o829-6531 Other offices throughout the United States Moorefield III 804 Moorefield Park Drive, Suite 100 Richmond, VA 23236 McGuireWoods LLP Court Square Building 310 Fourth Street, N.E., Suite 300 P.O. Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 ATTN: Valerie W. Long RE: 2567.CVR-370A HOWELL (FEATHERSTONE) RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS (804) 330-7203 FAX: (804) 330-7213 * www.tectonicengineering.com January 9, 2001 Dear Valerie, This letter is in response to the Review comments from the Albemarle County Planning Department. Our comments are as follows: Sheet T-1 1. Contact Person is revised to Construction Contact Person. 2. Wyann Lane is revised to Wyant Lane. Sheet SP-1 1. The 20-foot vertical range in the certification of the base elevation is established by "2C" certification standards determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The certification note is a standard that is an integral part of every survey that we perform for our Telecommunications clients. The survey is included in the submittal package, along with a stamped and signed "2C" certification letter, for filing with the FAA for approval of the Telecommunications site. Rice Associates has informed us that the survey is accurate to less than 0.0313 ' for the GPS equipment used. The actual closure error is less than 1/500' horizontal and less than 1/300' vertical. 2. The base elevation of the tower is revised to 683.2'. Sheet SP-2 1. The parcel numbers are indicated as the same parcel #72-0-0-21. 19 E[ :3:r,EE~S · S L:?,,'EY©RS · CO['iSTRU'CTIO,['i MAr,.IAGERS Sheet SP-4 1. Medium mixed hardwoods means trees in the diameter range of 8" to 24". The word "medium" is deleted from the survey sheet. Sheet Z-2 1. The tower base elevation is revised to 683.2. The Tree Height Schedule base and top elevations are revised to reflect the correct elevations. 2. The detail reference for the Tree Protection fence is revised from Sheet Z-2 to Sheet Z-3. Sheet Z-3 1. The top of existing grade elevation is revised to 683.2'. 2. All items on the steel pole, antenna panels, coax cables, brackets, indicated as painted brown. The concrete pad is tinted earth tone. etc. are Sheet Z-4 1. This sheet was deleted in its entirety. All following sheets were re-numbered. Sheet Z-5 .(formerly Sheet Z-6) 1. The plan sheet indicates the beginning of the Gravel Access Road. 2. The matchline sheet references are correct. Sheet Z-6 (formerly Sheet Z-7) 1. The access easement width is increased from 20' to 30' in order to allow more space to install the culvert and to allow for road grading on either side of the culvert. 2. The matchline sheet references are correct. Sheet Z-7 (formerly Sheet Z-8) 1. The tree line symbols in the legend are differentiated. 3. The tower base elevation is revised to 683.2'. The Tree Height Schedule base' and top elevations are revised to reflect the correct elevations. We are submitting the revised Zoning Plans for submission to the County of Albemarle for final review. If there are any questions, please contact me at my office. 20 TECTONIC Sincerely, TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. Kirk A. Bowers, Senior Civil Engineer cc: file 21 ATTACHMENT B LEGE N D MINIMUM A-1 ANTENNA MARK NUMBER METAL (E)E~S~NG NO1 IN CONTRACT (N)NEW NOT TO ,~CALE (p)PROPOSED Member of the AT&T Wireless Network HOWELL (TRITON PCS) 5726 WYANT LANE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22905 CVR-570A 98' STEEL POLE DRAWING INDEX qS 1 P-1 SITE SURVEY SP-2 S TE SURVEY SP 3 SITE SURVEY SP 4 SITE SURVEY Z 1 SITE PLAN Z-2 SITE DETAIL PLAN Z-3 ELEVATION & ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAILS Z 4 NOTES & DETAILS Z 5 GRADING PLAN 'Z-6 GRADING PLAN Z- 7 gRADING PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY SITE .DIRECTIONS FROM THE COUNTY OFFICE OLDG, TAKE 1-64 WEST TO EXIT 107 (S.R, 250).. MAKE A R GHT ONTO S.R, 2.50 EAST, ONTINUE EAST ON S.R. 250 UNTIL S.R. 635, MAKE A R GHT NTO RTE 635 HEAOING SOUTH. CONTINUE ON ROUTE 635 NTIL MIDWAY, ~-tlCH iS THE FIRST CROSS STREET, MAKE A EFT ONTO MIDWAY AND CONTINUE UNTIL WYANT LANE. :~ROPERTY IS ON :~HE LEFT, PROCEED AROUND IHE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE UNTIL YOU REACH A COW GATE TINUE UPON FARM ACCESS ROAD APPROXIMATELY I/3 OF MILE TO WOODED AREA. SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN TREES. VICINITY MAP SITE NUMBER: SITE NAME: SITE ADDRESS: CVR-570A HOWELL (TRITON PCS) 5726 WYANT LANE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22905- DEED BOOK-PAGE: 1460-094 TAX MAP: 72-0-0-21 CURRENT ZONING:RA PROPERTY OWNER: CONSTRUCTION CONTACT PERSON: [[ ~iqnIOTINN' MARTIN HOWELL 4012 FEATHERSTONE PLACE ALEXANDRIA, VA 22504 TRITON PCS 9211 ARBORETUM PARKWAY. RICHMOND, VA 25256 DAVID KEISER (804) 525-9500 EXT 220 ALBEMARLE COUNTY SU TE 200 SITE DATA: LATITUDE: N 58'-01'-58.9" LONGTUDE: W 78'-41'-27.4" GROUND ELEVATION: 685.2 FT (AMSL) AMSL = ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL USGS MAP: CROZET MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: SAMUEL MILLER T.T,V. PARTICIPANTS: lw ~9': N/A N/A S.A.O. ~r~. m ~ ~ ~. ~..lA. ./~ N/A_ _~.~ ./* ./* ~_ ./* ./~ SUBMITTALS PER o~ HOWELL (TRITON PCS) CVR-570A 5726 WYANT LANE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22905 ALBEMARLE COUNTY TITLE SHEET 22 GENERAL NOTES 1. TAX MAP PARCEL #: 72-00-00-21 2, PROPERTY OWNEPc MARTIN D. HOWELL (D.B. 1460, PG. 94) 3. BEARINGS SHOWN BASED ON THE VIRGINIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM - (SOUTH ZONE) 4. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN RELATIVE TO THE LEASE AREA ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. DIMENSIONS FROM THE LEASE AREA TO THE UNSURVEYED PROPERTY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. 5. HORIZONTAL DATUM - NAD 83 (2C ACCURACY) 6. VERTICAL DATUM - NAVD 88 (2C ACCURACY) 7. LEASE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN F.I.R.M. ZONE "C" AS SHOWN ON COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 5100060190B DATED DECEMBER 16, 1980. (FLOOD ZONE DETERMINATION IS BASED ON THE FLOOD INSURANCE RA~rE MAPS AND DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE PROPERTY WILL OR WILL NOT BE FREE FROM FLOODING OR DAMAGE.) 8. NO SUBSUFACE INVESTIGATION PERFORMED BY RICE ASSOCIATES 9. MAGNETIC DECLINATION IS COMPUTED AND NOT OBSERVED. 10. NO WETLANDS AREAS HAVE BEEN DELINEATED. 11. BOUNDARIES AND AREAS OF ADJACENT PARCELS ARE BY COMPILATION. 12. THE BOUNDARIES AND AREAS SHOWN HEREON ARE COMPILED, AND DO NOT REFLECT A COMPLETE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES. 13. THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT. I CERTIFY THAT THE LATITUDE OF 38°01'58.9" N AND THE LONGITUDE OF 78°41'27.4" W ARE ACCURATE TO WITHIN + / - 50 FEET HORIZONTALLY AND THAT THE TOWER SITE ELEVATION OF 683.2 IS ACCURATE WITHIN + ! - 20 FEET VERTICALLY. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM (COORDINATES) ARE IN TERMS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83) AND ARE EXPRESSED AS DEGRESS, MINUTES AND SECONDS, TO THE NEAREST TENTH OF A SECOND. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS IN TERMS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 AND ARE DETERMINED TO THE NEAREST TENTH OF A FOOT. LESLIE R. BYRNSID~I~.S. LEGEND GRAVEL DRI~[ · EDGE O~ PA~M[N1 O ACCESS & UTILITY LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 Nll °10'47"E 32.41 L2 N24°01'45"E 50.8~' L3 N11°21'20"E 160.12 L4' N38°40'17"E 34.66 L5 N67°33'56"E 32.26 L6 N77°29'54"E 164.74 L7 N86°18'36"E 38.02 L8 S79°11'26"E 51.87 L9 N79°36'55"E 29.75, L10 N39°01'24"E ~ 4.31 Lll N50°58'36"W 40.03 L12 N39°01'24"E 10.00 L13 S50°58'36"E 40.03 L14 N39°01'24"E 39.62 L15 N24°59'37"E 157.25 L16 N01°52'43"E 105.49 L17, N 19°36'03"E 136.51 L18 N37°20'19"E 168.03 L19 N54°51'19"E 66.60 L20 N76°52'38"E 264.38 L21 N37°55'04"E 28.18 L22 N17°43'13"E 75.09 L23 N43°38'23"E 76.38 L24 N88°27'59"E 188.11 L25 S82°40'29"E ~ 155.65 L26 S09°06'34"W 5.00 s79oo6,23-E 179.6 .. L28 N78°24'08"E 75.63 L29 N64°19'55"E 141,83 L30 N44°59'35"E 89.70 L31 N34°33'45"E 260.55 L32 N38°13'23"E 161.39 L33 N49°41'18"E 117.64 L34 N03°35'47"E 38.16 L35 N50°47'58"W 239.42 L36! N48°44'57"E 35.36 L37 N70°43'13"E 121.48 ACCESS & UTILITY LINE TABLE LINE BEARING' LENGTH L38 N19°14'53"E 44.98 L39 S70°45'07"E 10,00 L40 S70°45'07"E 10,00 L41 S19"14'53"W 64,62 L42 S70°43'13"W 127,24 L43 S48°44'57"W 7.83 L44 S50°47'58"E 226,05 L45 S0~3°35'47"W 56.95 L46 S49°41'18"W 124,14 L47 S38°13'23"W 158,75 L48 S34°33'45"W 261,73 L49! S44°59'35"W 94.93 L50 S 64 ° 19'55"W 147,71 L51 S78°24'08"W 82,07 L52 N79°06'23"W 183.00 L53 S09°06'34"W 5,00 L54 N82°40'29WV 152.40 L55 S88°27'59qA/ 187.60 L56 S43°38'23"W 49.35 L57 S17°43'13"W 74.05 L58 S37°55'04"W 38.81 L59 S76°52'38"W 287,56 L60 S54°51'19"W 59.63 L61 S37°20'19"W 161.83 L62 S19°36'03"W 130.27 L63 S01°52'43"VV 106.46 L64 S24°59'37"W 163.80 L65 S39°01'24"W 63.79! L66 S79°36'55~A/ 40.89 L67 N79°11'26"W 53.06 L68 S86°18'36"W 33.93 L69 S77°29'54"W 161.46 L70 S67°33'56"W 25.37 L71 S38°40'17"W i 24.65 L72 S11°21'20qN 157.49 L73 S24°01'45"W 62.04 L74 S36o32,28"E 26.65 L75 S53°27'32"W 10.00 L76 N36°32'28"W 26.65 L77! S53°2T32"W 16.03 LEASE AREA LINE BEARING LENGTH L78 S19°14'53"w 30.00 L79 N70o45,07-W 30.00 LB0 N 19°14'53"E 30.00 L81 S70o45,07-E 30.00 C~O~N co~Muea~l~3e~, ~NC. 5372 FN. LO~tAILr~ LANE ~ C ROANO~ VA 24014 540)725-6072 ,540)725-7775 FAX TECTONIC HOWELL (TRITON PCS) CVR-370A 5726 ~AN! LAN[ CHARLOTI[SVILLE , VA 22963 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SITE SURVEY SP 1 LAWRENCE D. HOWELL T.M. 72-0-0-17 D.B. 1085, PG. 415 JAY GORDON BLACK T.M. 72-0-0-23 D.B. 812. PG. 419 Z I OO ' d ~--'d BARN STATE ROUTE 791 -- (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W) ~O'X~O' LEASE AREA MARTIN D. HOWELL T.M. 72-0-0-21 D.B. 1460. PO. 94 VARIABLE WIDTH UTILITY &: ACCESS EASEMENT '~'k~'~'~' THOMAS R &: ELLEN S. WYANT ~ T.M. 72-0-0-57B / ~ ALTHEA ANN WYANT ! / \ / T.ld. 72-0-0-57A  eO.B. 595. PO. 563 j ,., 18o PG. wOODS UNE MARTIN O. HOWELL T.M. 72-0-0-21 D.B. 1460. PG. 94 GRAP~IIC SCALE ~ CO~U~EAI~ONS. Ik~ C 5572 FN,J. OWA'IER ~ ~ I~ VA. 240'14 (~40)725- 6072 (540)725-7773 FAX TECTONIC ~,,, TRITON PCS. ~x'~c SUITE O RICHMOND, VA 2522,5 TEL: (804) 674-9725 FAX: (804) 674-9726 REVISIONS HOWELL (TRITON PCS) CVR- 370A 5726 WYANI L~[ CHARLOI'TES'VILLE , VA 22965 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SITE SURVEY 24 JACK G. &: PAMELA B. PELTIER T.M. 72-0-0-27F D.B. 826 PG. ,375 x'x.~SEE SHEET SP-4 DETAIL #1 VARIABLE WIDTH UTILITY ~"L19 /-..~ &: ACCESS EASEMENT X LI~_ .............. ' ............. /_>- \ ,,,, ..... . .............L~o -t~ MARTIN D. HOWELL u~ ...... ..~ .... - / T.M. 72-0-0-21 . ..... ' ..-"~ ~ O.D. ~o. ~. ~ ,,", ..... X ~ '----. ~.'"'.-.~" X ~ ...... --...,. ,.,,, .,,-,~ X '"- '"~) · X ~'-, '..¢~ ¢~ ¢~. ........ . ..... ' MARTIN D. HOWELL ~". '". ~ ~5 ........ - ....... T.M. 72-0-0-21 %~"'. "'-{~!!, ........ - ...... ;'~ D.B. 1460, PG. 94 '-.. L~O · __..~.- MARTIN D. HOWELL T.M. 72-0-0-21 D.B. 1460, PG. 94 \ V%~''''' ........... L24 MARTIN D. HOWELL ...... 1' ..... ~es T.M. 72-0-0-21 ..... [..... .......... '---. D.B. 1460, PG. 94 . .......... - ......... ~ O -.~ "--... '"-... 4s~ .......' ....... L GRAPHIC SCALE LS! · L36 / / /' , '"-. '"...'~--,(' /-LEASE30' X 3AREA / ,' ; ~-"¢3 "., '., r- / ~/ VARIABLE WIDTH UTILITY ,'" / <'~",, "",, ~/ & ACCESS EASEMENT 7 / / ~o[ ........... , ~, / ~ i i~ ~,, gT~r_~_ ,, / "~ ................ - ..... ' ..... ::- ........ ! / / , /sEE S.EET S~-~ / ............ - ........ .. ,' / MARTIN D. HOWELL L----DETAIL #2 / L~ ..... ~ ........ o ......... L33 / / T.M. 72-0-0-21 TECTONIC ~ ,.~ TRITON PCS, Ixxc RICE ASSOCIATES 308 TURNER ROAD SUITE G RICHMOND, VA 23225 TEL: (804) 674-9723 FAX: (804) 674-9726 HOWELL (TRITON PCS) CVR- 57OA 5726 WYAHT LANE CHARLOTTESVILLE , VA 22965 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SITE SURVEY SP-31 DETAIL 1 SCALE' N.T.S. / 4:bO / DETAIL 2 SCALE' N.T.S. ~ ~ 2~t4 (,~10)7,?.~- f~07~' I (~)725-7773 FAX TECTONIC TRITON :PC::._~. lac: Sun °m' ~oo '[URN£R R0~ TEL: (804) 674-9725 FAX: (,04) 674-9726 HOWELL (TRITON PCS) CVR'$70A 5726 WYANT UIN[ I CHARLOTTESVILLE , VA 22963 I C~NTY ~ ALBEMARLE SITE SURVEY SP 4 26 C f~,WRENCE O. HOWELL T,M. 72-0-0-17 0.B. 1085, PG. 413 421.05' ./r INTERSTATE 64 (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W) V0H MON. 30"x30" SEE W.W. FENCE 'v'DH 568.40' MON. 682.45' MARTIN O. D.B. 1460, PG. 94. / / / LEGEND - OHW ...... --UG E/T GRAPHIC SCALE ( I~ t~T ) t I=ch - ~OOfL TECTONIC ~ PCS. In~ II ~ II KIRKA. BOWERS HOWELL (TRITON PCS) CVR-570A I SITE PLAN Z-1 27 C (. LEGEND 1 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / / / / / ITE 1.DETAIL PLAN ALE: '-1o' TECTONIC ~ TRITON PCS. / / B^O(.O^~"°w~"/mLc° / / / / / ^CCE $~ ROAO / / / / / / / / / -/ / / / / / / EXIST TREE HEIGHT SCHEDULE TREE NO. TREE HEIGHT AMSL DIST. FROM POLl: IA,SE TOP 2. 96' 683.9 779,9 41' 4, 82' 683.9 765.9 5. fl2' 6R4.0 766.0 29' ~. p4' 684.0 768.0 19' 88' 68&~ , 771.~ If 8. 1~. 92' 177.5 769.5 ._J PER COMUmTS (TRITON PCS) ~o ro CVR-370A & 5726 WYANT LANE ~ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA ALBEMARLE COUNTY LAN /5 28' PROPOSED COAX CABLES ANTT~NNA~. (~?P 2) PROPOSED ICE BRIOCE ("~ELEVATION_ ANTENNA AND COAXIAL CABLE SCHEDULE ~FENCE DETAIL / (7~)SWINGING GATE DETAIL ()TRI-BRACKET ELEVATION I GTREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAIL PROJ[CT HOWELL (TRITON PCS) CVR-570A 5726 WYANT LANE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 ALBEMARLE COUNTY I ELEVATION & ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAILS Z-3 29 ~2 GREEN INSULAteD (STANOARD) CABLE BRIDGE GROUND OEQUIPMENT PAD PLAN. oCABLE BRIDGE SCALE :1' - oTRAPEZE CABLE RUN SCALE : I 1/2' - 1'-0' CABLE GRCUNO (l,m cF ~) ABLE BR DGE. CALE : 1115 ~'-9' (U~N) MOUNTING SASE p/dN T[O 6xB-6/6 ~RE MESH TECTONIC ~ .... TRITON :PC~. ][r._c HOWELL (TRITON PCS) CVR-570A 5726 WYANT LANE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 ALBEMARLE COUNTY NOTES & DETAILS Z-4 3O \ / ROAO TO FOCLOW 690 ~ / 20' 'MDE ACCESS PROPOSED 12' W~D~ CR^VI'L ACC[$C~ ROAD, 5~E IYPICAL DETAIL METAL ROAO TO FOLLOW /- /"7%GRAVEL ACCESS DRIVE DETAIl ~,~.~ SCALE: NfS LEGEND / ./ / / / / / GRAPHIC SCALE ( m r~l' ) TECTONIC ~ TRITON PCS. Inc LANE KiRK A. BOWERS ~SmL~,l J"' SUBMITTALS I~OJ£Cf HOWELL (TRITON PCS) CVR-570A 5726 WYANT LANE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 ALBEMARLE COUNTY GRADINO PLAN Z 5 31 / / ROAD TO FObt. OW * EA~N T GRAVEL ACCESS DRIVE DETAIL LEGEND t GRAPHIC SCALE TECTONIC ~ ,.~ "1 TRITON lc-CS. Xnc 5372 FALLOVANAIER LANE KIRK A. BOWERS ZONING SUnMITTAI.~ I ORIGINAL SIZE IN INCHES HOWELL (TRITON PCS) CVR-37OA 5726 WYANT LANE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 ALBEMARLE COUNTY GRADING PLAN Z-6 32 QGRAVEL ACCESS DRIVE DETAIl SCALE: NI'~ LEGEND EXIST TREE HEIGHT SCHEDULE IREE NO.IREF ItEICHT AMSL DIST. FROM POLE BASE TOP 1. 92' 68~.7 775.7 $0' 2. g6' 6859 7799 41' J. 69' 084.1 753.1 4. 82' 685,9 765.9 2 5, 82' 684.0 766.Q 2~' 6, 84' 684.0 768.0 19' 7. 88' 683.3 771.5 11' 8. 79' 685.4 762,4 lB' 9, 83' 682.~ 76~,8 21' 10. R6' RR.~ 7 769.7 42' 11. 74' 684.0 758,0 23' 12. 86' 679.4 765 4 68' 15. 92' 677.5769.5 72' / / / / GRAPHIC SCALE TECTONIC '-'"'~"~ TRITON PCS. Inc KIRK A. BOWERS ZONING J -J .< 0 CONSTRUCnON. PROJECT NO. ORA~N IJY CHECK SUBMITTALS PROJ£CT HOWELL (TRITON PCS) CVR-.370A 5726 WYANT LANE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 ALBEMARLE COUNTY SHEET TITL~ GRADING PLAN ~'IELrT NU~alEll 35 ATTACHMENT D McGuireWoods LLP Court Square Building 310 Fourth Street N.E. Suite 300 RO. Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1288 Phone: 804.977.2500 Fax: 804.980.2222 www. rncguirewoods.com Michael R. Fogarty Direct: 804.980.2230 McGUIREWOODS ATTACHMENT D mfogarty@mcguirewoods.com Direct Fax: 804.980.2271 January 30, 2001 Ms. Joan McDowell Albemarle County Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 SP 00-75 Howell (Triton PCS - CVR 370A) Dear Joan: As per your request, enclosed for your use in conjunction with the application for SP 00-75 are eight collated and narrated copies of the photographs taken during the Howell balloon test conducted for you on January 24, 2001. Seven sets of the photographs are provided to accompany your staff report in the member packets you are preparing for the members of the Planning Commission. The final set is provided for your files. I hope that you will find these photographs useful. Please do not hesitate to call me if I can provide you with any additional information regarding this application or if you have any questions concerning these photographs or narratives. Most Sincerely, Michael R. ~ c: Valerie Long, Esquire Dale Finocchi '~\REA',,50572.1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY · AGENDA TITLE: SP 00-079 East Belmont Farm Stream Crossing SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant has constructed a stream crOssing on Camp Branch without applying for the required special use permit. Construction of the crossing included the installation of a concrete Iow-water bridge, grading of the stream banks to access the bridge, and grading back of overhanging streambanks downstream of the crossing. The applicant proposes to rectify this violation through this application. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Clark AGENDA DATE: March 21,2001 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACH MENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: At its meeting on February 13, 2001, the Planning Commission approved this Special Use Permit with conditions (see attached staff report). At that meeting, the applicant stated that the costs involved with the required engineering study (see condition 2) would exceed the cost of the project itself, and would be onerOus to a working farm. The Planning Commission requested that staff find a way to (1) waive condition 2, if the Code would permit, or (2) provide the minimum requirements for the applicant to satisfy condition 2. DISCUSSION: The County Attorney's office has stated that it is not possible to waive the requirements of condition 2. Therefore, the Engineering Department has provided a memo (attached) that lists the minimum requirements necessary to satisfy this condition. The applicant and/or his engineer should be able to minimize costs by following these guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 00-079 with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. The memo from the Engineering Department has been given to the applicant to guide his engineering work. Attachments: A - Staff report, with attachments B - Memo from Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Eng'neer 01.051 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SCOTT CLARK FEBRUARY 13, 2001 MARCH 21, 2001 SP 2000-79 EAST BELMONT FARM STREAM CROSSING Applicant's Proposal The applicant has constructed a stream crossing on Camp Branch without applying for the required special use permit. Construction of the crossing included the installation of a concrete low-water bridge, grading of the stream banks to access the bridge, and grading back of overhanging streambanks downstream of the crossing. The applicant proposes to rectify this violation through this application. Petition The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Sections 30.3.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow construction of a stream crossing over Camp Branch. The parcel, described as Tax Map 80, Parcel 1, comprises 721.12 acres and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned Rural Area (RA) and is recommended as a Rural Area on the Land Use Plan. Applicant's Justification for the Request The applicant states that the crossing connects two sections of East Belmont Farm and prevents a 2- mile (one-way) trip between two sections of the farm separated only by Camp Branch. An unimproved ford existed at this point for decades, and had become heavily eroded and often impassible. The new bridge was constructed to reduce erosion on the site (see attachment D, page 1). History On November 30, 2000, a complaint was received from a neighbor, who asked Engineering staff to investigate digging along a stream and possible removal of soil. County staff found the location of the violation on December 8, and contacted the property owner. On December 13, staff met with Mr. Baker, the farm manager, to discuss erosion-control measures for the site. On December 18, the applicants submitted a special use permit application in order to rectify the violation. Character of the Area East Belmont Farm is located on the east side of the Southwest Mountains, an area of large cattle farms and hillside forests, much of which is within the Southwest Mountain Rural Historic District. Recommendation Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Rural Areas, intended for preservation of agricultural and forestal activities; water supply protection; limited service delivery; and conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. The Open Space Plan designates this site as part of a major stream valley, and the surrounding area as important Farmlands and Forests. East Belmont Farm is included in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. Engineering Review The Engineering Department has found that because of the crossing's location within East Belmont Farm and the lack of adjacent properties upstream of the crossing, there will be no flood impacts on neighboring proPerties. Staff notes that flood levels may increase by approximately 1 foot in a small, isolated area directly upstream of the crossing. This may mean that the requirements in section 30.3.03.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that flood level not increase, will not be met in this small area. However, this area of impact is small and will not affect any adjacent properties. Staff Comment Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, This project's only potential impacts on adjacent properties would be due to any increase in flood level that might be caused by obstruction of the stream. The Engineering Department has concluded that no such impacts will occur as a result of this project. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The stream crossing, which will provide access to an agricultural use, will not change the character of the district. The Engineering Department has found that while the bridge is wide enough to serve a 2-lot subdivision, the fact that it would be blocked by the 100-year flood event would make it unacceptable as a residential entrance. Therefore, this crossing does not appear to be intended for anything other than agricultural uses. (East Belmont Farm is also under a conservation easement.) and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Section 30.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the purpose and intent of the Flood Hazard Overlay District to provide safety and protection from flooding. More specifically, the provisions of this section of the ordinance are to "restrict the unwise use, development and occupancy of lands subject to inundation which may result in: danger to life and property; public costs for flood control measures and/or rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources; and general de~adation of the natural and man-made environment." This stream crossing is expected to have negligible effects on flooding in this area, and the erosion- control measures proposed by the engineering department (see conditions of approval below) will offset degradation of the stream. with the uses permitted by right in the district, By,right uses in the Rural Areas include agricultural and forestal uses and other supporting uses to agriculture and forestry. The stream crossing is used for farm access. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations for stream crossings in this section of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. This isolated stream crossing is expected to have no effects on safety or welfare, especially as flooding changes will be minimal and will not affect any neighboring properties. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of SP 2000-79 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must submit all plans, calculations, and documents required in conditions 2 through 4 within four months of the approval of this permit. 2. Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after constructions. Sections 18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. However, in areas of approximated floodplain, FEMA map accuracy is within 1 vertical foot. 3. Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands. 4. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. I17-322] Attachments A. Location Map B. Parcel Map C. Photographs of stream crossing site D. Letter and Maps from Applicant, including copy of Corps of Engineers permit E. Memo from Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Scott Clark, Senior Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer 27 Feb 2001 East Belmont Farm stream crossing, SP-2000-79, TM 80-1 The Planning Commission requested at its meeting on 13 Feb 2001 for the Engineering Department to provide the minimum requirements for the applicant to satisfy condition 2. That conditions states: "Engineehng Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after construction. Sections 18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. However, in areas of approximated floodplain, FEMA map accuracy is within 1 vertical foot." The minimum required information to be submitted to the Engineering Department to satisfy this condition in this area of approximated FEMA floodplain is: 1. A sketch showing the field measurements (horizontal and vertical) of the cross-section of the stream at the crossing point, both with and without the crossing in place. 2. A sketch on a USGS topographic map copy (or equivalent) showing the approximate acreage of the drainage area to the crossing point. 3. A computation for the expected 100yr storm interval flow, using a simple manual computation such as the SCS TR-55 Graphical peak discharge method. 4. A computation for the flood level in the stream at the crossing point, both with the crossing in place, and without. This computation can use a simple uniform flow formula such as the Chezy-Manning equation. To compute the flood level when the crossing is in place, the FHWA Culvert Headwater charts can be used in combination with flow computations over the crossing obstruction. Should the computations show that the flood levels do increase by more than 1 vertical foot or significantly alter the flood plain limits, the applicant will be required to obtain a Letter of Map Amendment from FEMA. This minimum information is consistent with other applications and has been conf'urned with the Engineering Department as a group as the minimum needed to evaluate impacts to the floodplain. It is anticipated that this document may be used for other stream crossings or flood plain studies in the future which have this condition. However, it must be understood that this minimum information is case specific and may not apply to other situations. This list is not meant to become the default standard submission requirements. Copy: file File: East Belmont Farm sp cond 2 req.doc February 16. 2001 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 · , Woodson Baker. General Manager East Belmont P O Box 52 Keswick, VA 22947 RE: SP-2000-79 East Belmont Farm; Tax Map 80, Parcel 1 Dear Mr. Baker: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 13, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must submit all plans, calculations, and documents required in conditions 2 through 4 within four months of the approval of this permit. 2. Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after constructions. Sections 18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. However, in areas of approximated floodplain, FEMA map accuracy is within 1 vertical foot. 3. Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands. 4. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. [17-322] Please note that, in accordance with the Planning Commission's request, staff will discuss the possibility of relief from condition #2 with the County Attorney's office. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 21, 2001. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should Nave any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. / . -/Scott Clark - Planner Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Bob Ball STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SCOTT CLARK FEBRUARY 13, 2001 MARCH 21, 2001 SP 2000-79 EAST BELMONT FARM STREAM CROSSING Applicant's Proposal The applicant has constructed a stream crossing on Camp Branch without applying for the required special use permit. Construction of the crossing included the installation of a concrete low-water bridge, grading of the stream banks to access the bridge, and grading back of overhanging streambanks downstream of the crossing. The applicant proposes to rectify this violation through this application. Petition The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Sections 30.3.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow construction of a stream crossing over Camp Branch. The parcel, described as Tax Map 80, Parcel 1, comprises 721.12 acres and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned Rural Area (RA) and is recommended as a Rural Area on the Land Use Plan. Applicant's Justification for the Request The applicant states that the crossing connects two sections of East Belmont Farm and prevents a 2- mile (one-way) trip between two sections of the farm separated only by Camp Branch. An unimproved ford existed at this point for decades, and had become heavily eroded and often impassib~le. The new bridge was constructed to reduce erosion on the site (see attachment D, page 1). History On November 30, 2000, a complaint was received from a neighbor, who asked Engineering staffto investigate digging along a stream and possible removal of soil. County staff found the location of the violation on December 8, and contacted the property owner. On December 13, staff met with Mr. Baker, the farm manager, to discuss erosion-control measures for the site. On December 18, the applicants submitted a special use permit application in order to rectify the violation. Character of the Area East Belmont Farm is located on the east side of the Southwest Mountains, an area of large cattle farms and hillside forests, much of which is within the Southwest Mountain Rural HiStoric District. Recommendation Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformitY with the ComprehenSive Plan and the ZOning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Rural Areas, intended for preservation of agricUltural and forestal activities; water supply protection; limited service delivery; and conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. The Open Space Plan designates this site as part of a major stream valley, and the surrounding area as important Farmlands and Forests. East Belmont Farm is included in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. Engineering Review The Engineering Department has found that because of the crossing's location'within East Belmont Farm and the lack of adjacent properties upstream of the crossing, there will be no flood impacts on neighboring properties. Staffnotes that flood'levels may increase by approximately 1 foot in a small, isolated area directly upstream of the crossing. This may mean that the .requirements in section 30.3.03.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that flood level not increase, will not be met in this small area. However, this area of impact is small and will not affect any adjacent properties. Staff Comment Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, This project's only potential impacts on adjacent properties would be due to any increase in flood level that might be caused by obstruction of the stream. The Engineering Department has concluded that no such impacts will occur as a result of this project. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The stream crossing, which will provide access to an agricultural use, will not change the character of the district. The Engineering Department has found that while the bridge is wide enough to serve a 2-lot subdivision, the fact that it would be blocked by the 100-year flood event would make it unacceptable as a residential entrance. Therefore, this crossing does not appear to be intended for anything other than agricultural uses. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Section 30.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the purpose and intent of the Flood Hazard Overlay District to provide safety and protection from flooding. More specifically, the provisions of this section of the ordinance are to "restrict the unwise use, development and occupancy of lands subject to inundation which may result in: danger to life and property; public costs for flood control measures and/or rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources; and general degradation of the natural and man-made environment." 2 This stream crossing is expected to have negligible effects on flooding in this area, and the erOSion, control measures proposed by the engineering department (see conditions of approval below) will offset degradation of the stream. with the uses permitted by right in the district, By-right uses in the Rural Areas include agricultural and forestal uses and other supporting uses to agriculture and forestry. The stream crossing is used for farm access. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations for stream crossings in this section of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. This isolated stream crossing is expected to have no effects on safety or welfare, especially as flooding changes will be minimal and will not affect any neighboring properties. Recommended Action Staff recommends approval of SP 2000-79 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must submit all plans, calculations, and documents required in conditions 2 through 4 within four months of the approval of this permit. 2. Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after constructions. Sections 18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. However, in areas of approximated floodplain, FEMA map accuracy is within 1 vertical foot. 3. Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands. 4. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. [ 17-322] Attachments A. Location Map B. Parcel Map C. Photographs of stream crossing site D. Letter and Maps from Applicant, including copy of Corps of Engineers permit E. Memo from Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer 3 C Albemade '--.TS ML TO ~ TO RUCKERSVILLE 1 EARLYSVILLE AREA lq OgA~O£ I Stony TO BARBOURSVILLE Cash Corn Cismont Lindsay & TO LOUISA SP00-79 EAST BELMONT FARM TO ZION CROSSROADS 4 TO PALMYRA 79 ·- ALBEMARLE COUNTY SP00-79 EAST BELMONT FARM 94 ,~,_, o ,,,__==, .......... ~, RIVANNA. DrSTRIOT ATTACHMENT B 75. SECT[ON 80 5 ATTACHMEF'~ C Banks cut back downstream Stream crossing from downstream Upstream from crossing EAST BELMONT FAR ,; P,O. BOX 45~ KESWICK, VIRGINIA: 22947 (804) 296-1629 ATTACHMENT D Scott Clark, Senior Planner County of Albemarle Charlottesville, Va. January 25, 2001 Dear Mr. Clark; This letter is in response to your request for more information to accompany our application for a special use permit for a stream crossing at East Belmont Farm. Please recall that the bridge has already been built as we were unaware that any permits were required. We now know that a small portion of the mapped flood plane exists along the creek where the crossing was built, thus the need., for the special use permit. Please understand that our primary objectives in this project; are reduction of erosion and fencing cattle offofthe creek. We are good stewards of our land and would like it recognized that our efforts on this project reflect a working knowledge of the creek and the surrounding acreage, as well as a genuine desire to protect our water resources for ourselves and those downstream. History The creek is named "Camp Branch" and is designated on the USGS maps as an intermittent stream, which is dry at times. Camp Branch has a watershed of approximately 732 acres, most of which is on East Belmont. The branch is characterized by low water flow most of the time, contrasted by rapidly rising water flowing at a high velocity for a short period of time. On occasion, during the last twenty years, water has come out of the banks in three places on the farm and dispersed in the adjoining pastures with negligible erosion. For decades, a creek ford existed on "Camp Branch", some 225 feet fi:om the farm's southeastern boundary. This crossing was characterized by steep, eight foot, banks sloping down to a firm rock creek bed. The fmaa creek bed accounts for the location of the ford, but the apProaches were steep and became the low point at which the adjoining pastures drained. The downstream banks were 'scalloped' out fi.om erosion within the branch itself, causing a safety threat to humans and livestock. From time to time, it became necessary to add fill to the eroded approaches so that the ford could be properly negotiated. Rationale Camp Branch ford connects the farm in the fi.ont of the property eliminating the need to drive 1.2 miles upstream to the upper ford, and an additional .8 miles back to the adjacent field. This crossing is essential to the efficient movement of equipment and livestock on the farm. Over the years our attention was drawn to the erosion taking place in the vicinity of the ford, and a plan was developed to better cross the creek, eliminate erosion, and reduce maintenance at the site. Furthermore, we decided to alter fences to keep cattle off' of this creek. Mindful of the potential for rapid rises of water, a commonly used bridge design was 'incorporated which allows water to flow under the bridge at normal 7 water levels, and io flow over the bridge, remaining in the channel, al times of flood. Since the lowest point in the adjacem pasture was not altered, there would be no change in water dispersal at times of flood. We believe that the design and positioning of the bridge actually slows high water and reduces the impact downstream. The lowering of the dangerously scalloped bank, below the bridge, allows for additional water dispersal, on East Belmom, downstream from the bridge. Bridge Construction A low water bridge was constructed in October of 2000. The bridge is constructed of concrete and is 22 feet long, 12.5 feet wide and 38" in height. The walls are 12" formed concrete with ~A" rebar 12" on center and anchored in the rock stream bed. Four 18" concrete culverts pass through the from and back wall and the area between has been backfilled and tamped. The bridge is topped with an 8" slab of concrete reinforced with ½" rehar. The approaches to each side of the bridge were backfilled with 96 cubic yards of stone and fill dirt; then tamped. The top of the bridge is four feet below the top of the creek banks. Approximately 200 feet of disturbed land along the creek was seeded with an annual ryegrass/rye grain/fescue seed mix and mulched. Silt fence was placed along the banks where soil was disturbed. Replanting of trees and shrubs is planned for the spring. The remaining work, according to our plan, is the construction of rocked ditches providing drainage to the creek from adjacem pasture fields. This will prevent erosion on our bridge approaches. Finally, we will locate permanem fences and gates, enabling us to provide a buffer along the stream. Additional Information I have contacted Mr. Brogden with the Army Corp of Engineers and include the Corps Nationwide Permit Number 14 for this project. Mr. Hirschman with Albemarle County Engineering plans to meet with me next week to assist in developing a spring re- vegetation plan. I have solicited the approval of neighbors downstream and await letters of support. Enclosed is the topographic map showing the location of the project, and the watershed area upstream. I have also enclosed photographs of the project. In addition to yourself; I have met on site with Mr. Svoboda, manager of county zoning enforcement, Mr. Echols and Mr. Brooks in engineering, and the County Extension Agent. I have solicited input from all sources and worked to comply with regulations and suggestions such as the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan checklist. I am happy to comply with any further regulations that are brought to my attention, though I would hope that you and the Planning Commission recognize that this is a rather simple farm project that has been done 'in house' at a cost of $2,500. The fee for the permit application and possible engineering fees, should they be required, will likely cost more than the cost of construction. We believe care has been given to design, construction and impact and hope that we will be granted a special use permit for this project. Sincerely, C. WoodS°n Baker General Manager, East Belmont 8 3-D T I JgO0 ft: Scale: I: 22,400 13-2 Dat;u~: 2'30" 4213 4212 4210 610 000 FEET' ~09 38° 78°~22'30' 1731 20,~g 000 FEET ~,.ZImN CROSSROADS (U.$. 15) 8 Mt. FERNCLIFf* 15 MI. Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological Survey. Control by USGS and USC&GS Topography by photogrammeLric methods from aerial photographs taken /.g63. Field checked 1964 Polyconic projection. ' lg27 North American datum lO,O00-foot grid based on Vi. rginia coordinate system, south zone. lO00-meter Universel Transverse Mercator grid ticks, zone /.7, shown in blue Fine red dashed lines indicate selected fence and field lines wh .,~. generaHyv'i~ib~eon aerial photographs. This information is un,.hecked Revisions shown in purple compiled in cooperation with Commonv;u~lth of Virginia agencies from aerial photographs taken 1977 and other source data. This information not field checked. Map edited 1978 Map photoinspected 1984 No major culture or drainage changes observed 733 734 20' 1'39' 29MILS UTM GRID AND 1978 MAGNETIC N( DECLINA, TION AT CENTE[R OF SHEL' OI U.S. Army Corps of Engxneers Norfolk District, Western Virginia R.:omlatory Section 186 Mill Lane 8taunton, VA 24401 Projec' Number: 01-H0007 1. Participant: ~-~'~ast Belmont Farm Arm: Mr. C. Woodson Baker P. O. Box 45 Keswick, Virginia 22947 Waterway: Camp Branch 2. Authorized Agent: None 3. Address of Job Site: January 24, 2001 Off State Route 22 just west of Keswick, Albemarle County, Virginia. 4. Project Description: After-the-fact permit for the installation of a concrete culvert stream crossing for access by farm equipment. Crossing is constructed on an intermittent headwater stream using four 18 inch culverts and is approximately 12 feet x 20 feet. Total impacts are approximately 240 square feet. 5. Findings ..... Thi.q :s regarding your request to perform work in "~e waters of the United States, as described in part 4 above. This activity has beer, re'Aewed and found to satisfy the criteria contained in the Corps Nationwide Permit Number 14, attached. (The Corps .Nationwide Permits were published in the Federal Register (65 FR 12818) on March 9, 2000 and the regulations governing their use can be found in 33 CFR 330 published in Volume 56, Number 226 of the Federal Register dated November 22, 1991.) Pro ilded the enclosed conditions are met, an individual Department of the Army Permit will not be required. In addition, the Virgin;a Department of Environmental Quality has provided 401 certification for Nationwide Permit Number 14. - '~'Eh~io.~ed' i.~' a-'%rfi~liaixce certification" form, which must be,signed aad ~e .t3arned within 30 days of completion of the project, including any required mitigation (see nationwide permit conditi6n numb6]-:l'4). Yot.;.2slghfitui~e' On this form certifies that you have ~ple,ed the work in accordance with the nationwide permit ie'rms and conditions. This verification is valid for five years fi.om the date of this letter, unless the Norfolk Disa'ict Engineer uses discretionary authorit7 to modify, suspend or revoke this verification. The Chief of Engineers will periodically review the nationwide permits and their conditions and will decide to either modify, reissue or revoke the permits. This existing nationwide is scheduled t6 expire on June 7; 2005. If the nationwide permit(s) verified in this letter are reissued without modification or if your activity complies with any subsequent nationwide permit, the expiration date of this verification will not change. However, if the nationwide permit(s) verified in the letter are modified or revoked so th&t the activity listed above would no longer be authorized and you have commenced or are under contract to commence the work, you will have twelve months fi'om the date of that permit change to comph t, the activity. Activities completed under .-.he authorization of a nationwide permit which was in effect at the time the acfivit3 was .completed continue to be.authorized by that nationwide permit. It is your responsibility to remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a special public notice announcing any changes to the nationwide permits when they occur. · 6. Co~s Contact: James E. Brogdon at (540) 886-4221 NAO FL 13 REVISED' DEC 90 ATTACHMENT E COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Scott Clark, Senior Planner Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer 29 January 2001 East Belmont Farm, special use permit for a stream crossing The application information for a special use permit to build a stream crossing in the floodplain received on 29 January 2001 has been reviewed. The crossing is akeady in place, so this proposal is after the fact. The crossing is a concrete block 3.5' tall by 22' long by 12.5' wide, through which are placed 4 concrete pipes with 15" inside diameters. It is intended to be a low water crossing, meaning bank-full flooding would pass over the structure. It is built higher than typical crossings of this type, which tend to be as low as pipe diameters will permit. In addition, the stream bank has been laid back downstream of the crossing. The stream is a deeply cut wooded stream running on the edge ofpastureland. The low flow channel is 5- 10' wide flowing as much as 6" deep, and the banks are up to about 5' high, with vertical cuts in some areas. The applicant's information indicates a watershed of a little over a square mile (1.14 sq. mi.). The stream is marked as an unnamed dashed line on USGS maps, and as an area of approximated floodplain on FEMA maps. The location of the crossing is isolated on East Belmont Farm, a few hundred feet upstream of the neighboring property. Because of this, any changes to the floodplain and Stream flows will not impact other properties. The Engineering Department recommends approval with the following standard conditions: 1. Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and leVels before and after construction, Sections 18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. However, in areas of approximated floodplain, FEMA map accuracy is within 1 vertical foot. 2. Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands. 3. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. [17-322] It is expected, because of the height of the constructed crossing, that flood levels will change by more than 1 vertical foot directly upstream of the crossing. This will be a backwater affect caused by the crossing obstruction, especially if some of the pipes get clogged. Thus, it should be noted that the provision for no increase in flood levels of section 18-30.3.03.2 may not be met in this isolated area. Copy: file File: East Belmont Farm sp_stream xing.doc SP-2000-79 East Belmont Farm-March 21, 2.001 Farm located in Keswick. I am here tonight as a representative of the owner, Archibald Craige, who sends his regrets for being unable to attend tonights meeting. Mr. Craige is elderly and doesn't get out much at night. I appear before you tonight to ask for your approval of our special use permit application for construction of a low water bridge. As you will know from the Planning Staff document, we were unaware that that there is a flood plane designation on a couple of hundred yards of a creek at the farm's southern boundary, and by working in this creek are in violation of the county zoning ordinance. We graded 210 feet of dangerously overhanging creek bank, cleaned up our old ford and built a low water bridge, just over 3' tall. Our reasons for embarking on this project were to reduce ongoing erosion at the ford, improve access to the front of the farm for movement of machinery and livestock, and to fence the cattle off of the creek. At the Planning commission public hearing on February 13th, I asked for relief from one of the recommended conditions of approval which required engineering work which would have cost $5,000 to $10,000. The planning commission asked engineering staff to waive the condition or come up with a minimum set of standards for the condition which would not be so costly. The resulting conditions will reduce our engineering cost to the $1500 range and we thank you for working with us. For the benefit of other farmers in the county I am compelled to add that we find ourselves, as farmers who know our land and waterways, faced with compliance to ordinances which do not aptly apply to agriculture The required engineering work deals with how our project changes the flood plane. The planning & engineering reports state that our project will have no impact on properties other than East Belmont. The low water bridge obstructs about 20 inches of water flow, similar to that of a tree fallen across the creek. Though not a reason for the bridge, if any additional water were to back up on our pastures as a result of the low water bridge, we would embrace the results just as we appreciate any trees that have fallen across our miles of creeks. A Huge rain is nicely dispersed in our low pastures along the creeks. This occurs without erosion and revitalizes our best grazing land. As a matter of fact, we aerate our fields in March to capture moisture from spring rain and any brief flooding. This gets us through the hot, dry summer. I should add that East Belmont was one of the first farms in the Southwest Mountain Historic District to be placed in permanent conservation easement, therefore our actions will not impact future land uses. Section 30.3.1 of the zoning ordinance establishes the purpose and intent °fthe flood Hazard Overlay District to provide safety and protection from flooding. From an agricultural point of view, we feel like the engineering requirements do nothing more than protect us from ourselves and cover the engineering department. We understand that any alterations to the flood plane have important implications related to county government and federal funding and that our project must not alter the flood plane more that one foot or a FEMA remapping application must be submitted. Though I am not an engineer, my preliminary research indicates that our project will change the flood plane only fractionally. My point is that with 27 employees- in the engineering department, you would think that someone could have helped us reach that determination and therefore etim~te engineering fees. After afl, our efforts ha-v-ebeen centered around the reduction of erosion at a ford and fencing cattle offthe creek, both important issues t° the county. The comprehensive plan strongly supports protecting agricultural lan6s and forests, for many reasons. A 1994 report commissioned by the Board of Supervisors by the Agricultural & forestal Industries support committee, of which I was a member, states among other things that, income derived by the landowner encourages the landowner to keep the land resource intact. That's the key. Farming must ultimately be economically viable.' Our construction cost for this bridge was $2200. Permit fees, engineering, riparian buffer replanting and time spent by myself and staff since construction wilt cost in excess of $5,000. My point is that if the county sincerely wants to support agriculture, t believe the you should look hard at how the zoning ordinance really applies to farmers and that county resources should be used to help bonified farmers work through the process. We require few services from the county and pride ourselves on the improvements we continue to make to the farm without local, state or federal funding. Conversely, we expect regulations and taws to which we must abide to be reasonable and fair. It would seem that certain parts of the zoning ordinance are geared to the difficulties that arise from development, and their need is understandable. Costs can be passed along. Farmers, on the other hand, provide the backdrop for our beautiful county and must pay big bucks to comply with regulations that may have no relevance in the farmin~ world, especially when they occur on one's own property and affect no others. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road. Room 218 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax {804~ 972- 4012 March 6, 2001 Edward Leake, Jr Richard Saunders. ETAL, Trustees Colonial Baptist Church Mission P O Box 6547 Charlottesville. VA 22906 RE: SP-2000-80 Colonial Baptist Church; Tax Map 94, Parcel 46 Dear Mr. Leake: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 27, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non-worship useS will require amendment to this petition. Print shop and mailing service is limited to distribution of church related items; five (5) volunteers; hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; and, no more than twelve (12) commercial delivery truck trips per month as described in memorandum dated August 10, 1998, from Colonial Baptist Church to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Section I. Facts, Item No. 8 (copy attached). Additional development shall be limited to the final site plan revised May 29, 1998. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 21, 2001. Any neTM or additional information regarding your application must be submitted t° the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Since.,..,rely,~(.. ) ~ Juandiego Wade Transportation Planner JW/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Steve AIIshouse Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Bob Ball COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 2000-80 Colonial Baptist Church Mission Church and Literature Distribution SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of SP 2000-80 Colonial Baptist Church Mission Church and Literature Distribution STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs.,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Planning Commission: February 27, 2001 Board of Supervisors: March 21, 2001 ACTION: INFORMATION: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On the August 19, 1998 the Board of Supervisors approved the applicant's request to amend an existing special use permit to operate a mission building. The mission building would house operations for the printing .~_ and distribution of humanitarian literature, and a prophet's chamber - an efficiency room for visiting church representatives. The printing/distribution operation to be housed in the mission building would operate Monday through Saturday, from 7 am to 7 p.m., and would employ up to five people. (Attachment A) DISCUSSION: The applicant did not enact the approved special use permit within the appropriate time frame and the approval has expired. The applicant is seeking re-approval of the same request except for the prophet's chamber. The applicant no lOnger desires to have this efficiency room. RECOMMEN DATIO N: Staff could not identify any changes in conditions or to the request that would change the original finding or approval. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request with the same conditions noted in the original approval letter (Attachment A). The previous staff report can be found as Attachment B. The minutes from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors previous meeting can be found as Attachments C and D. ATTACHMENT A August 31, 1998 Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE of Planning & CommuniW Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Edwin L. Leake, Jr Richard L. Saunders, ETAL Trustee P O Box 6547 Charlottesville, VA 22906 SP-95-23 Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building Tax Map 94, Parcel 46 Dear Mr. Leake: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on august 19, 1998, approved the abOve-noted request to allow printing and distribution of church literature in a 3,040 square foot building to be constructed adjacent to an existing church. Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non-worship uses will require amendment to this petition. Print shop and mailing service is limited to distribution of church-related items; five (5) volunteers; hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; and, no more than twelve (12) commercial delivery truck trips per month as described in memorandum dated August 10, 1998, from colonial Baptist Church to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Section I. Facts, item No. 8 (copy attached). Additional development shall be limited to the final site plan revised May 29, 1998. In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not be commenced within eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years from the date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year. 2 Page 2 August 31, 1998 Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5875. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Development VWC/jcf cc: Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey ATTACHMENT B STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Margaret M.M. Pickart JUly 21, 1998 AuguSt 19. 1998 SP-98-23 COLONIAL BAPTIST CHURCH Applicant's Proposal: The applicant requests an amendment to an existing special use permit to operate a mission building. The mission building would house operations for the printing and distribution of humanitarian literature, and a prophet's chamber- an efficiency room for visiting church representatives. The applicant has indicated that the literature printing/distributiOn use is an extension of the church's present work, and will benefit the general welfare by further extending the church=s ministry to the community. The printing/distribution operation to be housed in the mission building would operate Monday through Saturday, from 7 am to 7 p.m., and would employ up to five people. Petition: Request for a special use permit, in accord with the provisions of Sections 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow the printing and distribution of church literature in a 3,040 square foot building to be constructed adjacent to the existing church on 10.389 acres of land located on U.S. Route 250 East, .7 miles east of S.R, 744 (Hacktown Road), in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property, described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 46, is zoned RA Rural Area, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Rural Areas; this site is not lOcated within a designated development area. A site plan showing proposed development of the property is being reviewed concurrently with this Special Use Permit request. Character of the Area: This site is situated in a rural area. Surrounding properties are zoned RA Rural Areas. Single family residences stand to the east and west. The site is bounded on the South bY S.R. 250. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of SP 98-23 with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: SUB 88-044 William W. Baum: SubdiVision of ParCel 42, shOwing a survey of Parcel 46. SP 88-01 Colonial Baptist Church: Special Use Permit to operate a church apprOved 3/16/88 with the condition that: ASanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and Other non-worship uses will require amendment to this petition. ~ SDP 88-006 Colonial Baptist Church Preliminary Site Plan: Preliminary site plan for a church building on 10.44 acres of land. SDP 91-072 Colonial Baptist Church Minor Amendment: Minor amendment to construct an addition at the rear of the church. 4 Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan discourages development in the Rural Area, which are to be devoted to 1) preservation of agricultural and forestry lands and activities, 2) water supply protection, 3) and conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources and 4) where only limited delivery of public services is intended. This site is not used for agriculture as it is currently the location of the church. The proposed increased development on this site will not affect the agricultural use of other property in the area. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The adjacent properties to the east and west are zoned Rural Areas and are occupied by single family residences. The proposed development will have little visual impact on adjacent property. The new building is not expected to be visible fi.om Route 250, and wooded areas will screen the site from adjacent properties. Print shop: Based on the scale of activity proposed, there will be little or no impact to adjacent properties. Traffic impact is limited to 10 to 20 vehicle trips per day and two LIPS type truck pick-up/deliveries per month. There would be no noise or pollution impacts related to the printing operation. Prophet's chamber: Because of its residential nature, the prophet=s chamber will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. that the character of the district will not be chan~ed thereby, Print shop: The proposed use is a non-worship use amounting to a print shop and a mailing service supporting international mission work. The shop will operate 5 days per week, from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m., and will employ 5 people. Two UPS pickups/deliveries are expected each month. A print shop use is not customarily incidental to a church. However, it is related to church outreach and missionary activities. While a commercial print shop and mail order business is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal of limiting development in the Rural Areas, the relationship of this proposal to the primary use (church) and the type and scale of printing activity will not change the character of the district. Prophet's chamber: The prophet's chamber constitutes a dwelling unit; residential uses are permitted in the RA district. Consequently, this use will not change the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4. Print shop: The Chief of Zoning Administration (see Attachment D) has stated that the use being proposed is essentially a print shop and mailing service which, as an independent use, is not permitted in the RA district. The Board would have to find that the use was accessory to the church. Further, she notes that the proposed use is out of proportion to the church it serves and out of scale for accessory uses in the RA district. However, the Zoning Administrator has recently determined that current technology has relieved many of the nuisance concerns related to printing establishments operating in the past, and that the type of equipment and supplies used in a commercial print shop could be found in any large office building. Staff opinion is that the type of printing activity proposed is related to church outreach and missionary activities. Further, the scale and impact of the proposal is not significantly different than some other by right uses in the Rural Area. Staff notes that a day care facility for fewer than six children are permitted as a Class A Home Occupation by right and could generate 20 vehicle trips per day. Prophet's chamber: Because residential uses are permitted in the RA district, the prophet's chamber use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Approval of this request will not affect permitted uses on adjacent property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 specifically addressing the types of use proposed in this application. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The primary impact from this proposal is traffic generation. As noted previously, total additional traffic generated is estimated at 10 to 20 vehicle trips per day. VDOT has indicated that the existing church entrance on to Route 250 is adequate. Route 250 in this area carries 7,400 vehicle trips per day (1996 count). This additional traffic is not considered a public safety issue. The review of the site plan will insure that other public health, safety and welfare issues related to physical development are met. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan, storm water management computations, final grading plans, and drainage computations are required as a condition of site plan approval. Health Department approval of septic system will also be required. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request: The proposed Aprophet's chamber -- dwelling unit is consistent with permitted uses in the RA district. The Zoning Administrator has determined that current printing technology does not present the same nuisance concerns that printers and typesetters did in the past. Requiring commercial setbacks for the commercial use in the RA district would help mitigate the potential negative impact of the commercial use on the surrounding rural areas. Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request: The print shop use is not customarily incidental to a church and could be considered out of proportion to the church it would serve. The prophet's chamber aspect is consistent with church activity and staff recommends approval of this use. Staff also recommends approval of the print/mail use provided that it is limited to the distribution of church related items, and the scale of the activity (employment, deliveries) is 7 limited to the existing proposal. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of one "prophet's chamber" dwelling subject to the following condition: 1. Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non-worship uses will require amendment to this petition. Should the Commission desire to approve the literature printing/distribution use, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non-worship uses will require amendment to this petition. 2. Print shop and mailing service is limited to distribution of church related items; five (5) employees; hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and, no more than four (4) commercial delivery truck trips per month. Commercial setbacks shall apply to the commercial uses on this site. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Preliminary Site Plan D - Memo from Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration, dated June 29, 1998 8 . OT-~ES- Monhcetlo / / ATTACHMENT A 'vi' ~. ;} '4 CROSSH(./ADS SP 98-23 COLONIAL BAPTIST CHURCH g · ATTACHMENT B 42 Building Code Information (804) 296-5832 COUNTY OF ALBEMARI F_ Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 223 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 FAX (804) 972-4126 TTD (804) 972-4012 ATTACHMENT D JUN Z ;' ~.,., Planning .Dept. Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 MEMORANDUM TO' Margaret Pickart, Design Planner FROM: Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration ~_~ DATE: June 29, 1998 RE: SP 98-23, Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building This church is currently allowed under SP 88-01 whiCh c°ntainsa c°nclitio~ that:'~'-' "sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non-worship uses will require amendment to this petition." This is a "non-worship use" request for what amounts to a print shop and mailing service. In this case, it is my opinion that a print shop supporting mission works all over the world, operating 5 days per week, employing five people and having-UPS pickups/deliveries twice a month is not customarily incidental to a church. The request is out of proportion to the church it serves and out of scale for accessory uses in the RA district. The zoning administrator recently made a determination that printing has changed over time such that the current technology does not present the same nuisance concerns that printers and typesetters did in the past. She noted that the same type of equipment and supplies used in a commercial print shop could be found in any large office to support just their own needs (e.g., the County Office Building.) That determination certainly could be viewed to support the applicant, however, since the independent use is not permitted in the RA district, the Board of Supervisors must find that the use is accessory to the church. The proposed "prophet's chambers" constitute a dwelling unit. Residential uses are permitted by right in the RA district, so this would ordinarily need no action by the Board. There are sufficient development rights and acres to allow a rectory for full-time use; therefore, this part time dwelling needs only authorization under the SP for a "non-worship" use. We recommend keeping a similar condition that requires amendment to the SP for non- worship uses. It is also helpful for the Board to require use of commercial setbacks for a commercial use in the RA district. Since there are no setbacks for parking in the RA, using commercial setbacks imposes the 20-foot undisturbed buffer and parking setback thereby allowing more protection to the residential and agricultural uses nearby. 11 ATTACHMENT C PRIYAT£ ROA~ TYPICAl, SECT[ON NO Colonial Baptist ChUrch aggregate VDOT ~121 or 21A w/ Prime & Seal Not~: 1. D~q,'e~n~ M~lllon'l Building. Owner:. Coloniol ~pUst Ch~ch ~l~pc PQ~ Edw~ L ~ ~. 2. Z~: ~ ~d EC. de~t~ ~ Zone '~ (m~ ~ ~ ~m~e Ra~ ~op~ ~t~ ~. 1~. 1~. ~ity Po~ ~ 5t~ O~ 8. ~.'~g ~ck ~e*; Fr~t ~ 75'. ~d ~ S.L g~, ~. ~ ~ t0.1aM. ~ ~a~n - ~.~. 7. ~ ~ht of ~ bu~ ~ ~ ~ ~'. 8. ~n~ by S.L K~ ~c., ~ch g. S.L K~. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~ to ~ ~uch u~i~e. I0.~ ~ ~ ~j~ to 11.~ ~ ~ ~e~ent to Site ~ ~-~-01, ~ ~ ~endmeM ~ ~ to refi~ ~ht aw~ Irom ~rcel~ ~ a~ tram ~j~ent ~. ~ ~v~ ~ publ~ r~ds a~ ~o~ ~ R~ ~e~ ~ ~t exceed ~e-~f f~[ ~. ~3.~ ~ount ol ~ ~: ~g - 25,172 ~.f. Pr~ - 14.1~ ~.f.. Tot~ - 39,356 ~.L 15.~re me ~ ar~ of ~e ~e ~M ~e ~ ~e to ~e ~ quanU~ r~c~. 17.Fro ~ ~t~a~. ~ r~ to ~u~ l[Tree Ca~ ~vm~: R~red: I bee ~ 10 n~ ~ ~ Pro~ded: 5 ne~ b~ Missio' on Located ding hmond Road Tax Map 94, Rivanna Parcel 46 District Arb emarte County, Virginia Date: May 12, 1998 (preliminary) Revised: May 29, 1998 (county comments) Sheet 1 of 5 t APPROVALS N/A Deporb~ent of Planning & Community Deveinpment Department ot Engineering Department ot Zoning Inspections Dept. ~, Fire Official Nbemorle County Service Authority CO VERA GES $.F. Ac. TotaJ Existing Church 7,565 .17 1.67~ Baling 3,~ .07 .87~ ~s~Ung P~ 25,8~ .$g 5.71~ P~s~ P~-~'~--11.1~ .2e 2.46~ O~n ~ac~ ~4.9~ 9.~ 89.~ Tot~ 452.545 10.~9 ~ PARKING TABULATION: PREV!OUS PABKIHG: Spacel re~,~red - 42~ a~ee pro~ - 49 (i~lud~g 2 ha~cap~) Pa~ requkemen~ ~ agr~d u~n at Predevelo~enl plann~g m~ng. ~ ~ces ~st ~o ~ ~bance ~ot~ Pr~: 49 (thJ$ ~lude~ ~ han~ap RECEIVED JUN u 1 1998 Planning Dept. Ceoq 12 REVISIONS: FINAL SITE PLAN MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT COLONIAL BAPTIST CHURCH MISSION BUILDING TA~ MAP 94, PARCEL 46 RIVANNA ]~'tGISTERIAL DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Parcel 46 10.389 Acres \ \ \ 1.... I { / x /~ II /////~ / ~- ~ ~'~ -' / , ' Mission B1. / / /~ / ~= 49~7 ~-~ f - X~ ] ,', / / ' ~ / ~ ~ / / ~ , /. //--~-- /~~ ~ / / ~ / / // //~ . ~O"tlOok vropose( cGSS Proposed Ne~ I E' CMP ~6.2~ ~ ~11 / / ~ ~ / I~v. i~= 484.5 ~~ ~ ~ / 482.0 ....... / Detention / ~ ~ S. Sheet, ~. / .... -- ~ ~S~ ~ ~ J / \ 20"/Oak 24~ Maple 20 0 2O 10 10 40 13 MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT COLONIAL BAPTIST CHURCH M]SSION BUILDING TAX MAP 94, PARCEL 46 RIVANNA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGHglA / / / ?/ 4~s7// Parcel 46 / 10.389 Acres / / / / / / / / / / / / Existing ..'" / 0 Well .." .......... N ...~ ......... ........... ..~..~ : ,,.,, ........ -, · ~ O~e~ .... 14 Ex. I Asphalt Droinf l elld · Ne~ T~eeline Albemorle County Wqter Protect/on Ordinqnce Compl/qnce Dote Step h/dent/fy Water Resources Area Other rural land /pre. IX C- 0.4 mg/L Step 2; Determine Reglonol Foclllty No regiono/ fac/lily downstreom. Step 5: Identify Any Detention Exemptions Project Areo, 1.4 D/slurbed oreo= 0.6 oc. Stormwoter exemption * 4 (~flnlmum oreo <1 Oc.) No detention required. Step 4~ In/Ilo/BliP Colculo/lons Exemptions: None Areo ,.0.6 oc. /post= 10,579 s.f or ZSZ P= 45 In. PJ. 0.9 Rv= 0.05 Lpre-O.II lbs. Lpost. O.12 lbs. Lt,)ts Of 'Const. ,, - 4 9 I RR. 0.0/tbs. _~- ---: ~,~___/,~ 490-- / / -" XRR=6X -- / ~ / : / / Intended BNP Type: .Ex/Detention Dry Pond (3OX) WOV~ 441 c.f. (I/2" over Impervious ~' ,.../ /~ / ~ / / ~.' .... / ~._~ ~ / ' ,, Pond Storoge- */- 2800 c.f.(Dry only) O.K. .... ...- , ,- ....-:" ~ ~: ,..~ , i Step 5, Identff~ :treom Burrer Requirements tnv In, 48~ 5 c,- ~ ~.,. .......>/ ~ I ~/ ~ ~ , · · ~ ~ - .... ~ Step 5~ ~propr/ete lnformoflon s~n ~re on plon Inv. out~N82.0 ~~ ..... ...~ Wt / / . ' ~ ' · . ' , ~- ~ '.~- ~,.9' ~/¢ / rod ¢/ar sl/~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ . ,,.. ., , %"%, ..... >." .... _/ , :' ,," ' N ~'-'~ :/ - 480~ ,/' ,, r~=~~~e~~, Stormwaler ~onagement/B~P Plan " ,¢ / . '/ ~A , ~~~ ~ , ~0~ ~"~¢/~'~¢ Colonlol Boptlst Church ' ' ~/ x ~ 9' ~ ~ ~/~,~///~~/~ L~oted on Slote Route 250 ~ - -:~ ~¢ ' ~ Rlvonno D/strict ~..-< -.--' Al~morle Count, Wrglolo S.L. Key,/nc. P.O. Box 1346 Chorlottesville, VA 22902 804/971-8359 Survey, Topo, Loy oul , 1t ana g m~ n t 20 0 20 40 &O SheeL of .) / 5-~' x15' $~oces- ~ / I I /"/ / I I 480 Proposed Grove L/mits of Const.~ .,,.-, Bldg. / FF, 494] , /. / ? 90*-7 Aspho I t -49C / / / / TCS Englneerln9 Co. P.O. Box 506 Nellysford, VA 22958 804/551-1215 5-W~P,E&$ P/an J Noson SIM Loom T~eellne I I Earthwork, quantities are expected, lo bo/once on ~e. / ~ 16 S.L. Key, Inc. P.O. Box 1546 Cl~rlottesvllle, VA 22902 804/971-8339 Survey, r opo. Layout, ),tanagn~nt TN$ Plan ls IntendEd for Erosion Con/roi Purposes only. All other co~/ruc/lon data to be taken from the apR'oRr/ate ~on $,0~t. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Co/on/a/Baptist Church Mission Bulldln9 Located on Stole Route 250 Tax ~top 94, Parcel 46 Rlvanna Dlstrlcl Albemarle County, Vlrglnla 20 0 20 40 60 Scale 1" = 20' Sheet of COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 February 16 2001 Ray Nicely Valley Engineering 1041 South High Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801 RE: ZTA-2000-009 Holly Memorial Gardens; SP-2000-49 Holly Memorial Gardens Dear Mr. Nicely: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 13, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following: · ZTA-2000-009 Holly Memorial Gardens- Recommended approval as presented. · SP-2000-49 Holly Memorial Gardens - Recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The cemetery and accessory structures shall comply with the minimum yard requirements of Section 21, Commercial Districts. 2. The location of the mausoleum shall be in general conformity to the preliminary site ;~lan dated January 17. 2001. prepared by Valley Engineering. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 21. 2001. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David B. Benish Chief of Planning & Community Development DBB/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Steve Allshouse Amelia McCulley Bob Ball Jack Kelsey ORDINANCE NO. 01-18(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18~ ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarleo Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby mended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions. Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit. Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions See. 3.1 Definitions. Cemetery: Any land or structure used or intended to be Used for the interment of human remains, either by earth burial, entombment in a mausoleum, inurnment in a columbarium, or a combination thereof. The sprinkling of ashes or their burial in a biodegradable container on church grounds, or their placement in a columbarium on church grounds, is not a cemetery. Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit. 1. Community center (reference 5.1.04). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.02). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances, unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). 8. (Repealed 3-5-86) 9. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). 10. (Repealed 11-11-92) 11. (Repealed 3-15-95) 12. Horse show grounds, permanent. 13. Custom slaughterhouse. 14. Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 15. Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled persons as described in section 15.1- 486.2 of the Code (reference 5.1.07). 16. (Repealed 11-15-95) 17. Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 18. Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 19. Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.01). 20. Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05). 21. Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14). 22. Country store. 23. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. (Amended 11-8-89) 24. (Repealed 11-8-89) 25. Flood control dams and impoundments. 26. (Repealed 1 i-8-89) 27. Restaurants and inns that are: a. Located within an historic landmark as designated in the comprehensive plan, provided: (i) the structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; and (ii) the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith; or b. Nonconforming uses, provided the restaurant or inn is served by existing water and sewerage systems having adequate capacity for both the existing and proposed uses and facilities without expansion of either system. (Amended 11-8-89; 10-18-00) 28. Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5. 29. Boat landings and canoe livery. 30. Permitted residential uses as provided in section 10.5. 31. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 32. Cemetery. 2 33. Crematorium. 34. (Repealed 3-21-01) 35. Church building and adjunct cemetery. 36: Gift, craft and antique shops. 37. Public garage. (Added 3-18-81) 38. Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82) 39. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4- 28-82) 40. BorroTM area, borrow pit not permitted under section 10.2.1.18. (Added 7-6-83) 41. Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29). (Added 1-1-87) 42. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations which are related to, and supportive of the RA, rural areas, district (reference 5.1.27). (Added 12-2-87) 43. Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30). (Added 12-2-87) 44. Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92) 45. Farm sales (reference 5.1.35). (Added 10-11-95) 46. Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38) or off-site employee parking for an industrial use in an industrial zoning district (reference 5.1.39). 47. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.1 I). (Added 6-16-99). I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on March 21,2001. ~. ~'''~' '~ Clerk, Board of County Supe/l;gisors Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier x Ms. Humphris x Mr. Martin x Mr. Perkins x Ms. Thomas x Aye Nay X 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 00-09: TO AMEND THE ZONING OR~!~A~E .... TO ALLOW MAUSOLEUMS AND CQ~MBARIUMS AS ACCESSORIES TO CEMETERIES SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: Provide for revision to the definition of cemetery and to the Rural Area uses by special use permit. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Kamptner, Ms. Sprinkle AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: February 13, 2001 ACTION: IN FORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: This is the first of the "housekeeping" amendments for which a Resolution of Intent was adopted on January 9, 2001. (See Attachment A.) It has been pulled out of a long list of items so it can be reviewed separately due to the ZTA filed by Holly Memorial Gardens. At this time, Holly Memorial Garden desires to add a mausoleum (a building for burial of the dead) to their cemetery. In the current ordinance, "multi- crypt mausoleum" is allowed only in the RA district and only by special use permit. They have thus made application for a ZTA to allow mausoleums to be considered as accessory to a cemetery in any zoning district by incorporating them into the definition of cemetery. DISCUSSION: The Zoning Ordinance does not currently permit a mausoleum in any district except the Rural Areas. "Mausoleum" was not listed as a use in our first orciinance. However, it appears in the current ordinance apparently in response to Monticello Memory Gardens' desire to add a mausoleum and crematorium to their existing cemetery at the time we were preparing to adopt the current zoning ordinance. They received approval for a "multi-crypt mausoleum" in 1984. Theirs is the only one that has been built ~n Albemarle County under the existing ordinance text. Staff opinion is that the more logical districts for cemeteries, mausoleums and columbariums would follow those currently permitted for cemeteries. They are by right in all commercial districts and by special use permit in the RA and all residential districts. The definition of cemetery that is proposed here follows the State Code definition of cemetery, therefore bringing our ordinance into line with the State. A mausoleum is a natural extension of a cemetery, as ~s a columbarium. Zoning has already made a determination that columbariums (usually a vault for ashes of the dead) are accepted as accessory to both churches and cemeteries, since they are most often only walls, not com~)lete buildings. Since cemeteries are allowed only by special use permit in the RA and residential districts, the County will stil be able to control where mausoleums may be located on a case- by-case basis and to add conditions to insure public health, safety and welfare. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendment of the appropriate sections as shown on Attachment B. Attachment A: Attachment B: Resolution of Intent Section 3.0, Revised Definition of Cemetery and Revised Section 10.2, Revised Uses by Special Use Permit ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1980 and it now contains obsolete terminology that should be either deleted or replaced, terminology that needs to be defined, multiple terms that can be consolidated into a single term, requirements that should be clarified, and cross-references to other laws that need to be updated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance as described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 February 16, 2001 Ray Nicely Valley Engineenng 1041 South High Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801 RE: ZTA-2000-009 Holly Memorial Gardens; SP-2000-49 Holly Memorial Gardens Dear Mr. Nicely: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 13, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following: · ZTA-2000-009 Holly Memorial Gardens- Recommended approval as presented. · SP-2000-49 Holly Memorial Gardens - Recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1 The cemetery and accessory structures shall comply with the minimum yard requirements of Section 21, Commercial Districts. 2. The location of the mausoleum shall be in general conformity to the preliminary site plan dated January 17, 2001. prepared by Valley Engineering. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March'21,2001. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. ' If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David B. Benish Chief of Planning & Community Development DBB/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Steve AIIshouse Amelia McCulley Bob Ball Jack Kelsey COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of' Planning & Commum~y Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 February 16, 2001 92-'1 5-01 P05:42 RCVD Ray Nicely Valley Engineenng 1041 South High Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801 RE: ZTA-2000-009 Holly Memorial Gardens; SP-2000-49 Holly Memorial Gardens Dear Mr. Nicely: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 13. 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following: · ZTA-2000-009 Holly Memorial Gardens- Recommended approval as presented. · SP-2000-49 Ho y Memorial Gardens - Recommended approval subject to the following conditions: ~ The cemetery and accessory structures shall comply with the m~mmum yard requirements of Section 21. Commercial Districts. 2 The location of the mausoleum shall be rn general conformity to the preliminary site plan dated January 17. 2001. prepared by Valley Engineering. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors wil review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 21 2001, Any new or additional information regarding your a:}:)lication must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. f you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, olease do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David B. Benish Chief of Planning & Community Development DBB/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Steve AIIshouse Amelia McCulley Bob Ball Jack Kelsey STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF sUpERVIsORs: David Benish February 13, 2001 March 21, 2001 SP-2000-049 Holly Memorial Gardens ApPlicant's Proposal: Holly Memorial Gardens is currently a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance in the R-1 district. The Applicant is requesting a special use permit for a cemetery in the R-I district. A portion of the existing property is currently zoned C-1 where cemeteries are allowed by right. This proposal will bring the operation in compliance and, with the approval of ZTA 2000-09 (allowing mausoleums by-right in any approved cemetery), will allow the applicant to add a mausoleum use to the property. Petition: Request for a special use permit, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to operate a cemetery on the east side of Route 29 north about 0.5 miles south of Proffit Road (Route 649). The property, described as Tax Map 32 Parcel 42F, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned R-1 (Residential), EC (Entrance Corridor Overlay District), and AIA (Airport Impact Area) and is designated as Parks and Greenways in the Hollymead Community, of the Comprehensive Plan. Character of the Area: The site is bounded by the C-1 area of Holly Memorial Gardens and part of the Forest Lakes North commercial area on the north, Forest Lakes AssOciates common area (open space) on the east, Forest Lakes Associates common area (open space) and a vacant R-1 zoned parcel to the south, and Route 29 to the west. Properties situated to the north are zoned for commercial use; the remainder are zoned for or are currently residential uses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of SP 2000-049, with conditions. Planning and Zoning History,: This site is an existing cemetery use that predates the Zoning.Ordinance requirements for a special use permit for cemeteries. Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended for Parks and Greenways in the Hollymead Community of the Comprehensive ?lan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies "existing public parks, and existing and proposed greenways along streams" as appropriate uses in this area. Cemetery use is considered a quasi-public open space/park type use in character and function. STAFF COMMENT: Cemeteries are only permitted by special use permit in R-1 zoned areas. Staffwill comment on each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance are outlined below. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_. The adjacent properties to the east and south are residential uses, or are proposed to be residential uses. The proposed commercial use, insofar that it has been an existing use for some time, is not expected to be a detriment to these properties. Staff believes it would be appropriate to condition this use with the setbacks of Section 21 of the Ordinance (Commercial Districts) to avoid potential detriment to adjacent property. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The nature of the use is consistent with the existing use in the area and will not change the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance., Staff has reviewed this proposal relative to the requirements of Section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance (Purpose and Intent) and has determined that items which are relevant to this application appear to be in harmony with that section of the Ordinance. with the uses permitted by-right in the district, This type of use is consistent with the by-right use of cemeteries on the C-1 portion of this property, with by-right uses in the HC (Highway Commercial) portion of the nearby Forest Lakes Commercial area and with the existing use of this parcel. This parcel is not being used under its by-right uses as R-1 property. with additional remflations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 specifically addressing cemeteries. and with the public health, safe _ty and general welfare. The addition of the mausoleum will provide one more method of burial. Cemeteries contribute to public health and welfare by providing an appropriate place to inter our dead in a safe, sanitary method. The addition of the mausoleum is not anticipated significantly increase traffic to the site. The caring public are remains of their loved ones are protected for perpetuity.'. VDOT is proposing that with tile ultimate improvement of Route 29, tile existing access to the cemetery on Route 29 be closed and be relocated to Fortune Park Road in the Forest Lakes commercial area. Any other short-term improvements to the existing eutrance on Route 29 will be addressed with the review of the site plan for the mausoleum. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following 'factors that are favorable to this request: 1. The nature of the use is consistent with the commercial zoning and existing cemetery use in the area. 2. The use should not result in a substantial detriment to adjacent property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SP-2000-049. with conditions: 1. The cemetery and accessory structures shall comply with the m~nimum yard requirements of Section 21, Commercial Districts. ATTACHMENTS: A - Tax Map and Location Map B - SP Application GIESON MOUNTAIN ~j~, BUCK MTN. ! I I I I 6 ATTACHMENT A / TO RUCKFRSViLLE il S P-2000-049 Holly ~lemorial Gardens ~Iausoleum ATTACHMENT A · ./ -> 5 s. l~i, i~thl ,6~i~a~e:~iay~etssuedupona~ 'i iiuse' ~o ord~. w~th ~e'6se;~mitted ' d'iStrict, ~itfi ~ddition~"~hhti;'h~:'' ;;~'~msd~ii~h :;f~ this 0rdih~'~ '~d*~i~h'th~ ~ !'.ii'!f y6u' iib.~ed; .... What is the Corn How w. iHthe p~'o . Hc~w will the proposed special use affect the ~haracter of the district surrounding'the property?. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general Welfare of the community? ' ' - " 6 *Zoning Number of acr~ to ~ cover~ · --:.". . >.; ,. /7--~. .~ , .,.;~ · ~' Is tlus an amendment to an Are you submitting a site Daytime Phone (~) ~ &D~ · ' F~ g ~ R~ %~% E-marl Owner of land (ns li~tca ih Address Applicant (Who i~ the contact perao~ representing? Who is requesting the special usc7): ' ~ l"r.s.~ Address ~ ]~cc'~ ~,c. at~., ,a~a. ' .<~¥re.~ City'~:>~.~/ State [,Q'V' Daytime Phone'(~ ) ~Z~ i~; Fax ~ $~ Z6~ ~15 E-mail ' ~Bn~ ~'~ Physical Address (if assigned) Tax map and'pa:~-~el~llil~ ~ ;At''L-v Lomti0n of property (land~, infections, or other) D0~'S .... the owner of th~s property o n (or have those tax map anti pa~c¢l'hu'mb~'i2S3'~7' '"' ' - . OFFICE USE ONLY _2~O~ i~ Fee amount $ History: Cl Special Use Permits: Date Paid ~ I O..Oq ~ Check # I /11"~5--_~_Receipt # ~ ZMAs and Proffers: ..,5;/-]qi],~ l-- 7.ra~l-'ol t- lO Variances: Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? e tter of Authorization s D No 401 McIntlre Road '~- Charlottesville, VA 22902 .:. Voice: 296-5832 '1' Fax: 972-4126 ATT~CHMENT B are' reques a special u'~e [ i6 i~ifleS~'k]bed % 'd'~ii~fii~i'i~ a, /ii' 0~"~u~V~, hlp'info~a~0h' k~'if 6wnaahiP0f tile pr°periY iSa'iff-the nme of ~y gYpe ;f lega .' submitted containing the owner's written consent tO the applicatio~i~. ~.'~ '::~ . If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and Scope of the agency. ' OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: O 4. Drawings Or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify'i/iht I o~'n' the sUb~'i"Propert~, _;... :' ~ .. · · . .. ......... g P the owner ming this application. Ialso certify that the information provided is · ' ' '~ ' .... '" ~ : -- re Date Printed Name Daytime phone number of Signatory