HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-8-01Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
AUGUST 1, 2012
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions.
a. GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for FY11.
b. Proclamation recognizing September 3-7, 2012 as Payroll Week in Albemarle County.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next page).
9:30 a.m. - Public Hearings:
9. SP-2012-00015. Verizon Wireless Colthurst-Ingleridge LLC., Tier III
Personal Wireless Service Facility (Signs #20&21). PROPOSED: Request for
installation of a six new flush-mounted antennas on an existing tower which will involve retrofitting
an extension mount to a new height of 139 feet, relocation of the existing antenna array and
changes to associated ground equipment. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural
Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
EC Entrance Corridor – Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance
from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access; FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to
provide safety and protection from flooding; AIA Airport Impact Area-Overlay to minimize adverse
impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land. SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III
personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/
DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 1 -preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: YES. LOCATION: 1575 Ingleridge Farm. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000-00-00-002A0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
10. SP-2012-00016, NTELOS WIRELESS – CV825 Cedar Hill- Tier III Personal
Wireless Service Facility (Signs #91&94). PROPOSED: A one hundred and fifteen (115)
foot tall steel monopole tower painted brown with a flush-mounted antenna array consisting of three
(3) panel antennas and associated ground equipment which will be located within a twenty (20) foot
by thirty (30) foot leased compound area. The access road to the proposed facility is an existing
paved road. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: (RA) Rural Areas – agricultural, forestal,
and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2(48)
which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities in the RA Zoning District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas 4 – Preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development
lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO. AGRICULTURAL FORESTAL DISTRICT: YES. LOCATION:
David Road, Marshall Manor Subdivision, East Side of Rte 20. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090B0-00-0A-
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0801/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 11:52:12 AM]
Tentative
01100. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
10:00 a.m. - Presentations:
11. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board Chairman.
12. After Action Report on July 29, 2012 Thunderstorm:
a. F. Scott Reed, Dominion Power.
b. Larry Jackson, Appalachian Power.
c. Kirby Felts, Emergency Management Coordinator.
13. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
14. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
15. Closed Meeting.
16. Certify Closed Meeting.
17. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
18. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: March 12(A), March 14(A), April 11(A), April 13(A), May 2, May 9(A),
May 9(N), May 10, and June 6, 2012.
8.2 FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
8.3 Resolution Congratulating City of Charlottesville on 250th Anniversary.
8.4 FY 13/14 Operating and Capital Budget Calendar.
8.5 Proposed Changes to Financial Management Policies.
8.6 Resolution Authorizing County Executive to Approve Transfers of Unencumbered Funds in
FY 13.
FOR INFORMATION:
8.7 Expansion of the Photo Safe Program to Richmond Road and Stony Point Road Intersection.
8.8 FY 2012 Fourth Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and Use of Proffer Funds.
8.9 2011 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0801/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 11:52:12 AM]
Tentative
8.10 Copy of letter dated July 11, 2012, to Lee Rasmussen, McCallum & Kudravetz, P.C., re:
LOD2012-0004 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 58, Parcel 78 (Property of Gabbro, LLC) – Samuel Miller District.
8.11 VDOT – Culpeper District, Monthly Report for Albemarle County.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0801/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 11:52:12 AM]
PROCLAMATION
PAYROLL WEEK
WHEREAS, the American Payroll Association and its 23,000 members have launched a nationwide public
awareness campaign that pays tribute to the more than 156 million people who work in the United
States and the payroll professionals who support the American system by paying wages, reporting
worker earnings and withholding federal employment taxes; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals in Albemarle County, Virginia play a key role in maintaining the economic
health of Albemarle County, carrying out such diverse tasks as paying into the unemployment
insurance system, providing information for child support enforcement, and carrying out tax
withholding, reporting and depositing; and
WHEREAS, payroll departments collectively spend more than $15 billion annually complying with myriad
federal and state wage and tax laws; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals play an increasingly important role ensuring the economic security of
American families by helping to identify noncustodial parents and making sure they comply with
their child support mandates; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals have become increasingly proactive in educating both the business
community and the public at large about the payroll tax withholding systems; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals meet regularly with federal and state tax officials to discuss both improving
compliance with government procedures and how compliance can be achieved at less cost to both
government and businesses; and
WHEREAS, payroll and human resource professionals in Albemarle County, Virginia, worked tirelessly to
migrate to the new Human Resources/Payroll information system over the past year; and
WHEREAS, all employees working for Albemarle Local Government and Public Schools will be migrating to
mandatory direct deposit effective January 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the week in which Labor Day falls has been proclaimed National Payroll Week;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT, I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize the important and dedicated work being done by our
payroll professionals by proclaiming
September 3-7, 2012 as Payroll Week in Albemarle County, Virginia.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of August, 2012
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2013020, #2013022, #2013024, #2013025, #2013026,
#2013027, #2013028, #2013029 and #2013030 for local
government and school division programs and projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, and Letteri; and Ms. L. Allshouse
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 1, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first
publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all
County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2013 appropriations itemized below is $584,467.21. A budget amendment public hearing is
not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted
budget.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This request involves the approval of nine (9) FY 2013 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013020) totaling $0.00 to distribute funding from the budgeted Salary Reserve to the
Clerk of the Circuit Court for increased personnel costs set forth in the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding. This appropriation will reallocate funding and not increase the total appropriated budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2013022) totaling $80,000.00 for School Division grants, donations, and activity
account revenues;
One (1) appropriation (#2013024) totaling $235,873.71 to re-appropriate funding for a General Government
CIP project;
One (1) appropriation (#2013025) totaling $11,201.00 to continue to provide a part-time officer working under
the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office for the Offender Aid and Restoration’s Drug Court program;
One (1) appropriation (#2013026) totaling $22,214.50 for Department of Voter Registration and Elections re-
appropriations;
One (1) appropriation (#2013027) totaling $90,852.00 to reappropriate the Grants Leveraging Fund;
One (1) appropriation (#2013028) totaling $64,327.00 for two grants awarded to the Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013029) totaling $70,000.00 for professional services to assist the Finance
Department; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013030) totaling $9,999.00 for a grant awarded to the Emergency Communications
Center (ECC).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2013020, #2013022, #2013024, #2013025, #2013026, #2013027,
#2013028, #2013029 and #2013030.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to agenda
Attachment A
1
Appropriation #2013020 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget
This request is to appropriate $21,805.00 from the budgeted Salary Reserve to the Clerk of the Circuit Court to fund
increased personnel costs set forth in the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the County and the
Circuit Court Clerk, approved by the Board on July 11, 2012. The Clerk’s Office will be appropriately classified and
placed on the County Classified Pay Plan.
Appropriation #2013022 $80,000.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (non-tax) $ 80,000.00
This request is to appropriate $17,500.00 in anticipated School Division donations, $50,000.00 in anticipated School
Division grants, and $12,500.00 in anticipated increases to the School Division Activity Funds. In past budget years,
these appropriations were individually requested as funds were received. This new process of appropriating these
donations, grants and raised funds on a quarterly basis, as approved by the Board on July 11, 2012, will improve the
efficiency of the County and School Division’s budgetary and financial processes and free up staff time to provide
greater oversight of the County’s overall budget. Funds will not be expended until the revenues are actually received.
Appropriation #2013024 $235,873.71
Revenue Source: Gen. Gov’t. CIP Fund Balance $ 235,873.71
The County’s current practice for re-appropriating General Government CIP project funding is for staff to present to
the Board a list of General Government Capital Improvement projects to which funds were previously appropriated in
the General Government Capital fund in a prior year but were not expended in that year.
The Meadow Creek Parkway Landscaping project was included in a list of General Government Capital Improvement
project re-appropriations presented to the Board of Supervisors on July 11, 2012. Board members had questions
regarding this request and did not approve the appropriation request at that time.
Staff is re-presenting this request with additional clarifying information for the Board’s consideration:
This request is to re-appropriate $208,626.68 to the Meadow Creek Parkway Landscaping project, as well as the
remaining balance of $27,247.03 from the engineering portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway project, for a c ombined
re-appropriation of $235,873.71 to the Landscaping project.
This will support design and material expenses to restore natural vegetation and enhance the landscaping and views
necessary to complete the “Linear Park” along the County’s portion (Melborne Road to Rio Road) of the John W.
Warner Parkway (a.k.a. the Meadow Creek Parkway) as provided in the “Meadow Creek Parkway – Final Report, May
2001” prepared by Jones & Jones Architects and Landscape Architects and adopted into the “Land Use Plan” of the
County’s “Comprehensive Plan.”
VDOT’s design of the Meadow Creek Parkway alignment and geometry was based on the “Meadow Creek Parkway –
Final Report, May 2001”. The planning and design criteria for this report was specific in that the design of the
parkway and landscaping was to provide a “linear park”, and included landscaping/open area recommendations to
guide its creation. A landscaping capital improvement project had been established, in part, because these provisions
were beyond VDOT’s project scope. In addition, the vision and plan for the linear park could not be created until after
the Parkway was constructed and the impacts of the clearing and grading could be fully assessed.
Staff is targeting early Fall to start design.
Appropriation #2013025 $11,201.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 11,201.00
This request is to appropriate $11,201.00 in federal grant revenues for a part-time auxiliary deputy officer to work
under the direction of the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office to assist with the administration and monitoring of
Offender Aid and Restoration‘s (OAR’s) Drug Court cases. Data from other Virginia c ommunities with similar
arrangements indicates that the ongoing presence of an officer for program participants yields positive outcomes.
These expenses include part-time wages and vehicle fuel, maintenance and repair costs and will be funded through
Attachment A
2
federal grant revenues received from OAR. The Board of Supervisors previously approved an appropriation for this
program in FY 11/12 at its July 6, 2011 meeting. This request is to continue this program in FY 12/13 through
December, 2012.
Appropriation #2013026 $22,214.50
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 22,214.50
The Department of Voter Registration and Elections requests re-appropriation of funds remaining in its FY 11/12
budget for use in FY 12/13 as follows:
The number of in-person and by-mail absentee voters has increased substantially with the past few
presidential elections, from 2,281 during the 2000 election to 6,865 in the 2008 election. The department
anticipates high numbers of absentee voters during the 2012 fall presidential election cycle. To help
address customer service and workload issues associated with this, the department requests the followin g:
o Part-time temporary wages totaling $6,000.00 during the absentee voter period to assist with data -
entry and customer service.
o Purchase of an additional laptop computer with wi-fi capability to assist with the processing of
absentee ballots. The estimated cost is $1,404.50.
o Funds totaling $3,232.00 for the installation of an exit-only door room in the voter registration office
at COB 5th Street. During the 6 week absentee voting period for the 2008 November presidential
election, 3,675 absentee voters voted “in-person absentee” at the registration office, resulting in
pedestrian traffic congestion that could be alleviated by an exit-only door in the voting room.
o Additional shelving to store returned marked absentee ballots. The estimate cost is $250.00.
Trends in past presidential elections indicate that there will be a significant spike in the number of voter
registration applications beginning in late July, 2012. The Registrar requests part-time temporary funding of
$2,800.00 to assist with processing applications and mailing voter cards to applicants in a timely manner
during the 5 week period from August 15 through September 18, 2012.
In past years, each of the precinct polling places has been run by one chief election officer and one
assistant chief election officer. For the 2012 presidential election, the electoral board would like to add a
second assistant chief to most of the precincts. With the change in the voter identification law enacted by
the legislature, the department anticipates a significant increase in the number of voters who will be
required to fill out provisional paper ballots as a result of not having an acceptable form of identification with
them at the polling place. The estimated cost of adding 20 assistant chiefs to the 20 most po pulous voting
precincts to assist these voters with the provisional voting process is $4,000.00. In addition, the Registrar
would like to purchase two portable marking booths for each County voting precinct to provide privacy for
voters completing provisional paper ballots. The estimated cost is $400.00.
Purchase of a replacement printer/photocopier/fax machine totaling $400.00.
Purchase of Microsoft Project software to produce a Plan of Action and Milestones document as requested
by the Electoral Board. The estimated cost is $598.00.
The department currently has 1 frozen FTE and utilizes part-time temporary help throughout the year in lieu
of reinstating the position. During FY 11/12, the cost for this part-time help was underestimated by
$3,130.00. The Registrar would like to increase the FY 12/13 budget by $3,130.00 to allow for the same
level of assistance as in the prior year.
Appropriation #2013027 $90,852.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 90,852.00
This request is to re-appropriate $90,852.00, the amount of funding remaining in the Grants Leveraging Fund,
established in October 2010, so that these funds continue to be available to position the County to take advantage of
potential grant opportunities that would benefit its core operations. Any use of the Fund would be in accordance with
established guidelines and approved by the County Exec utive. All Grants Leveraging Fund appropriation requests will
be presented to the Board for approval.
Attachment A
3
Appropriation #2013028 $64,327.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 23,602.00
Federal Revenue $ 40,725.00
This request is to appropriate two grants awarded to the Police Department:
The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Fund
has awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant (Grant #13-A2581AC13) in the amount of
$23,602.00. This grant will provide funding for staff overtime associated with developing and processing
Internet Crimes Against Children cases. There is no local match required for this grant.
The Department of Criminal Justice has awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant (Grant
#13-C2149AD11) in the amount of $40,725 with a local match of $2,144 for a total grant award of $42,869.
This grant will provide funding for equipment, primarily cameras, to use in monitoring and surveillance of
suspects and potential criminal activity. The local match funds are being provided by the Grant Leveraging
Fund, which is being reappropriated in #2013027.
Appropriation #2013029 $70,000.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 70,000.00
This request is to appropriate $70,000.00 from General Fund balance to the Department of Finance to purchase the
following professional services from the County’s Financial Advisors, Davenport and Company:
Implementation of the Investment Management Program ($40,000): Currently the Finance Department
monitors and manages cash flow on a weekly basis. Idle cash is transferred from the County’s bank
account to the Local Government Investment Pool based on informal estimates of the County’s cash flow
needs. Funding is requested for the Investment Management Program project, which will formalize this
process using historical cash flows to develop and maintain a cash flow model and cash flow forecast. The
program will include development of an investment policy and strategies for investing idle cash.
Additionally, Davenport will prepare quarterly investment activity and cash flow activity reports that will be
reviewed with the appropriate County staff. One result of implementing the Investment Management
Program should be greater investment earnings.
Procurement of Bank Services Project ($30,000): Secondly, funding is requested for Davenport and
Company to assist with a Procurement of Bank Services project. Davenport will develop a banking services
Request for Proposal (RFP) and will work closely with staff to analyze proposals, select the banking
services vendor, negotiate a bank services contract, and assist staff with implementation of bank services.
Using Davenport’s expertise and experience to move this delayed project forward will bring Finance into
compliance with procurement regulations. This consultation expense will also ensure the County is getting
the best service and best price for its Bank Services.
Appropriation #2013030 $9,999.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 9,999.00
This request is to appropriate $9,999.00 in federal revenue to close out the 2010 Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) Technology Grant that the Emergency Communications Center has managed for the 5th
Congressional District. These funds will be used to purchase a larger file storage server that will store pictometry
software image and data files for the ECC. These oblique aerial image files are used by the communications
officers in conjunction with the address information to help responders locate the appropriate address that they are
responding to. There is no local match required for this grant.
Return to exec summary
PROCLAMATION
RECOGNIZING THE 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, named for Queen Charlotte, the queen consort of
King George III of the United Kingdom, was formed by charter in 1762 along a trade route called
Three Notched Road which led from Richmond to the Great Valley, and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, located in the center of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, is marking its 250th anniversary with a year of celebrations and special events to mark
its rich history, culture, and pride of its residents; and
WHEREAS, throughout its long and rich history, the City of Charlottesville has seen
advances in education, industry, as well as preservation, illustrating the important role the City
and its citizens have played in the economic and historic nature of this region; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville’s rich history has withstood tumultuous times
during the American Revolution, segregation and integration of schools, and annexation; and
was influential in the lives of three founding fathers; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville is home to a world class academia – the
University of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville is known as a place with big city attractions with in
medium-sized boundaries, helping to place our region at the top of many “best of” lists including
the #1 city to live in the country; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has contributed greatly to the history and culture
of Central Virginia, and its residents should take pride in the accomplishments of the City, and
look forward to its future; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been a valued and important partner to
Albemarle County in insuring the vitality and success of our shared regional community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby honor and congratulate the City of Charlottesville on the momentous
occasion of its 250th Anniversary, and urge all citizens of the County of Albemarle and the City
of Charlottesville to join in this celebration.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 13/14 Operating and Capital Budget Calendar
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Set dates related to the development of the FY 13/14
budget
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri and Davis; Ms. Allshouse and
Ms. Burrell
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 1, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The process of developing the County’s Operating Budget for FY 13/14 and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for
FY14-18 is underway. The proposed calendar is provided to the Board to establish firm dates for Board meetings and
public hearings on the budget and CIP, and to provide the public with as much notice as possible for planned community
meetings, public hearings, and work sessions related to the budget and CIP.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
There are several dates in the budget presentation and approval process that are driven by state code requirements
and are reflected in the attached calendar. The first is the requirement that the tax rate be adopted by April 15th for
localities with a first-half tax year collection in June. In addition, the Virginia Code requires that there be at least seven
days between the public advertisement of the budget public hearings and the actual hearing dates, and at least seven
days between the public hearing and the adoption of the budget. During the 2007 session of the General Assembly,
legislation was enacted that requires localities to provide at least 30 days notice of the tax rate public hearing if the
reassessment would result in an increase of one percent or more in the total real property tax levied compared to the
prior year’s tax levies. In addition to these state requirements, the School Board has requested that the second public
hearing be scheduled so that it does not coincide with Spring Break.
Attachment A provides a preliminary budget calendar for the FY 12/13 budget process that conforms to the Virginia
Code requirements and meets the School Board’s request. This calendar can be used if real estate tax levies
resulting from the reassessment are less than 101% of the prior year’s tax levies, as current projections indicate. If
real estate tax levies resulting from the reassessment equal or exceed 101% of the prior year’s tax levies, staff will
make adjustments to the calendar.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Because it is unlikely that the 2013 reassessment will require the 30 day notice for the tax rate public hearing, staff
recommends that the Board adopt the preliminary budget calendar set forth in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Proposed FY 13/14 Budget Development Calendar
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
August 2012
3 Department/Agency/School CIP Project Justification & Cost Data due to OMB
September 2012
11 Operating budget manual and instructions available for County departments
October 2012
9-22 CIP Technical Review Team (TRT) meetings
10 Department Budget Presentations to Board of Supervisors (BOS)
10 BOS/School Board Compensation meeting with BOS and School Board
12 Department/office FY 13/14 budget requests due to OMB
November 2012
5 CIP Oversight Committee meeting
7 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan – General Government
8 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan – School Division
9 Community agency applications due to OMB
12 CIP Oversight Committee meeting
19 CIP Oversight Committee meeting
December 2012
5 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan
12 BOS Work Session – Approve the Five-Year Financial Plan
13 Joint CIP meeting with BOS and School Board
January 2013
25 General fund and special revenue funds balanced
February 2013
22 Budget document distributed
27 Public Hearing on County Executive’s Recommended Budget
March 2013
4 BOS Work Session – General Government
7 BOS Work Session – CIP
11 BOS Work Session – School Division
13 BOS Work Session (if needed)
27 Public Hearing on Board’s Proposed Budget
27 Public Hearing on the 2013 calendar year tax rate
April 2013
3 BOS sets the 2013 calendar year tax rate
3 BOS adopts the FY 13/14 budget and FY13-22 CIP Amendment
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Proposed changes to Financial Management Policies
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update County’s Financial Management Policies
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley; Letteri; and Davis; and Ms. Burrell
PRESENTER(S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 1, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County’s Financial Management Policies were last updated in October 2000. At the September 14, 2011 Board
meeting, the County’s Financial Advisors, Davenport and Company, LLC, suggested that the County consider certain
changes to the County’s financial policies. The Board gave tacit approval of these changes, and staff considered
these policy changes during the FY13 budget development process.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 7. Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer service
DISCUSSION:
Staff recommends revising the County’s Financial Management Policies as follows:
1) Capital Budget, Debt, and Fund Balance or Reserve Policies - Change the term “undesignated”
and/or “unreserved” to “unassigned” pursuant to the language prescribed by the Government Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) in GASB Statement #54. Currently, the fund balance that is available for
appropriation is referred to as the “undesignated, unreserved” fund balance.
2) Debt Policies – Formalize the County’s current practice of repaying 60% or more of the County’s debt in
10 years or less.
3) Fund Balance or Reserve Policies – Increase the amount of the unassigned and committed General
Fund fund balance from 8% to 10% to maintain the County’s position as an AAA rated jurisdiction with
Moody’s and S&P.
Staff has included these recommended changes in the attached draft policy revisions (Attachment A). Staff plans to
propose additional revisions to the County’s financial policies over the next several months.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the revised Financial Management Policies as set forth in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Recommended Policy Changes
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Recommended Changes to Albemarle County’s Financial Management Policies
CAPITAL BUDGET POLICIES
***
The County will begin to inventory capital facilities and estimate remaining useful life
and replacement costs. Upon completion of any capital project, remaining appropriated
funds in that project will be returned to the undesignated unassigned capital project
fund. Any transfer of remaining funds from one project to another must be approved by
the Board of Supervisors.
***
DEBT POLICIES
***
The County intends to maintain a 10 year payout ratio at or above 60% at the end of
each adopted five-year CIP for tax-supported debt and lease payments. When the
County finances capital improvements or other projects through bonds or capital leases,
it will repay the debt within a period not to exceed the expected useful life of the
projects.
***
FUND BALANCE OR RESERVE POLICIES
***
The County does not intend, as a common practice, to use General Fund equity
(undesignated unassigned fund balance) to finance current operations. If
circumstances require the use of the unassigned fund balance that causes the balance
to fall to a point below the 10% target level, the County will develop a plan during the
annual budget adoption process to replenish the unrestricted fund balance to the 10%
target level over a period of not more than three (3) years.
The undesignated fund balance At the close of each fiscal year, the unassigned
General Fund fund balance, plus the designation committed fund balance available for
fiscal cash liquidity purposes, at the close of each fiscal year should be equal to no less
than 8% 10% of the County’s total operating budget revenues, which includes the
General Fund plus the School Fund (Amended October 4, 2000).
Funds in excess of the required undesignated unassigned fund balance may be
considered to supplement “pay as you go” capital expenditures or as additions to the
fund balance.
***
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution authorizing the County Executive to
approve transfers of unencumbered funds in FY 13
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve Resolution authorizing the County Executive to
approve transfers of up to $50,000 in unencumbered
funds within the same fund per year for FY 13.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, L., and Davis, J.; and
Mses. Allshouse and Burrell
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 1, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 11, 2012, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Finance requested the Board
to consider three recommendations to improve the County’s future appropriation processes. These proposed process
improvements are expected to significantly reduce staff overtime, improve the efficiency of the County and School
Division’s budgetary and financial processes, and free up staff to provide greater oversight of the County’s overall
budget. At the July 11 meeting, the Board:
1) Directed staff to implement the proposed carry-over CIP re-appropriation process beginning in FY 14;
2) Directed staff to streamline the appropriation process for anticipated FY 13 School Fund revenue for grants,
donations and School activity funds by bringing forward a budget amendment and appropriation for the
anticipated funding for the Board’s approval; and
3) Requested that staff bring back information on August 1 to further clarify language in a Resolution proposed to
the Board on July 11 to authorize the County Executive to approve expenditure transfers for the Board’s
further consideration.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Objective: 7. b. Reinforce a culture of using cross-departmental efforts to improve communications and teamwork for
cost effective solutions.
DISCUSSION:
Attached is a Resolution that has been further clarified for the Board’s consideration. T he time period for this
authorization would be for one year only and would be reconsidered annually by the Board as part of the annual
budget appropriation process. The County Executive would be authorized to administratively approve FY 13 budget
transfers of unencumbered funds of up to $50,000.00 per fund in the fiscal year from one classification, department, or
project to another within the same general governmental fund. A summary of any fund transfer transactions that are
approved by the County Executive each quarter will be provided to the Board as part of the Finance Department’s
quarterly financial reports. As was noted in the previous research and review of this item with the Board, this type of
authorization to make limited adjustments during the year to improve operational efficiency is fairly common practice in
other localities similar to Albemarle.
The County’s accounting structure includes the following governmental fund classifications:
1) General Fund;
2) General Government Capital Improvement Fund;
3) Stormwater (Capital) Management Fund;
4) General Government Debt Service Fund;
5) Stormwater Debt Service Fund; and
6) Special Revenue Funds
a. The multiple funds included under the category of “Special Revenue Funds” are those used to
account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources which are restricted to expenditures for specific
purposes. This category includes funds such as Federal and State Grant Funds, the Tourism Fund,
the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) Fund and the Courthouse Maintenance Fund.
AGENDA TITLE: Resolution authorizing the County Executive to approve transfers of unencumbered funds in FY 13
August 1, 2012
Page 2
The authorization requested in this Resolution would apply only to the following governmental funds:
1) General Fund;
2) General Government Capital Improvement Fund;
3) Stormwater (Capital) Management Fund:
4) General Government Debt Service Fund; and
5) Stormwater Debt Service Fund
BUDGET IMPACT:
These adjustments would have zero effect on the overall budget. This change is anticipated to improve the efficiency
of the County’s budgetary and financial processes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to authorize the County Executive to
approve expenditure transfers of up to $50,000 per year within the same fund necessary for the efficient operation of
government. Any such transfers approved by the County Executive will be reported to the Board as part of the
quarterly financial report.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Proposed Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE
TRANSFERS OF FY 13 UNENCUMBERED FUNDS FROM ONE CLASSIFICATION
OF EXPENDITURE TO ANOTHER WITHIN THE SAME FUND
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors currently must approve appropriation requests for
budget transfers within the same fund to meet unanticipated needs or costs, even if such transfer
does not result in an increase to the overall County budget; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the efficiency of government would be
improved by delegating to the County Executive the authority to administratively approve budget
transfers of any unencumbered funds from one classification of expenditure to another within the
same fund; and
WHEREAS, any such transfers approved by the County Executive will be reported to
the Board of Supervisors quarterly as part of the quarterly finance report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to administratively approve FY 13 budget
transfers of unencumbered funds of up to $50,000.00 per fund in the fiscal year from one
classification, department, or project to another within the same general governmental fund. For
purposes of this Resolution general governmental funds shall include the following: (1) General
Fund; (2) General Government Debt Service Fund; (3) Stormwater Debt Service Fund; (4)
General Government Capital Improvement Fund; and (5) Stormwater Management Fund.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Photosafe Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Expansion of the Photosafe Program to Richmond Road
and Stony Point Road intersection
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Brown, Sellers, and Allen
PRESENTER(S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 1, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, the General Assembly enacted Virginia Code §15.2-968.1 enabling localities to establish, by ordinance, traffic light
signal photo-monitoring systems. Localities may install a photo-monitoring system at one intersection per 10,000 residents
upon completing traffic safety engineering studies and the implementation requirements set forth in the statute. The
County is authorized to install up to nine photo-monitoring systems at approved traffic signal intersections.
Responding to Board member interest in photo-monitoring systems, staff began researching traffic light signal photo-
monitoring ordinances, vendors, and agency administrative procedures in 2007. On June 3, 2009, the Board
authorized staff to draft an ordinance and to secure a private vendor to assist with the implementation and
maintenance of a “Photosafe Program.” On August 5, 2009, the Board adopted the County’s traffic light signal photo-
monitoring system ordinance (“Photosafe Ordinance”) which gives the County Executive the authority to implement the
Photosafe Program.
The County entered into an Agreement with Redflex Traffic Control Systems, Inc (“Redflex”) to establish and
administer the County’s Photosafe Program. Under the Agreement, Redflex assumes all responsibility for the
installation, maintenance and operation of the Photosafe Program, with the exception of issuing summonses and
appearing in Court. Redflex collects assessed civil penalties and forwards collected funds to the County monthly.
Redflex is paid $4900.00 per month per camera. If Redflex collects less than the amount it is owed in a given month,
it is paid only the amount collected. The County is not required by the contract to pay Redflex more than Redflex
collects.
The County’s Photosafe Program has been in operation and issuing summonses for violations since December 12,
2010. Cameras are installed at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Rio Road. The Police Department (“ACPD”)
has documented a reduction of crashes at that intersection since the cameras were installed. Attached is a copy of
the Executive Summary dated February 1, 2012, which provides a one year summary of the Photosafe Program
(Attachment A). This summary documents the effectiveness of the Photosafe Program in reducing crashes due to red
light violations.
As of July 24, 2012, there have been 16,352 incidents captured by the Photosafe Program at the intersection of
Seminole Trail and Rio Road. 9,823 of those incidents have been approved for the issuance of summonses. There
has been minimum impact on ACPD staffing to manage the Photosafe Program.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 5 Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
In 2009, ACPD identified the intersection of Richmond Road and Stony Point Road as a top priority for inclusion in the
Photosafe Program. In 2009 there were 25 crashes at that intersection, in 2010 there were 27 crashes, in 2011 there
were 17 crashes, and there have been 18 crashes so far in 2012. Given the success of the Photosafe Program at the
Seminole Trail/Rio Road intersection, staff believes it is the appropriate time to expand the Photosafe Program to the
Richmond Road/Stony Point Road intersection.
AGENDA TITLE: Photosafe Program
August 1, 2012
Page 2
Although the Photosafe Ordinance authorizes the County Executive to implement the provisions of that ordinance,
staff believes it is important to secure Board direction before moving forward with expansion of the Photosafe
Program.
In selecting the Richmond Road/Stony Point Road intersection for inclusion in the Photosafe Program, ACPD
considered the factors set forth in Virginia Code Section 15.2-968.1(J), including (i) the accident rate at the
intersection, (ii) the rate of red light violations occurring at the intersection, (iii) the diffic ulty experienced by law
enforcement offices in apprehending violators, and (iv) the ability to apprehend violators safely.
Prior to the expansion of the Photosafe Program to the intersection of Richmond Road and Stony Point Road, the
County must do the following:
1. Complete an engineering safety analysis.
2. If recommended by the analysis, make reasonable location specific improvements, including signs
and pavement markings.
3. Install conspicuous notification signs within 500 feet of the intersection.
4. Conduct a public awareness program advising the public that the Photosafe Program is being
expanded to the intersection.
It is anticipated that the expansion could be operational by late this year.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No County funds have been required to support this program. Redflex assumes the preliminary costs associated with
expansion of the Photosafe Program (cameras, signs, engineering safety analysis, signs, etc.).
Net revenue to the County from the Photosafe Program has been as follows:
December 2010 – June 30, 2011: $45,544.12
July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012: $91,261.70
This revenue is designated solely for traffic safety programs.
The expansion of the Photosafe Program will continue to be supported by revenue from civil penalties ass essed for
violations of the Photosafe Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This Executive Summary is being provided for informational purposes only. Staff will proceed with expansion of the
the Photosafe Program with the installation of a traffic light signal photo-monitoring system at the intersection of
Richmond Road and Stoney Point Road in the coming months.
ATTACHMENTS:
A-February 1, 2012 Executive Summary
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Photosafe Program-One Year Summary
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
One-Year Overview of Photosafe Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Tevendale, and Sellers
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 1, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On December 12, 2010, the Police Department activated the County’s Photosafe Program. This highway safety
camera system currently captures incidents involving the running of red light traffic signals for all southbound lanes of
Seminole Trail and all eastbound lanes of Rio Road only.
DISCUSSION:
Crash Data:
As projected, crashes due to red light violations for these 2 approaches to the Seminole Trail and Rio Road
intersection have declined since the establishment of the Photosafe Program. Early in the evaluation period, there
was some concern about the potential for an increase in rear end collisions, but the statistics show this did not occur.
0
1
2
3
4
2010 2011
Crashes Due to Red Light
Running (S. Seminole
Trail)
Crashes Due to
Red Light
Running (South
Seminal Trail)
0
2
4
6
8
2010 2011
Rear End Collisions (West
Rio Road)
Rear End
Collisions (West
Rio Road)
0
1
2
3
4
2010 2011
Crashes Due to Red Light
Running (West Rio Road)
Crashes Due to
Red Light
Running (West
Rio Road)
0
5
10
15
2010 2011
Rear End Collisions (S.
Seminole Trail)
Rear End
Collisions
(South Seminal
Trail)
Rear End
Collisions
(South Seminole
Trail)
Crashes Due to
Red Light
Running (South
Seminole Trail)
AGENDA TITLE: Photosafe Program-One Year Summary
February 1, 2012
Page 2
Incident Data:
Incidents
Captured
Rejected
by Vendor
Sent to PD
for Review
Rejected
by PD
Summons
Issued
Fines Collected
Less Vendor’s Fee
Southbound Seminole
Trail
(all lanes; 2 cameras)
3,652 988 786 1,878
West Rio Road
(all lanes; 1 camera) 7,581 2,386 564 4,631
TOTAL 11,233 3,374 6,509 1,350 5,159 $90,458.45
NOTE: For the Rio Road camera, the highest number of summons issued were for right turn on red violations.
Staffing-Hours: Based on average time spent on reviewing incidents and court preparation for a one -year period for
two officers.
Review of Incidents Court Preparation Time Time Spent in Court
120 Hours 300 Hours 24 Hours
Court Cases: Average monthly caseload, the actual number of people who show up for court and for cases that are
dismissed.
Court Cases Set for Docket (monthly) Cases Contested (monthly) Dismissed Cases (monthly)
220 8 2
NOTE: Dismissed cases were for people who appeared in court and claimed that they were not the driver of
the vehicle at the time of the violation. There were no cases dismissed because the judge did not
agree with an officer’s assessment of the violation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The West Rio Road camera was not operational for a two-week period in mid-September due to a repaving operation
by VDOT. Once that work was completed, VDOT, County Engineers and the vendor re-surveyed the road to ensure
that the lines and camera sensors were as they were during the initial installation. During the down period, no
summonses were issued.
The program is requiring an intensive investment of staff time to administer; however, representatives from the Police
Department, the County Attorney’s Office and the General District Court are in the process of reviewing the
administrative procedures for court processing to try to streamline it and reduce the number of staffing hours.
Under the County’s current agreement with Redflex, the vendor charges a monthly flat fee of $4,900 for each
approach (there are two approaches for the intersection). That fee is paid from the fines collected and the remainder
of fines are returned to the County to be used to support traffic safety initiatives.
Of the nine counties in Virginia that have full-service police departments, Albemarle County ranks as one of the most
dangerous places to drive in terms of injury crashes and fatality rates. Revenue generated from the Photosafe
Program is being used exclusively for enhancing traffic safety in an effort to reduce crashes. Some examples of
current and planned expenditures include:
DUI goggles for driver impairment education
Mobile variable message boards
Stealth Stat (used for evaluating traffic issues and measuring results of enforcement/education programs)
Lidar units for speed detection
Educational materials for public awareness related to driver safety
Portable traffic barricades
Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) reader/software upgrades and training for the purpose of enhancing traffic
officers’ capabilities for downloading data from automobile black boxes (used for serious and fatal crash
investigations)
Opticoms for the police motorcycles (used to enhanced safety during escorts & motorcades)
Training manuals/materials related to teen drivers to be used by traffic officers when teaching drivers
education classes in the high schools
Handout material for bicycle safety
AGENDA TITLE: Photosafe Program-One Year Summary
February 1, 2012
Page 3
Public safety announcements for TV and Radio
Safety banners for schools or special events with focused messages related to driver safety awareness
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board continue the Photosafe Program.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2012 4th Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer
Report and Use of Proffer Funds
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on cash proffer revenue, expenditures and
non-cash proffers for April-June 2012.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Letteri, Davis, Graham, and Higgins;
and Mses. McCulley, Ragsdale, Allshouse and Harris
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 1, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly report on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report has
been expanded to also include updates on non-cash proffers. The Board received the last quarterly proffer report on June
6, 2012 which included information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for January-March
2012. This report includes all proffer activity (both cash and non-cash) for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012 (April-
June). The next quarterly proffer report will be on the Board’s November 7, 2012 agenda.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
Cash Proffers Activity for Fiscal Year 2012 Fourth Quarter (April-June)
A. New Proffered Revenue: There was one rezoning approved this quarter that provided new cash proffers.
ZMA 2012-11 Estes Park proffered cash proffers for the CIP of up to $754,000 ($13,000 market rate per unit
for up to 58 single family attached units).
B. Total Proffered Revenue: Total proffered revenue is $42,764,542 and reflects annual adjustments to
anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from proffers in which annual adjustments were
proffered.
C. 4th Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $241,207.88 from existing cash proffers during
this quarter from the following developments:
Development Amount Intended Purpose
Avinity $90,291.16 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5
Belvedere $7,500.00 Affordable Housing
Leake (Glenmore) $21,707.00 CIP and Affordable Housing
Old Trail $5,000.00 Schools and Parks in CIP projects in Crozet
Westhall $28,000.00 Eastern Avenue and CIP projects in Crozet
W ickham Pond $38,709.72 CIP-Crozet
Wickham Pond II $50,000.00 CIP-Crozet
D. Expenditures: There were no expenditures of cash proffers during this quarter.
E. Current Available Funds: As of June 30, 2012, the available proffered cash on-hand is $2,172,850.52
(including interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Some of these funds were proffered for specific
projects while others may be used for general projects within the CIP.
Of the available proffered cash on-hand, $669,798.38 is currently appropriated. (See Attachment A for details)
The net cash balance is $1,503,052.14. Attachment B provides information on how the net cash balance
funds may be used for future appropriations.
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2012 4th Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and Use of Proffer Funds
August 1, 2012
Page 2
Non Cash Proffers-Proffered
ZMA 2010-11 Estes Park was approved on April 11, 2012 to rezone 12.75 acres from R-1 to PRD for 68 single family
attached units. This rezoning proffered a public road, pedestrian/bike connection, enhanced erosion and sediment
control measures, and affordable housing (10 units), as well as cash proffers for the CIP of up to $754,000 ($13,000
market rate per unit for up to 58 single family attached units).
ZMA 2011-08 Three Notch’d Center was approved on May 2, 2012 to amend the application plan associated with this
rezoning and update proffers based on this application plan change. The proffer amendments do not impact cash or
non-cash contributions, as they only address amending the proffered application plan and restricted land uses.
As part of the Planning Commission’s review of the Comprehensive Plan, Affordable Housing proffer information was
requested. This information was provided to the Commission in July and provides a listing of all affordable housing
proffers, including affordable housing units and cash received to-date (Attachment C).
BUDGET IMPACT:
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from development and they support the
funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Using cash
proffer funding for current or planned FY13–FY17 CIP projects builds capacity in the CIP by freeing up funding for
other projects. In addition, non-cash proffers provide improvements that might otherwise need to be funded by
general tax revenue.
Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff monitor proffer funds on an on-
going basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP move forward and to ensure that funding is
appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. June 30, 2012 Summary of Proffer Funds Balances
B. Net Available Proffer Funds Summary and Use of Funds
C. Affordable Housing Proffers by Development
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A (Updated 6/30/12)FUND # PROFFER NAMETOTAL PROFFERED REVENUETOTAL FUNDS RECEIVEDTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGSTOTALEXPENDITURES(Transfer to Projects)CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSAPPROPRIATED FUNDSAPPROPRIATED INTEREST EARNINGS Projects/$REMAINING AVAILABLE FUNDSREMAINING AVAIBLE INTEREST EARNINGSNET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS8547ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD$2,610,000.00$375,000.00$0.00$0.00$375,000.00$0.00$0.00 $375,000.00$0.00$375,000.008548AVINITY$1,703,712.44$90,291.16$0.00$0.00$90,291.16$0.00$0.00 $90,291.16$0.00$90,291.168534AVON PARK$59,000.00$59,000.00$5,715.96$0.00$64,715.96$59,000.00$5,596.33Avon Street Sidewalks$0.00$119.63$119.638536BELVEDERE STATION$400,250.00$100,250.00$830.12$0.00$101,080.12$57,250.00$759.66Affordable Housing$43,000.00$70.46$43,070.468531ECKERD PHARMACY$6,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008520GLENMORE$893,000.00$752,000.00$129,927.85($875,364.10)$6,563.75$0.00$0.00 $1,000.00$5,563.75$6,563.758521GLENMORE$569,000.00$328,700.00$56,327.53($375,000.00)$10,027.53$0.00$0.00 $0.00$10,027.53$10,027.538523GRAYROCK$62,500.00$62,500.00$13,284.30$0.00$75,784.30$62,500.00$12,380.00Crozet Regional Stormwater Management $0.00$904.30$904.308527HOLLYMEAD AREA C$210,000.00$169,523.75$5,184.30($112,442.36)$62,265.69$59,523.75$2,741.04Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.90$0.908528HOLLYMEAD AREA D$481,000.00$480,999.68$23,859.14($473,712.00)$31,146.82$20,085.18$11,061.19Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.45$0.458545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$609,000.00$109,000.00$564.21($28,506.62)$81,057.59$30,733.69$322.73Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$50,000.00$1.17$50,001.178572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$2,430,203.86$18,755.00$0.00$0.00$18,755.00$0.00$0.00$18,755.00$0.00$18,755.008573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$0.00$2,952.00$0.00$0.00$2,952.00$0.00$0.00$2,952.00$0.00$2,952.008544LIBERTY HALL $137,600.00$102,400.00$200.68$0.00$102,600.68$16,000.00$98.27Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $86,400.00$102.41$86,502.418529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$346,250.00$419,144.85$10,347.08$0.00$429,491.93$0.00$0.00 $419,144.85$10,347.08$429,491.938538NORTH POINTE$460,000.00$400,000.00$28,810.93($400,000.00)$28,810.93$0.00$28,810.93Affordable Housing; Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.00$0.008537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$2,328,000.00$105,000.00$1,873.13($51,837.85)$55,035.28$48,000.00$32.88Crozet E S ADA Entrance Ramp/Crozet Greenway$7,000.00$2.40$7,002.408546POPLAR GLEN II$155,600.00$155,600.00$131.34$0.00$155,731.34$32,993.24$22.81Affordable Housing$122,606.76$108.53$122,715.298533STILLFRIED LANE$78,000.00$78,000.00$6,342.36$0.00$84,342.36$78,000.00$5,379.07Ivy Road Sidewalk$0.00$963.29$963.298525UVA RESEARCH PARK$78,178.00$78,718.00$899.72($79,500.00)$117.72$0.00$117.72Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.00$0.008535WESTERN RIDGE$5,000.00$5,159.12$857.46($5,000.00)$1,016.58$0.00$0.00 $159.12$857.46$1,016.588541WESTHALL (1.1)$90,000.00$91,000.00$2,829.13$0.00$93,829.13$51,000.00$2,728.70Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $40,000.00$100.43$40,100.438542WESTHALL (1.2)$30,000.00$37,000.00$916.80($7,000.00)$30,916.80$10,000.00$896.30Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $20,000.00$20.50$20,020.508543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,000.00$3,000.00$166.37$0.00$3,166.37$0.00$0.00 $3,000.00$166.37$3,166.378540WICKHAM POND$345,161.67$273,268.04$4,044.44($59,161.00)$218,151.48$70,967.82$2,797.07Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $144,235.64$150.95$144,386.598549WICKHAM POND II$405,000.00$50,000.00$0.00$0.00$50,000.00$0.00$0.00 $50,000.00$0.00$50,000.000AVON PARK II$461,368.15$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000BLUE RIDGE CO-HOUSING$323,556.88$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000CASCADIA$405,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000ESTES PARK$754,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000FONTANA PHASE 4C$780,635.81$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000HADEN PLACE$82,500.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A2$16,926,027.01$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000LIVENGOOD$980,274.47$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000NGIC EXPANSION$1,405,988.98$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000OAKLEIGH FARM$1,488,112.94$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000PATTERSON SUBDIVISION$145,611.91$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000RIVANNA VILLAGE @ GLENMORE$1,163,876.08$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000WILLOW GLEN$2,907,800.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008530ALBEMARLE PLACE$100,000.00$100,000.00$3,666.41($103,666.41)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008526AVEMORE$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,286.43($51,286.43)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008539GREENBRIER$9,334.00$9,334.00$81.72($9,415.72)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008532HOLLYMEAD AREA B$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,521.85($51,521.85)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008524SPRINGRIDGE$100,000.00$100,000.00$2,214.97($102,214.97)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008522STILL MEADOWS$135,000.00$135,000.00$17,220.78($152,220.78)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.00TOTAL$42,764,542.20$4,791,595.60$319,105.01($2,937,850.09)$2,172,850.52$596,053.68$73,744.70$669,798.38$1,473,544.53$29,507.61$1,503,052.14CASH PROFFERSAPPROPRIATED PROFFERS SUMMARYNET CASH PROFFERSACTIVEFUTURECOMPLETED
NET AVAILABLE PROFFER FUNDS SUMMARY AND USE OF FUNDS 7/10/12ATTACHMENT BFUND # PROFFER NAMENET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS PROFFERED USE OF FUNDS RECOMMENDED/POTENTIAL USE OF FUNDS8547ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD$375,000.00CIP-GeneralCIP-General (Seminole Trail VFD Ren/Add)8548AVINITY$90,291.16CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5Project TBD8534AVON PARK$119.63CIP-Neighborhoods 4-Pedestrian ImprovementsMust use for specific project8536BELVEDERE STATION$43,070.46Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8520GLENMORE$6,563.75School CIP/Other CIP-GlenmoreCIP-Glenmore (Burley Track Improvements)8521GLENMORE$10,027.53CIP-250/Glenmore-TransportationRt. 250 Pedestrian Crossings or Shadwell Interchange8523GRAYROCK$904.30Interest/Jarmans Gap Road ImprovementsCIP-Crozet (Library)8545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$50,001.17CIP-Hollymead-Greenway connection/Pedestrian CrossingMust use for specific project8572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$18,755.00CIP-GeneralProject TBD8573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$2,952.00Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8544LIBERTY HALL $86,502.41CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet (Library)8529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$429,491.93CIP-I-64/250 Improvements and TransitMust use for specific project8537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$7,002.40CIP-Crozet Parks/SchoolsCIP-Crozet (Parks/Schools TBD)8546POPLAR GLEN II$122,715.29CIP-General and Affordable HousingProject TBD8533STILLFRIED LANE$963.29CIP-General or Affordable HousingProject TBD8535WESTERN RIDGE$1,016.58Interest/Stop Light at Western Ridge/240CIP-Crozet (Library)8541WESTHALL (1.1)$40,100.43Eastern Avenue in Crozet/After 10 years Crozet CIPCIP-Crozet (Transportation Projects)8542WESTHALL (1.2)$20,020.50CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet (Library)8543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,166.37Greenway bridge in WesthallMust use for specific project8540WICKHAM POND$144,386.59CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet (Library)8549WICKHAM POND II$50,000.00CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet (Library)TOTAL$1,503,052.14
ATTACHMENT CAFFORDABLE HOUSING PROFFERS BY DEVELOPMENT As of July 9, 2012REZONING INFORMATIONPROFFEREDRECEIVEDZMA #DEVELOPMENT% UNITS AFF.# UNITSFOR SALE/LEASEUNIT TYPECASH (per unit/total)UNITSCASH2006-05Avinity15% 19 Sale or lease SFA/TH/Condo 16,500 unit*/313,5002004-03Avon Park9 Sale TH92007-05Avon Park II15% 5 Sale or lease SFA/TH/APT 19,100 unit*/ 95,5002004-07BelvedereCash only and CH103 Lease-CH CH $500/$750/1,000 unit 47 100,2502007-12Blue Ridge Co-Housing15% 4 Sale SFD/SFA/MF2005-09Briarwood25 Sale TH2002-04Cascadia15% 50 33% Sale (33% min) or lease TH/MF/DUP/CH/A2010-11Estes Park15% 10 Sale SFA $21,125 unit/$211,250**2005-07Haden Place15% 6 Sale SFD2010-06Hollymead TC - A220% 245 Sale (40% min) or lease TH/MF/A2005-05Liberty Hall15% 8 Sale TH52008-04NGIC18 Lease MF19,100*2000-09North Point110 Sale (40 min)/Lease (66 min)/4 CH SFA/TH/MF/SFD/CH 300000 320,3592007-04Oakleigh15% 8 Sale (7.5% min) /Lease SFA/SFD/Condo 19,100 unit*/1623502004-24Old Trail15% 330 Sale or lease TH/Condo/APT72007-11Patterson 15% 2 Sale SFD/SFA/DUP2001-08Rivanna Village15% 78 Sale (40%)/Lease (60%) SFA/TH/MF/CH 16500*2004-22Treesdale Park100% 90 Lease APT882006-01Westhall V17% 6 Sale SFD22004-17Wickham Pond 14 Lease-No Aff. Requirements ACC. APT142005-18Wickham Pond II15% 16 Sale or lease MF2006-19Willow Glen15% 35 Sale or lease SFA or condo 19100* 2003-08Woodbrook StationCash only1725 unit/138002003-12Popular Glen 1 Cash only78000 (CIP or AFF)2005-14Popular Glen 2Cash only66000 66,0002004-18Fontana 4CCash only 2809/unit/95,500 2006-15Livengood Glenmore S5Cash only 2665 unit/37,310 2006-16Leake Glenmore K2Cash only 2952 unit 324,700 2952TOTAL1191See Notes-Cash 172489561
NOTES:ZMA #The specific proffer requirements vary among approved rezonings. For details on affordability, rental rates, reporting, tracking, phasing etc. see the proffers. Proffers can be viewed at http://www.albemarle.org/weblink8/ and looked up by the ZMA #. % UNITSSome rezonings proffered a minimum % of affordable units based on the maximum total of units permitted while others proffered a specific # regardless of total build-out.# UNITSThe number of units proffered is based on the maximum number of proposed units within a development when a % is proffered or a specific # of units is proffered with some rezonings. FOR SALE/LEASEThis column indicates whether units must be for-sale, for-lease(rent), or may be a combination of both. Some rezonings allow cash in-lieu of units.UNIT TYPEThis column indicates the unit types that may be provided as affordable units. Most proffers allow a combination of types.A-Accessory UnitSFA-Single Family Attached MF-Multifamily (proffers may specify "condo" or apartment)CH-Carriage HouseTH-TownhouseSFD-Single Family Detached DUP-DuplexIn some cases, accessory apartments or carriage house units are not subject to affordability requirements of affordable housing guidelines.CASHSome rezonings proffered a lump sum cash amount or a cash amount payable on a per unit basis.In some proffers, cash may be provided in-lieu of units (ex. no qualified purchaser) and where noted this may either be at the *County's option or **Developer's option.RECEIVED Units received in most developments is timed to developer build-out.Cash received earns interest until expended.
I:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Annual Reports\2011\2011 bza annual report.docx
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
2011 ANNUAL REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Code of Virginia states that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall submit a report of its
activities to the governing body at least once each year {Sec. 15.2 -2308}. This report is
a brief outline of their activities.
II. PERSONNEL
The Board of Zoning Appeals consists of five members. They are appointed by the
Circuit Court for a term not to exceed five years. The Bo ard members during the year
2011 were:
Member _____________Term Expiration
David Bass, Chairman Reappointed June 4, 2012 for a five year term – to
expire May 23, 2017
Lloyd (L.F.) Wood, Vice Chairman Reappointed February 29, 2010 for a five year
term – to expire May 23, 2015
Randy Rinehart, Secretary Reappointed May 19, 2011 for a five year term –
to expire May 23, 2016
David Bowerman Appointed April 22, 2009 for a four year term (to
replace Mr. Kennedy for the unexpired portion of
his term) – to expire May 23, 2013
M. Clifton McClure Appointed May 15, 2009 for a five year term (to
replace Mr. Cogan for the unexpired portion of his
term) – to expire May 23, 2014
Regrettably, Mr. McClure passed away October 30, 2011. On March 29, 2012, the
Circuit Court appointed Edgar S. Robb to replace Mr. McClure for the unexpired portion
of his term. Mr. Robb’s term will expire on May 23, 2014.
III. OPERATING PROCEDURES
Regular meetings of the Board are held the first Tuesday of each month starting at 2:00
p.m. Special meetings may be called in cases of a high number of submittals when the
regular schedule does not provide sufficient hearing time. These special meetings may
begin at 1:00 p.m. The Board operates with Rules of Procedure which were adopted
November 15, 2002.
Board of Zoning Appeals 2011 Annual Report Page 2
I:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Annual Reports\2011\2011 bza annual report.docx
IV. EXPENSES
The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have a separate budget. Compensation and
mileage are included within the budget of the Department of Community Development.
Funding for Board salaries in the fiscal year 2010-2011 was consistent with prior years
and expenses totaled $1496.00. Board members are paid $45 per meeting and are
reimbursed for mileage traveled to the meetings.
Staff to the Board includes the Director of Zoning (Zoning Administrator), Chief of
Zoning (Deputy Zoning Administrator), Planners, and Code Enforcement Officers.
Support staff includes the Recording Secretary.
V. ACTION SUMMARY
The Board of Zoning Appeals held 5 meetings in 2011. The number of submittals and
actions considered by the Board in 2011 are shown in the following tables:
Variances
Three (3) variance applications were heard and approved in 2011.
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
VA11-01 Barracks West
Townhouses
Relief from various
sections of the Code
to allow for the re-
subdivision of 133
existing townhouse-
style units.
(5-0) X
VA11-02 (none) Voided Application
VA11-03 Henley Middle
School Wind
Turbine
Relief from Code
Sec. 18-13.3 to
increase maximum
structure height from
35 to 51 feet.
(4-0; McClure
absent)
X
VA11-04 Walker Property
Lot Size
Relief from Code
Sec. 18-10.4 to
decrease existing
parcel size by 0.106
acres, resulting in a
0.84 acre lot.
(4-0; McClure
absent)
X
Board of Zoning Appeals 2011 Annual Report Page 3
I:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Annual Reports\2011\2011 bza annual report.docx
Appeals
Four (4) appeal applications were received and three (3) appeals were heard in 2011.
Three (3) appeals were affirmed and one (1) was rendered moot.
Application # Appellant or Project Name Affirmed, Modified, Reversed
ZA (Zoning Administrator) or
DZA (Deputy Zoning
Administrator)
Issue
AP11-01 Barracks Road Land Trust
– Jessup Tract
Affirmed DZA (4-0);
McClure absent:
Determination that the parcel
has one theoretical
development right, but cannot
be further subdivided.
Property known as
Tax Map 60, Parcel 68
is a single parcel of
record.
AP11-02 Re-Store’N Station
Affirmed DZA (4-0);
McClure absent:
Determination of general
accord as called for in the
Board of Supervisors’
conditions of approval.
The submitted
preliminary site plan
for the proposed Re-
Store ‘N Station dated
December 13, 2010 is
in general accord with
the preliminary site
plan dated December
6, 2009.
AP11-03 (none) Voided Application
AP11-04 Arganica Farm Club
Affirmed ZA (4-0); McClure
absent:
Determination of violation of
Sec. 18-10.2.
Use established at
Tax Map 20, Parcel 14
is not a permitted use
by-right.
Moot
Application # Project Name Withdrawn / Dismissed / Moot Deferred Definitely /
Indefinitely
AP11-05 The Gym – Training and
Education Center
Moot - Unnecessary
Board of Zoning Appeals 2011 Annual Report Page 4
I:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Annual Reports\2011\2011 bza annual report.docx
Special Use Permits
Two (2) special use permit applications for off-site signs were heard in 2011. One (1)
was approved with conditions. The other case (SP 11-16) was approved, but later was
rescinded and reconsidered by the BZA. It was then approved with conditions.
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
SP11-09 Martha Jefferson
Hospital Off-site
Sign
Erect a freestanding
monument sign to
serve Martha
Jefferson Hospital.
(5-0) X
SP11-16 Clifton Inn
Directional Sign
Erect a freestanding
directional sign to
serve the Clifton Inn.
(4-0;
McClure
absent)
Rescinded and Reconsidered
Application # Project Name Approved
SP11-16 Clifton Inn Directional Sign (3-0 with conditions; Rinehart absent)
V. COURT ACTIONS
The following are pending or recently resolved court actions involving the Board of
Zoning Appeals:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood: Petition
for writ of certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2004
decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that Planned Parenthood's use of the
property is a professional office use. The parties are awaiting a ruling from the
Court on the County’s motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the
petitioners failed to add Planned Parenthood as a party to the case and it can no
longer be involuntarily added as a party.
2. Scott W. and Caroline F. Watkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of
certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2005 decision of
the Board of Zoning Appeals that the use of the property by Watkins & Co.
Landscape Contracting constitutes a contractor's storage yard which is not a
permitted use in the Rural Areas District. The applicants have pursued a
different location. The applicants have obtained rezoning and final site plan
approval from the County. The appeal has neither been actively pursued nor
withdrawn.
Board of Zoning Appeals 2011 Annual Report Page 5
I:\DEPT\Community Development\Zoning & Current Development Division\BZA\Annual Reports\2011\2011 bza annual report.docx
3. Ellen Hawkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in
Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2007 decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals that keeping 27 adult dogs and seven puppies, portable cages,
portable kennels, fixed kennels, bulk amounts of dog food and related material
on site is not a permitted use in the R2, Residential District. The County and the
BZA have not been served with the petition.
4. HE&J, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in
Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2011 decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals that the submitted preliminary site plan for the proposed Re -
Store ‘N Station convenience store and fuel sales establishment dated December
13, 2010 was in general accord with the preliminary site plan dated December 6,
2009, as called for in the Board of Supervisors’ conditions of approval. On
February 7, 2012, the Circuit Court granted the County’s Motion to Dismiss this
appeal.
5. HE&J, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in
Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2012 decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals that the submitted final site plan for the proposed Re-Store ‘N
Station convenience store and fuel sales establishment dated July 14, 2011 was
in general accord with the submitted preliminary site plan dated December 6,
2009, as called for in the Board of Supervisors’ conditions of approval. The
Circuit Court is scheduled to review this appeal on November 9, 2012.
6. Dominique and Rachel Kostelac v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of
certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2011 decision of
the Board of Zoning Appeals that the use of the property by Arganica Farm Club
is not a use permitted by-right in the Rural Areas District. The court issued a writ
of certiorari on October 11, 2011 and the Board of Zoning Appeals filed a
complete record of its proceedings. A trial date has been set for January 7,
2013.
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
400 ft
Page 1 of 4
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
August 2012
Special Issues
Bridge Replacement Project on Route 783 over a Branch of Mechunk Creek. The road will
be closed to through traffic at the bridge for an estimated four week period beginning on
July 9 with an estimated completion date of August 3, 2012.
Bridges on Route 745, Arrowhead Valley Road—The road will be closed at the Rail Road
Bridge on the southern end of the road beginning on June 25th. The anticipated
completion date quoted by the contractor is September 1, 2012. The bridge is currently
owned and maintained by the Rail Road. Once the construction is completed the
maintenance will become the responsibility of VDOT.
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.4 Mi E.
of Monticello Loop Road
Right of Way Advertisement February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.06 Mi
E. of Monticello Loop Road
Right of Way Advertisement February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 20
Design Public Hearing Advertisement February 2013
Route 708, Dry Bridge Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Right of Way Advertisement May 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 729
Design Public Hearing Right of Way –
October 2012 October 2013
Route 616, Black Cat Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– July 25, 2012 March 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– October 2012 December 2014
Page 2 of 4
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
August 2012
Preliminary Engineering Continued:
Route 637, Dick Woods
Road
Bridge Replacement over Ivy
Creek
Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– October 2012 December 2014
Route 250, Bridge
replacement over Little Ivy
Creek
Project Kick-off Survey – Fall 2012 January 2018
Brocks Mill Road, Rural
Addition -- Project Scoping –
Summer 2012 *
Route 774, Bear Creek Road,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 *
Route 703, Pocket Lane,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 *
*Dates to be determined following evaluation of Scoping Team comments.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
PROJECT LAST
MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Jefferson Park Avenue Bridge
Replacement
Construction
Underway
Construction Complete
– Summer 2012 August 2010
Best Buy Ramp Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– November 2012 November 2014
Construction Activities
Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501
Scope: Guardrail repairs – on call – District wide.
Next Major Milestone: Contract Renewal – 2nd term
Contract Completion date: July 1, 2013.
McIntire Road U000-104-102, C501
Scope: Construct New Two Lane Road, Bridge and Pedestrian Path.
Next major Milestone: Complete bridge construction
Contract Completion: October, 2012
JPA Bridge Replacement U000-104-V09, C501
Scope: Replace Bridge and Approaches over Railroad.
Next Major Milestone: Complete Bridge.
Contract Completion Date: September 24, 2012.
Page 3 of 4
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
August 2012
Construction Activities Continued
Jarmans Gap Road (NFO) 0691-002-258, C501
Scope: Grade, Drain, Asphalt Pavement, Planting and Utilities.
Next Major Milestone: Complete Phase Two.
Contract Completion: September 21, 2012.
Route 250 Bridge over Buckingham Branch Railroad (NFO) BRDG-002-797,B644
Scope: Substructure repair and superstructure replacement.
Next major milestone: Bridge opened on June 15, 2012,
Contract Completion Date: June 25, 2012
Bridge Deck Repair and Polymer Overlay (NFO) 0029-002-044, N501, N502
Scope: Patch decks and epoxy overlay on the Route 29 Bypass over Route 29.
Next Major Milestone: Work to resumed on May 29, 2012.
Contract Completion Date: July 20, 2012
Bridge Painting (NFO) BRDG-967-078, N501
Scope: Remove lead based paint and repaint various structures.
Next major milestone: Complete painting
Contract Completion Date: July 31, 2012.
Route 608 (Happy Creek Rd) Rural Rustic Road Project 0608-002-R04, N501
Scope: Upgrade existing gravel surface to hard surface
Next major milestone: Contract execution
Contract Completion Date: November 2, 2012.
Route 704 (Fortune Ln) Rural Rustic Road Project 0704-002-P01, N501
Scope: Upgrade existing gravel surface to hard surface
Next major milestone: Contract execution
Contract Completion Date: October 26, 2012.
Route 672 Rural Rustic Road Project 0672-002-P00, N501
Scope: Upgrade existing gravel surface to hard surface
Next major milestone: Contract execution
Contract Completion Date: November 8, 2012.
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 250 near Boars Head Inn –Guardrail review – Study memorandum complete; awaiting
funding for installation.
Route 250 and 1054 (E. of Shadwell) – Study complete recommend signing adjustments.
Installation pending.
Route 797 from Route 250 to Route 684 – Pavement marking review; pavement markings and
sign modifications recommended. Installation pending.
Page 4 of 4
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
August 2012
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed Continued
Route 250 by Harris Teeter – Pavement marking reviews; report complete. Signage upgrades
recommended. Installation pending.
Under Review
Route 690 – Speed study -Pending VSP review prior to final report.
Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) – Speed study-Draft Compete; revisions in progress.
Route 743 (Earlysville Rd) – Speed study with Draft complete, pending RTE review.
Route 20 @ Route 726– Intersection safety review; Draft report under review.
Route 692 @ Route 29– Intersection safety review; pending.
Route 1117 @ Route 726– Signing review;pending.
Route 20 @ Route 708– Intersection safety review; pending.
Route 637 Speed Study– Under review.
Maintenance Activities
On-going routine maintenance activities.
Mowing Operations-Primary Routes.
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Acting Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
July 26, 2012
Stephen Waller, Aicp
536 Pantops Center
Charlottesville, Va. 22911
RE: SP-2012-00015 Verizon Wireless Colthurst-Ingleridge LLC., Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility (Signs # 20 & 21)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000-00-00-002A0
Dear Mr. Waller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 17, 2012, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the following:
The special exceptions for the modifications for SP-2012 -00015 Verizon Wireless Colthurst-Ingleridge
LLC., Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report, as amended, for Sections
5.1.40(c)(3)(i),(c)(4), (c)(5), (d)(5), and (d)(6) under the special exception criteria of Section 31.8. The
recommendation would allow the height increase to 139 feet, additional antenna arrays and associated
ground equipment and modifications provided in the staff report, as follows:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i)-Size of antenna.
2. Section 5.1.40(c)(4)-Submittal of a tree conservation plan.
3. Section 5.1.40(c)(5)-Site to be in accordance with a tree conservation plan.
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(5)-Maximum size of base and diameter of tower.
5. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-Height of tower in relation to tallest tree.
SP-2012 -00015 Verizon Wireless Colthurst-Ingleridge LLC., Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in
the staff report, as follows:
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and
site plans, entitled “Colthurst LTE 4G Upgrade”, with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 6/25/12
(hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on August 1, 2012.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Sarah Baldwin
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc: Ingleridge Llc
P O Box 8147
Charlottesville, Va. 22906
City of Charlottesville
PO Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201200015 – Colthurst Verizon
Wireless Tier III PWSF
Staff: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July 17, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Ingleridge, LLC. Applicant: Verizon Wireless-Stephen Waller
Acreage: 156.81 acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 60 Parcel 2A
Location: 1575 Ingleridge Farm
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request for installation of a six new flush-
mounted antennas on an existing transmission tower
which will involve retrofitting an extension mount to a new
height of 139 feet, relocation of the existing antenna array
and changes to associated ground equipment.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural
Area 1.
Character of Property: This property is zoned Rural
Areas, as well as all the surrounding properties. The site
is located in a field bordered by a grove of trees that
screen the existing ground equipment. Additional trees
exist on the north side of the site which provides
screening from the road.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas-
single family residential.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the
additional antenna will not increase or cause any
new impacts to adjacent properties or important
resources.
2. Due to the height and scale of the existing
transmission tower, the size difference will not
have a significant impact to the structure.
3. The Architectural Review Board staff has
recommended approval since the height increase
and antennas will not significantly increase the
negative visibility from Barracks Road or the
Entrance Corridor.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. This in an existing tower among a line of
other transmission towers with this line,
which creates a significant visual impact
to the area.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Included are modifications for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)(i),(c)(4), (c)(5), (d)(5), and (d)(6). Based on
findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of all modification requests.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 17, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: August 1, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: SP201200015: Colthurst-Verizon Wireless Tier III
PROPERTY OWNER: Ingleridge, LLC.
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless-c/o Stephen Waller
PROPOSAL:
This is a request for installation of a six new flush-mounted antennas on an existing
transmission tower which will involve retrofitting an extension mount to a new height of
139 feet, relocation of the existing antenna array and changes to associated ground
equipment. The transmission tower is approximately 120 feet above ground level
(“AGL”). The new antenna arrays will be located at 126 feet AGL and 135 feet AGL
respectively. No other changes are proposed at this time.
The 156 acre property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 2A, is located in the Jack
Jouett Magisterial District and is zoned Rural Areas (“RA”).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 1.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This property is zoned Rural Areas, as well as all the surrounding properties. The site is
located in a field bordered by a grove of trees that screen the existing ground
equipment. Additional trees exist on the north side of the site which provides screening
from the road.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
A building permit for a Tier I PSWF was issued in 2005 for the prior antenna array.
DISCUSSION:
A special permit is necessary for this transmission tower only to accommodate the
increase in height. In addition the applicant is requesting several waivers, which are
supported by Staff due to the fact that this is an existing tower. It should be noted that
the increase in height is only necessary to accommodate Virginia Dominion’s policy
changes which no longer allow antennas below any lines on their high tension
transmission towers.
3
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be
reviewed as follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is not anticipated that the proposed addition of antenna arrays or additional height
increase will be of any detriment to the adjacent properties, aside from limited
temporary construction activity to accommodate the arrays and associated ground
equipment. The new antenna arrays will not substantially change the visual impact of
the existing tower due to the scale of the existing structure.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
As mentioned above, no substantial changes will occur with the addition of height or
antenna arrays aside from limited construction activity associated with the change.
This is an existing transmission tower with existing antennas, and any impact should
be limited.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning
ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set
forth in Sections 1.4. of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified
in the Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is
consistent with both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated, since this request involves a 19 foot
increase in height and the addition of two antenna array.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be
protected if the use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through
the special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use
permit are appropriate in the location requested. The proposed increase in antenna
arrays will provide more reliable access to the wireless communication market, to
include schools and residences. This can be seen as contributing to the public
health, safety and welfare. Otherwise, no change to the public health, safety and
general welfare is expected with approval of the additional antenna arrays.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section
5.1.40(e) are addressed as follows [Ordinance sections are in bold italics]:
Section 5.1.40(e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon
approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.6.1 of this chapter,
initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a)
and section 31.6.2, and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter and the following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2)
through (9) and subsection 5.1.40(d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the
board of supervisors during special use permit review.
4
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1
special use permits have been met. Due to safety reasons, no balloon test can be
performed and the Applicant has submitted photo -simulations (Attachment C).
Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The County's specific
design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e )(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are
addressed as follows:
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable:
Except as otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to
all applicable regulations in this chapter.
The proposed wireless facility meets the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all
other area and bulk regulations and minimum yard re quirements. Attached site
drawings, antennae and equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate
that personal wireless service facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan
requirements set forth in Section 32 of the zoning ordinance have been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2)-: The facility shall be designed, constructed and
maintained as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for
the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the
lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by
section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the
existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s
landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may
exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height
shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in
diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility
or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation
of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that
the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed changes to the monopole do not require the installation of guy wires, nor
will it be fitted with any whip antennas. All other requirements have been met.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure
only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing
structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached
under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application,
which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square
inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum
required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and
(iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the
existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes
regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays.
5
The Applicant has identified that the antennas on one of proposed array will be
approximately 1581 square inches and they have requested a waiver of the require ment
which will exceed the ordinance requirement of 1152 square inches. Due to the height
and scale of the existing transmission tower, the size difference will not have a
significant impact to the structure. The existing and proposed changes to the tower
meet all other relevant design, mounting and size criteria of this subsection.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be
submitted to the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable
requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods
and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the
installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for the tree removal
expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions
surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may
identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area
to be included in the plan.
The installation of the proposed antenna array for this personal wireless service facility
will not require the removal of any trees. Since this is an existing tower and no changes
to the height are requested, a waiver of this requirement is appropriate.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5) The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility
shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and
dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the
tree conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by
the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall
submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the
proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from
any location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to
assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
As stated above, this is an existing tower where no changes are proposed that will
require the removal of any trees and a waiver of this subsection is appropriate.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the
site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service
purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is
required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the agent may
require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check,
a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety
guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In
determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the
following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or pole is no longer being
used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was not filed;
(iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be
unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable \
6
regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower
or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the
agent.
Should use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the
future, Verizon Wireless and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility
within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the
agent by no earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report
shall identify each user of the existing structure, and include a drawing,
photograph or other illustration identifying which equipment is owned and/or
operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users on a single
tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user
acquiescing in the report.
It is recommended that Verizon Wireless submit an annual report updating the user
status and equipment inventory of the facility at or prior to building permit issuance and
then annually to satisfy the requirements under the Ordinance.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility
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.
Since the proposed changes include the addition of an antenna array and associated
changes to an existing tower, no slopes are affected.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing
building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the
fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of
vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from
livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and
(iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
Staff has not determined that a fence is necessary at this site since it is on an existing
tower.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening
and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and
streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be
visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of
whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall be sited to minimize its
visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands
subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a
conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that
it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the
deed of easement.
The existing transmission tower contains adequate screening and meets the
7
requirements of this subsection for the ground equipment. Due to the height of the
existing transmission tower and existing associated ground equipment, the additional
height and number of antennas will not significantly increase the visibility of this
structure.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in
the county’s open space plan.
This proposal does not substantially change the visual impact of the tower and does not
adversely impact any resources in the open space plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(4): The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or
more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an
area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of
two hundred (200) feet.
There are no other PWSF within 200 feet of this tower.
Section 5.1.40(d)(5): The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty
(30) inches and the maximum diameter of the top of the monopole shall be
eighteen (18) inches.
Since this tower is constructed for supporting high tension power lines, it does not meet
the diameter requirements and the Applicant is requesting a waiver.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean
sea level, shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved
height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within
twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or
grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural ground elevation;
provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10) feet
taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the
visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7)
feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not a material difference in adverse
impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan caused by the
monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a
modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
The applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement as there are no trees in the
immediate area. Although the height is being increased, this in an existing tower among
a line of other transmission towers with this line, which creates a significant visual
impact to the area. This proposal does not substantially change the visual impact of the
tower and transmission lines which does not adversely impact any resources in the
open space plan.
8
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood
color; each metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to
blend into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all
other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches
that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and
the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole,
provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a
color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or
fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is
consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment
and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or
private street.
The applicant states that the proposed antenna array will be painted with a light blue
gray hue to match the existing color of the tower. All supporting equipment changes will
be painted Sherwin Williams Java Brown (#6090).
Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables,
wiring and similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to
the antennas are placed on the pole to face the interior of the property and away
from public view, as determined by the agent. Metal monopoles shall be
constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments are contained
within the monopole’s structure.
The proposed tower extension mount will be designed to conceal the cables and a
conduit port was previously added to the existing tower that allows the cables to run
vertically up the back side of the pole.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the
special use permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section
31.6.3).
Section 704(a) (7) (b) (I) (II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in
part that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I)
shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services; (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC
guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health
and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the
provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies
and regulations for the sighting and design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the
9
existing facilities and their mounting structure all offer adequate support for providing
personal wireless communication services. The applicant has not provided any
additional information regarding the availability, or absence of alternative sites that
could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna additions
at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the
provision of personal wireless services.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the height increase to 139 feet
and additional antenna array for this personal wireless facility, and modifications based
upon the analysis provided herein.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the additional antenna will not increase
or cause any new impacts to adjacent properties or important resources.
2. Due to the height and scale of the existing structure, the size difference will not
have a significant impact to the structure.
3. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval since the
height increase and antennas will not significantly increase the negative visibility
from Barracks Road or the Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. This in an existing tower among a line of other transmission towers with this line,
which creates a significant visual impact to the area.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance if recommended for
denial, the Planning Commission is required to provide the applicant with a statement
regarding the basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each
requirement.
Special Exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance:
Request for modifications must be reviewed under the criteria established in Section
31.8 taking into consideration the factors, standards, criteria and findings for each
request; however no specific finding is required in support of a decision. The proposed
modifications for an additional antenna array on the existing tower are part of a larger
project to improve Verizon Wireless’ existing network of facilities by adding fourth
generation (“4G”) services to the existing cellular services. Staff is able to support all of
the recommended modifications described in the staff report because the facility is
existing. The recommended modifications are for requirements of the ordinance that are
generally meant to aid in the determination of whether a new tower is appropriate i n the
proposed area of the County or whether a height increase is appropriate, these specific
requirements are not applicable for existing towers seeking the addition of antennas or
minor additions in height. Staff is supportive of the modification for an increase in the
10
size of the new antenna, since the size difference will not have a significant impact in
comparison to the height and scale of the existing transmission tower. Listed below are
the recommended modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i)-Size of antenna.
2. Section 5.1.40(c)(4)-Submittal of a tree conservation plan.
3. Section 5.1.40(c)(5)-Site to be in accordance with a tree conservation plan.
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(5)-Maximum size of base and diameter of tower.
5. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-Height of tower in relation to tallest tree.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff
recommends the following conditions:
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in
the applicant's request and site plans, entitled “Colthurst LTE 4G
Upgrade”, with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 6/25/12 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements
above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Applicant Photo Simulations
Return to PC actions
11
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201200015) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve or deny the modifications for
Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)(i),(c)(4), (c)(5), (d)(5), and (d)(6) under the special exception criteria of
Section 31.8.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the
modifications Tier III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of the modifications for SP 20120015
Colthurst -Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the
staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of the
modifications of this Tier III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of the modifications for SP 201200015-
Colthurst Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF (Planning Commission needs to
give a reason for denial).
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201200015) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier
III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 20120015 Colthurst -Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201200015-Colthurst Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial).
EXISTINGANTENNAS
NEWANTENNAS
Colthurst Upgrade Photo Simulation
Verizon Wireless - “Colthurst” / Dominion Power and Ingleridge LLC Property
Close view of the existing panel antennas currently flush-mounted below the static line
View of existing antennas from the base of the power tower
Verizon Wireless - “Colthurst” / Dominion Power and Ingleridge LLC Property
Conduits exiting the ground beside the power tower where cables are run up to the antennas
Side view of the existing ground equipment and H-frame electrical panel with screening trees
Verizon Wireless - “Colthurst” / Dominion Power and Ingleridge LLC Property
Front view of the existing base station equipment with the power tower in the background
View of a nearby power tower with a top-mount, full-sectored antenna array
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 17, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 17,
2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris
and Russell (Mac) Lafferty. Commission members absent were Ed Smith and Bruce
Dotson. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia
was absent.
Staff present was Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Christopher Perez, Senior Planner;
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mark
Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Public Hearing Items
SP-2012-00015 Verizon Wireless Colthurst-Ingleridge LLC., Tier III Personal
Wireless Service Facility (Signs # 20 & 21)
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a three new flush-mounted antennas on an
existing tower which will involve retrofitting an extension moun t to a new height of 139
feet, relocation of the existing antenna array and changes to associated ground
equipment.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard –
Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding; AIA Airport Impact Area -Overlay
to minimize adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land.
SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for
Tier III personal wireless f acilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 1 -preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre
in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: 1575 Ingleridge Farm.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000-00-00-002A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett. (Sarah Baldwin)
Ms. Baldwin presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
2
This is a special use permit request for a Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, as
follows:
Request to install six new flush mounted antennas on two arrays on an existing
transmission tower.
This will involve an extension mount to support the new arrays which will bring
the height of the tower to 139 feet.
Associated ground equipment changes.
The applicant is also requesting special exceptions for the following waivers to the
Zoning Ordinance:
Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i)-Size of antenna.
Section 5.1.40(c)(4)-Submittal of a tree conservation plan.
Section 5.1.40(c)(5)-Site to be in accordance with a tree conservation plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(5)-Maximum size of base and diameter of tower.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-Height of tower in relation to tallest tree.
Discussion:
• Existing transmission tower.
• A special permit is only necessary to accommodate the height increase.
• The height change is necessary due to changes in Dominion’s policy.
This submitted site plan shows the existing and proposed changes to the tower. The
tower is currently at 120 feet, the proposed height increase will bring the tower to 139
feet. Staff reviewed the photo simulation submitted of the existing and proposed
changes.
Based upon the existing and proposed changes and the analysis of the requirements of
the ordinance staff found the following factors favorable and unfavorable to this
application:
Factors favorable:
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the additional antenna will not increase
or cause any new impacts to adjacent properties or important reso urces.
2. Due to the height and scale of the existing structure, the size difference will not
have a significant impact to the structure.
3. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval since the
height increase and antennas will not significantly increase the negative visibility
from Barracks Road or the Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable:
1. This is an existing tower among a line of other transmission towers with this line,
which creates a significant visual impact to the area.
Recommendation:
• Staff recommends approval of the height increase to 139 feet, additional antenna
arrays and associated ground equipment and modifications provided herein.
3
• Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this
application to the Board of Supervisors, staff recommends the condition as
outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph asked if there was an existing transmission tower and Verizon through the
property owner were to receive permission to build a tower which tower would staff say
would have a greater significant impact. Would it be the stand alone or the extension of
this antenna on top of an existing tower transmission line. He sees the existing tower
transmission line as having a significant impact already and this request as a minor
extension vertically of an existing significant visual impact. He was trying to get an idea
comparatively which is a greater significant impact.
Ms. Baldwin replied that she could not speak to a proposed tower since they don’t have
that proposal in front of them. However, certainly the transmission lines are a significant
impact already. She felt obliged to point out that it would be an extension of something
that existed that already was significant.
Mr. Franco said the current ordinance would require that the extension be java brown.
In the photo simulation it jumped out that the tower is not brown. He asked if it was just
going to be the extension that is brown.
Ms. Baldwin replied it is going to be sky blue. However, the applicant can elaborate on
that.
Mr. Franco noted that if it was anything except java brown the applicant needs a
modification and ought to do it tonight as opposed to when everybody else figures this
out.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for public comment and invited the applicant to
address the Planning Commission.
Laurie Schweller, attorney with LeClair Ryan representing Verizon Wireless, said they
were proposing a change to this existing Verizon Wireless site because of Dominion
Power’s new policy. There cannot be wireless antennas below the level of the
transmission lines on these tall towers. What they are proposing is roughly a 19’
extension. They are doing two sets of flush mounted antennas to provide three service s
at this site. It would be painted a light bluish gray to match the existing tower. All of the
ground equipment will be java brown to blend in, which will be screened by landscaping.
They are requesting a Tier III special use permit and all of the items outlined in the
application as part of that special use permit. So she tends not to look at that as
exceptions from the Tier II, but simply a potential condition for a special use permit. The
plan is to paint that light blue gray to blend in.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that would be allowed under the regulations without a special
exception.
4
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty asked if she had any idea why the change of the rules on the location.
Ms. Schweller replied that she did not. She was just told that the rules were changed.
However, it may have something to do with safety. This particular extension will have to
be done 100 percent by Dominion Power personnel and they won’t be involved.
Mr. Lafferty noted he felt it would be safer to put it underneath and not crawl up through
the high tension lines. If they are doing it, then that is probably the reason.
Stephen Waller, consultant for Verizon W ireless, said it is basically a safety issue that
was discussed at a conference in Richmond back in March. It would be a very rare
occasion for them to allow someone to direct mount to those structures. Even in trying
to replace existing antennas it is Dominion’s policy to try to make them move up and
above that top static line. Whenever they do the work on the structure they have to
schedule a power outage just along that part of the line. They reroute power from that
part of the grid to another part. It is just an outage along the lines while they do the
work and not an outage for the neighboring properties or anything like that. It is just an
outage of that high tension line.
Mr. Randolph asked if their transmission devices at on top of Dominion Power’s line
how do they feel about them servicing that unit given the fact th at their people are not
necessarily trained to be going up on a tower transmission line.
Mr. Waller replied that Dominion Power will do all the service. If an antenna
malfunctions and has to be replaced they do the service. No one from Verizon
Wireless, contractors or employees, is allowed to touch anything but the base station
equipment. They tightly regulate that.
Mr. Loach asked if they were going to be seeing more of these because of changes.
Mr. Waller replied that there will be some more requests. They have to be creative.
They have a site that they wanted to add the 4G antennas to and because they can’t
add them below the static line and also because AT&T is attempting to add some
antennas it had to be extended above the static line. They are going to have 4G
antennas that are going to have to be separated may be by a quarter of a mile from
where the other antennas are on another line. They have been told they can direct
mount to the existing structure just for a temporary amount of time until they replace the
structure. The structure also has to be replaced because it does not even have the
structural capacity to add the extension above it. What happened with that part of the
line is they allowed fiber to be run along that line. Some of th e towers in that area don’t
have the structural capacity to direct mount antennas. There is a temporary solution on
that particular site. They are going to allow them to direct mount just the LTE antennas
and then come back later and try to do something like this where they add the antennas
to a new tower. However, it is a very rare occasion. Again, if they wanted to replace all
the antennas on one of their towers they would try to make you replace them up above.
It puts them in a situation where they go from something they could have done in the
5
past by right by having flush mounted antennas directly mounted to where they have to
come and get a special use permit.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed
and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kamptner noted they would need to make two motions. He suggested a minor
change if the Commission is inclined to recommend approval of the modifications, which
is the first action listed. The first line would be revised to state “I move to recommend
approval of the special exceptions for the modifications for SP-2012 -00015” and the
remainder of the condition would be as it is written.
Motion on Special Exception:
Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of the special
exceptions for the modifications for SP-2012-00015 Verizon Wireless Colthurst-
Ingleridge LLC., Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0
Motion on SP-2012-00015:
Mr. Lafferty moved Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval SP-2012-00015
Verizon Wireless Colthurst-Ingleridge LLC., Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in
the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2012 -00015 Verizon Wireless Colthurst-Ingleridge LLC., Tier
III PWSF would go to the Board of Supervisors on August 1 with a recommendation for
approval of the following.
The special exceptions for the modifications for SP-2012 -00015 Verizon Wireless
Colthurst-Ingleridge LLC., Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff
report, as amended, for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)(i),(c)(4), (c)(5), (d)(5), and (d)(6) under
the special exception criteria of Section 31.8. The recommendation would allow the
height increase to 139 feet, additional antenna arrays and associated ground
equipment and modifications provided in the staff report, as follows:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i)-Size of antenna.
2. Section 5.1.40(c)(4)-Submittal of a tree conservation plan.
3. Section 5.1.40(c)(5)-Site to be in accordance with a tree conservation plan.
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(5)-Maximum size of base and diameter of tower.
5. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-Height of tower in relation to tallest tree.
SP-2012 -00015 Verizon Wireless Colthurst-Ingleridge LLC., Tier III PWSF with the
conditions outlined in the staff report, as follows:
6
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the
applicant's request and site plans, entitled “Colthurst LTE 4G Upgrade”, with a
final zoning drawing submittal date of 6/25/12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
July 26, 2012
Jessie Wilmer
1150 Shenandoah Village Dr.
Waynesboro, Va. 22980
RE: PROJECT: SP201200016 Ntelos Wireless –CV825 Cedar Hill – Tier III
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090B0-00-0A-01100
Dear Ms. Wilmer:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 17, 2012, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the following:
SP-2012-00016 Ntelos Wireless – CV825 Cedar Hill – Tier III PWSF with conditions, as revised, outlined
in the staff report eliminating condition 1, as follows:
1. The Special Use Permit cannot be approved until the Board approves the Special Exception to
disturb the Critical Slopes on the site.
2. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Cedar Hill (UVA
Foundation Property) CV825” prepared by Brian Crutchfield and dated 6-25-12 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To
be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on
the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Recommend approval, by a vote of 5:0, of the special exception for the granting of the modification to
allow the facility to be up to 10’ above the reference tree for reasons outlined in the staff report.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6) – The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest
tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole…
Recommend approval of the special exception to allow the disturbance of critical slopes.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on August 1, 2012.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc: University Of Virginia Foundation
P O Box 400218t
Charlottesville, Va. 22904
City of Charlottesville
PO Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201200016 - NTELOS WIRELESS –
CV825 Cedar Hill- Tier III PWSF
Staff: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July 17, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owners: University of Virginia Foundation Applicant: NTELOS - Jessica Wilmer
Acreage: 10 acres
(Lease Area: 600 square feet)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: 090B0-00-0A-01100
Location: David Road, Marshall Manor Subdivision, East
Side of Rte 20
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers/Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: A one hundred and fifteen (115) foot tall
steel monopole tower and associated ground
equipment. Associated with this request is a special
exception for critical slopes disturbance.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural
Area 4.
Character of Property: The property is vacant and
heavily wooded. The property has an existing gravel road
which meanders up the mountain side. The property is on
the back side of the Marshall Manor subdivision and abuts
property owned by Trump Vineyard Estate.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas-
single family residential subdivision and winery
Factors Favorable:
1. The monopole is located so that it is not
skylighted, and there is a substantial backdrop for
the facility due to the mountainside and existing
dense tree cover.
2. The monopole is minimally visible to almost
invisible from Scottsville Rd (Route 20).
3. The Agricultural Forestal District Committee finds
the use will not cause substantial impacts to
agriculture, forestry, or land conservation in the
district.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposal is located within the Lanark
Agricultural Forestal District.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Section 10.2.2 (48) and Section 5.1.40 Personal Wireless Facility- Tier III tower at ten (10) feet above the
tallest tree. Also included is a modification for Sections 5.1.40(d)(6). Based on findings presented in the staff
report, staff recommends approval at the height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree and associated
modification requests, with conditions.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 17, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201200016 - NTELOS WIRELESS – CV825 Cedar
Hill- Tier III PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: University of Virginia Foundation
APPLICANT: NTELOS – Jessica Wilmer
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility [Attachment A].
The proposed treetop personal wireless service facility will contain a steel monopole tower that
would be approximately one hundred and fifteen (115) foot tall [10 feet AMSL above the height
of the tallest tree within 25 feet]. The facility will utilize a flush- mounted antenna array
consisting of three (3) panel antennas and associated ground equipment that will be contained in
the 600 square foot lease area. Two (2) additional antenna arrays have been added to the plans to
show future growth at the facility. The site will be accessed by an existing gravel road. The
property is 10 acres, described as Tax Map Parcel 090B0-00-0A-01100, is located in the
Scottsville Magisterial District and is zoned RA/Rural Areas and is located within an avoidance
area (Lanark Agricultural Forestal District). The facility is located well over 1000 feet from
Scottsville Road (Route 20) and is not within an Entrance Corridor nor a state scenic highway or
by-way. Associated with this request is a special exception to disturb critical slopes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5
unit/acre in development lots)
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The proposed site is a 10 acre vacant lot which is heavily wooded and is zoned Rural Areas
(RA). The property is on the back side of the Marshall Manor subdivision and abuts property
owned by Trump Vineyard Estate. The character of the general area is rural.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
none
DISCUSSION:
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility. The proposed
tower is a Tier III personal wireless facility because it is located within an Agricultural Forestal
District. If this property was not located within the Lanark Agricultural Forestal District, this
personal wireless service facility application would have been processed as a Tier II facility.
Agricultural Forestal Districts have been identified in the Personal Wireless Facilities Policy and
Zoning Ordinance as ‘Avoidance Areas’.
3
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless
service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal
wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal
district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal
wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service
facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having
a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by-way. (Added 10-13-04)
The Planning Commission will need to make findings on the appropriateness of the proposed
personal wireless facility.
The proposed steel monopole and associated ground equipment will also require the disturbance
of critical slopes, which may be approved by special exception under County Code § 18-
31.8(a)(1). The Tier III application is also reviewed as a special exception County Code § 18-
31.8(a)(2).
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
It is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
properties. The monopole will not be skylighted, and there is a substantial backdrop for the
facility due to the mountainside. During the balloon test it appeared that the monopole will be
partially visible from various tree openings on Route 20, but overall the visibility of this site
from Route 20 was very minimal. The property is located in the Lanark Agricultural Forestal
District. The Agricultural Forestal District Committee met on July 9th and voted 5 to 1 in favor
of approval because they find the use will not cause substantial impacts to agriculture,
forestry, or land conservation in the district.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The site of the proposed facility will require little to no additional land disturbance. The
addition of the personal wireless service facility at this location will not adversely impact the
visual character of the area.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent with
both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the (RA) Rural Area district are
anticipated. The proposed personal wireless service facility will not restrict any nearby by-
right uses within the Rural Areas district.
4
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. In this case, the proposed facility will give NTELOS
the ability to offer another choice of personal wireless service communication by providing a
full range of voice and data services in addition to the required E911 call services. This can be
seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare on a regional level.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e)
are addressed as follows.
Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of
a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.6.1 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.6.2, and it shall
be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the
following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and
subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during
special use permit review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1 special use
permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The
County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and
5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics]
Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations
in this chapter.
The proposed wireless facility will meet the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. Attached site drawings, antennae and
equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service
facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of
the zoning ordinance have been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
(i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only
during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be
fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located
within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape
planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the
existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose
width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be
5
installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of
the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that
the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed monopole does not require the installation of guy wires. The facility’s outdoor
light fixture will be fully shielded and operated for temporary maintenance purposes only. All
proposed lighting is for temporary maintenance use only. The proposed equipment cabinet is
screened from all lot lines by terrain and existing vegetation. The proposed lightning rod atop the
facility does not exceed two (2) feet and the width does not exceed one (1) inch in diameter.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as
follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not
exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall
not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one
hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond
the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each
antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For
purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted
toward the limit of three arrays.
The proposed antennae configuration will consist of one sector with three panel antennas, and
each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. These antennas will be flush-mounted (12-
inches maximum between the face of the monopole and the face of the antennae. All antennae
will be painted to match the color of the tower: Brown: UMBRA-SW4008. Two (2) additional
antenna arrays have been added to the plans to show future growth at the facility.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree
conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for
review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan
shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be
removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for
the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease
area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to
two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.
The applicant will provide a tree conservation plan by a certified arborist prior to the submittal of
a building permit for this facility.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the
arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is
later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was
approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended
plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any
location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the
purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
6
In order to ensure that there is no significant impact to any of the trees that are to remain, the
conservation plan will be completed prior to the submittal of a building permit.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the
agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed
as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a
certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be
to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be
required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or
pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was
not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be
unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or
conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and
(vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent.
Should use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future,
NTELOS and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier
than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the
existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which
equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users
on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report.
After the proposed PWSF has been installed, NTELOS will submit an annual report updating the
user status and equipment inventory of the facility in the required time period.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility 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.
The installation of this facility and accessory uses does not create slopes steeper than 2:1 or
greater.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be
fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the
facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural
areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the
character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
The applicant is not proposing to install a fence surrounding the proposed facility and ground
equipment. Staff does not believe a fence would protect the facility from livestock or wildlife,
and not having a fence would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
7
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their
distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national
park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall
be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located
on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a
conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible
from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 115 feet
above ground level (AGL) or 1050.2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the
reference tree is approximately 1040.2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located within
25’of the proposed monopole.
A balloon test was conducted on June 16, 2012. The red balloon was raised to the same height as
the proposed pole, 10’ above the reference tree [Attachment B]. During the site visit, staff
traveled Route 20, north and south of the site to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal.
When the balloon was seen, it was minimally visible to almost invisible from various sections of
Rte 20. It is staff’s opinion that visibility of the proposed monopole at ten feet above the tallest
tree is not expected to have any negative impacts on State Route 20.
This site is adjacent to land with a conservation easement: Trump Vineyard Estate. The adjacent
property is located at considerable elevations from the site separated by topography and existing
dense vegetation. These onsite features provide for appropriate screening of the tower from the
adjacent property.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
The County’s wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities with limited visibility,
facilities with adequate wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact Avoidance
Areas (including Agricultural Forestal Districts). Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the
foreseeable impacts of this use that might impact agriculture, forestry, or land conservation in the
district. The Agricultural Forestal District Committee met on July 9th and voted 5 to 1 in favor of
approval because they find the use will not cause substantial impacts to agriculture, forestry, or
land conservation in the district.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall
not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than
seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall
include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural
ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10)
feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the
proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not
a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan
caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the
board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
8
As mentioned previously in this report, the proposed monopole has a height of approximately
115 feet above ground level (AGL) or 1050.2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of
the reference tree is approximately 1040.2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located
within 25’of the proposed monopole. As proposed by the applicant the monopole will be ten (10)
feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet. As stated above, it is Staff’s opinion
that there is no material difference between the ten foot height and the seven foot height and
therefore recommends approval at the proposed ten feet above the reference tree.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each
metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding
trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall
be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground
equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the
monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color
if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color
that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and
(iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other
parcel or a public or private street.
The applicant is proposing the installation of a facility with a steel monopole. The proposed
color for the tower and associated ground equipment is a brown paint (UMBRA-SW4008) to
match existing surroundings.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 32.2.4):
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
9
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DISTURB CRITICAL SLOPES
The applicant has submitted a request and justification for a special exception to disturb critical
slopes [Attachment D], and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the
Ordinance. The request has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the
critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing
activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) establishes the criteria by which a request to
disturb critical slopes is evaluated. Under Section 31.8(b), the Board must consider the factors,
standards, criteria, and findings delineated in Section 4.2.5(a), but it is not required to make
specific findings in support of its decision.
The critical slopes specific to this site appear to be previously disturbed during the development
of the existing gravel road which meanders through the property. The overall critical slopes in
the area of this request are natural and belong to a larger system of critical slopes that have been
identified as needing to be protected in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has reviewed this waiver
request with consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance, entitled “Critical Slopes.” These concerns have been addressed directly through the
analysis provided herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance
to which each pertain.
Section 4.2.5(a)
Review of the request by Engineering staff:
The application for a special exception to disturb critical slopes has been reviewed. The
engineering analysis of the request follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
This is a proposed wireless telecommunications facility and includes a critical slope area. The
applicant is proposing to include a monopole structure, two equipment cabinet platforms, a
future 45 square foot concrete equipment slab within a 600 square foot gravel compound with a
proposed retaining wall.
Areas (sft)
Total project site 1,709
Critical slopes 354 20.7% of site
Critical slopes disturbed on
site
354 100% of critical
slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
This disturbance is not exempt.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2:
“movement of soil and rock”
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization should prevent
any movement of soil.
10
“excessive stormwater runoff”
The proposed telecommunication facility’s surface will be pervious, consisting of a layer of
gravel over a meshed layer of geo-synthetic fibers. This project is unlikely to cause
excessive stormwater runoff.
“siltation”
Proper stabilization and maintenance can help long term stability. Measures proposed
include soil stabilization blankets and matting at the existing steep slopes and silt fence and
construction entrance during construction.
“loss of aesthetic resource”
Eighteen trees are proposed to be removed as part of this project. This should cause a
minimal impact to loss of aesthetic resource in the rural area of the county.
“septic effluent”
This project does not propose any sanitary facilities.
Based on the review above, engineering recommends approval of this critical slopes disturbance
waiver request.
Review of the request by Planning staff:
Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2:
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The
preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the
provisions of Section 4.2.5(a)(3), along with staff comment on the various provisions. Under
31.8, the Board may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 based on the these
provisions, however, no specific finding is required in support of the Board’s decision on the
special exception.
“A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare;”
Granting the special exception could better serve the purpose of this chapter or the public health,
safety or welfare by allowing the site to provide area residents with more reliable 4G service.
More reliable service may be considered to serve public welfare, in an area where cell service is
more limited.
“B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and
purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;”
No alternatives have been proposed by the applicant.
“C. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual
conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the
disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of
the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent
properties; or”
It appears that the applicant has the capability to modify the location of the proposed monopole
11
outside of the critical slope area but is restricted to the depicted location based on the land
owners’ preferences which are dictated by the potential of additional monopoles to be sited in
this area.
“D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.”
Granting the special exception would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be
served by strict application of the regulations. Although the critical slopes requested to be
disturbed belong to a larger system of critical slopes, the total disturbance is minimal. Loss of
aesthetic resource is also expected to be minimal. The proposed tower is well-sited and otherwise
meets the County’s Wireless Policy.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Favorable Factors for Tier III PWSF:
1. The monopole is located so that it is not skylighted, and there is a substantial backdrop
for the facility due to the mountainside and existing dense tree cover.
2. The monopole is minimally visible to almost invisible from Scottsville Rd (Route 20).
3. The Agricultural Forestal District Committee finds the use will not cause substantial
impacts to agriculture, forestry, or land conservation in the district.
Unfavorable Factors for Tier III PWSF:
1. The proposal is within the Lanark Agricultural Forestal District.
Favorable Factors for Critical Slope Disturbance:
1. The critical slopes specific to this site appear to be previously disturbed during the
development of the existing gravel road which meanders through the property.
2. The amount of total disturbance is limited.
3. Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization should prevent
any movement of soil.
4. Proper stabilization and maintenance can help long term stability. No septic effluent
concerns.
5. Approval of the critical slopes waiver would better serve public welfare than strict
application of the regulations.
6. Minimal loss of aesthetic resource is expected.
Unfavorable Factors for Critical Slope Disturbance:
1. The disturbance of critical slopes is to a larger system of critical slopes.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is
required to provide the applicant with a statement regarding the basis for denial and all items that
will have to be addressed to satisfy each requirement.
12
Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance:
NTELOS is in the process of improving its wireless services in Charlottesville. The proposed
wireless facility is for the purpose of expanding its wireless network along Rte 20. Staff is able to
support all of the recommended modifications described in the staff report for reasons outlines
above. Listed below are the recommended modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40(d)(6) – The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller
than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole…
RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION ON SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR TIER III WIRELESS
FACILITY
Staff recommends approval of the special exception for a Tier III personal wireless service
facility at ten (10) feet above the reference tree.
RECOMMENDATION OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR CRITICAL SLOPES
DISTURBANCE:
Staff recommends as a condition of approval the Special Use Permit cannot be approved until
the Board approves the Special Exception to disturb the Critical Slopes on the site.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff recommends the
following conditions:
Conditions of approval:
1. The Special Use Permit cannot be approved until the Board approves the Special
Exception to disturb the Critical Slopes on the site.
2. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Cedar
Hill (UVA Foundation Property) CV825” prepared by Brian Crutchfield and dated 6-25-
12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development
and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the
design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
13
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Balloon Test photos
C. Applicant Photo Simulations
D. Critical Slopes Waiver Request
Return to PC actions letter
14
Motions- Two Separate:
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role is to recommend approval or denial of
modifications for Sections 5.1.40(d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the modification of
Sections 5.1.40 (d)(6):
I move to recommend approval granting the modifications for reasons outlined in
the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of the modification for
this Tier III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of the modification outlined in the staff report.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for recommendation of denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201200016) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 201200016 - CV825 Cedar Hill - Tier III
PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201200016 - CV825 Cedar Hill - Tier III PWSF.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for recommendation of denial)
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 17, 2012
SP-2012-00016 NTELOS WIRELESS – CV825 Cedar Hill- Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility (Sign # 91 & 94)
PROPOSED: A one hundred and fifteen (115) foot tall steel monopole tower painted
brown with a flush- mounted antenna array consisting of three (3) panel antennas and
associated ground equipment which will be located within a twenty (20) foot by thirty
(30) foot leased compound area. The access road to the proposed facility is an existing
paved road.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: (RA) Rural Areas – agricultural, forestal,
and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2(48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities in the
RA Zoning District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas 4 – Preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO.
AGRICULTURAL FORESTAL DISTRICT: YES
LOCATION: David Road, Marshall Manor Subdivision, East Side of Rte 20.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090B0-00-0A-01100.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Christopher Perez)
Mr. Perez presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility. The
proposed tower is a Tier III personal wireless facility because it is located within an
Agricultural Forestal District which is an avoidance area. If this property was not located
within the Lanark Agricultural Forestal District, this personal wireless service facility
application would have been processed as a Tier II facility. Thus the facility qualifies for
a Tier III review at this time.
The proposal is a 115’ monopole steel tower that will be painted brown. The top
antenna array is being added. The two underneath it are proposed for future
expansion. There is going to be a 600’ lease area with the equipment at the base of the
tower. The tower will be served by an existing gravel road, which goes along the
perimeter of the property.
Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance:
Section 5.1.40(d)(6) – The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller
than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole… The applicant is
proposing to go 10’ above the reference tree.
Also associated with this request is a special exception to disturb critical slopes.
Staff reviewed the photo simulation and the balloon test. The applicant pointe d out after
the storm there was some tree damage to the property. They lost around 24 trees
2
towards the left hand portion of the balloon. He reviewed photographs taken after the
storm, which did not have any effect on the visibility based on the back drop of the
mountain and the existing tree cover around it.
Favorable Factors for Tier III PWSF:
1. The monopole is located so that it is not skylighted, and there is a substantial
backdrop for the facility due to the mountainside and existing dense tree cover .
2. The monopole is minimally visible to almost invisible from Scottsville Road
(Route 20).
3. The Agricultural Forestal District Committee finds the use will not cause
substantial impacts to agriculture, forestry, or land conservation in the district.
Unfavorable Factors for Tier III PWSF:
1. The proposal is within the Lanark Agricultural Forestal District.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request at the height of
ten (10) feet above the reference tree with staff’s recommended conditi ons, as
amended deleting condition one. The County Attorney deemed that condition one was
not appropriate to have that special exception as a criterion. Therefore, staff took
condition one out of the staff report.
The date on the site plan is 6-25-12. The applicant will be providing a revised portion of
the trees on site before it goes to the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, that date is likely
to change although the request will stay the same.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
Valerie Long, representative for the applicant Ntelos, presented a PowerPoint
presentation.
This proposal is on property owned by the UVA Foundation. Others present are
Jesse Wilmer, with Ntelos; and Paula Figgett, with the UVA Foundation. They
think this is a wonderful site for a wireless facility since the site is up against the
base of the mountain. The cleared area is actually the ridge top and part of the
Trump Winery. It is an existing parcel with an existing access road, which makes
it particularly useful and minimizes the need for much tree clearing or
construction of a new access road.
The aerial photos show the wooded nature of the entire area including the
subdivision lots. There is heavy tree cover around all of the equipment, which is
another good reason for a wireless facility. The best reason is it is up on the
mountain and really out of sight. There is a lot of tree coverage around all of the
residences as well. It is both within and adjacent to an existing agricultural
forestal district. It was recommended by the Agricultural Forestal Committee. It
is also adjacent to but not actually within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic
District.
The reference tree is at a slightly higher ground elevation, but is just 10’ higher
than the reference tree. The balloon test photographs were reviewed. They
think it is an excellent location for a facility. As staff indicated, the site did take
3
quite a hit from the storm. The good news is that although they did lose at least
27 trees, the reference tree is fine. The storm literally blew the trees up the
mountain. The photo showed despite the loss of 26 trees there is still a lot of
trees there on site. The reference tree and backdrop of trees remain and are
fine.
They ask for the Commission’s support for the special exception for critical
slopes. The map shows the entire mountainside is one giant critical slope.
There is an existing cleared area at the end of the existing driveway. The
cleared area was created when the road was put in place. They are d isturbing a
very small area of it. It is 324 square feet. They will use an existing access
road. This will provide coverage along Route 20. Ntelos is working to build out
the entire Route 20 corridor to provide service. This is the first of a number of
applications they will see from Ntelos over the coming months. Ultimately, they
will have seamless in car coverage and some in building coverage along Rout e
20 south.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty asked if this was for 4G service, and Ms. Long replied that is correct for
their version of it.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed a nd
the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out there would be three motions for the special use permit for
the use, the special exception to allow up to 10’ above the reference tree, and the
special exception for the critical slopes disturbance.
Mr. Lafferty noted it would be interesting to see how many antennas they pass in
singularity along any one of these routes. It is too bad that the companies can’t get
together and put up one antenna. It also occurs to him that all of the new antennas are
basically requiring 10’ above the tree height and they characteristically grant that. He
realized that the federal government is stepping in and will probably take all of the
powers they have now by recommendatio n away. However, they are continually faced
with this where they are granting the same thing. It bothers him that they have to go
through the expense. It also bothers him that they see each individual company having
to seek out land and put up individual towers, individual fees, and the whole thing. He
did not know there was anything they could do about it, but it certainly is of concern.
Motion on Special Use Permit:
Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of SP-2012-00016
Ntelos Wireless – CV825 Cedar Hill – Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility with
conditions outlined in the staff report, as revised eliminating condition 1.
1. The Special Use Permit cannot be approved until the Board approves the Special
Exception to disturb the Critical Slopes on the site.
2. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
4
“Cedar Hill (UVA Foundation Property) CV825” prepared by Brian Crutchfield and
dated 6-25-12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements
within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on
the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.
Motion on Special Exception for Critical Slopes:
Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of the special
exception for the granting of the modification to allow the facility to be up to 10’ above
the reference tree for reasons outlined in the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.
Motion on Special Exception for Modification:
Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of the special
exception to allow the disturbance of critical slopes associated with of SP-2012-00016
Ntelos Wireless – CV825 Cedar Hill – Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2012 -00016 Ntelos Wireless – CV825 Cedar Hill – Tier III
Personal Wireless Service Facility and associated special exceptions would go to the
Board of Supervisors on August 1 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
Board-to-Board August, 2012
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee (LRPAC) CIP Recommendations – The ACPS Long-Range
Planning Advisory Committee (LRPAC) presented it final 2012 CIP report to the School Board at the July 12
meeting. The report incorporated the School Board’s direction that the committee maintain and operate all
schools, seek parity among all schools and begin a plan to phase out the use of trailers.
The report includes a five-year CIP request of $86 million, with $14.5 million recommended for the 2013-14
school year. Nine existing school sites are targeted for improvements or additions. Reflecting the growth
patterns in the northern portion of the county, the report also requests funding for the purchase of land for a
future fourth high school.
The committee’s recommendations reflect a needs-based analysis based upon enrollment projections. For the
upcoming school year, the committee also recommended that redistricting be considered for some students who
now attend Agnor-Hurt and Meriwether Lewis elementary schools.
The School Board has asked school division staff for additional information and will be reviewing the report by
the Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee and its recommendations in future meetings. Once the School
Board has completed its discussions and review, it will forward the Capital Improvement Program
recommendations for the school division to local government later this year.
The committee’s recommendations are available at:
http://esblogin.k12albemarle.org/attachments/6877dbd0-7cf2-4014-bec4-9846be64d0c6.pdf
Strategic Plan Update—The School Board is in the process of updating its five strategic goals for the division.
Over the next 12 months, a series of community outreach opportunities will be conducted to solicit public input
before the Board’s formal adoption of the goals next year.
Executive Director of K-12 Instruction – Debora Collins, Director of Elementary Education, Gifted and
Federal Programs, is now the division’s Executive Director of K-12 Instruction. In her expanded role, Ms.
Collins will be responsible for leadership, coordination and assessment of all instructional programs in the
division.
2012 Coderdojo Summer Academy – Coderdojos are a relatively new concept, coding clubs for young people,
first made popular in Ireland. Students learn how to work in a variety of computer languages and how to design
computer applications for download. Few coderdojos exist in schools in the United States but ACPS will
conduct a summer coderdojo academy for students in the MESA classrooms at Albemarle High School from
August 6-9. The division plans to expand the coding clubs to a year-round program in the fall. An important
aspect will be the involvement of mentors and guest speakers from the public and private sectors, who will
work with students and talk about the importance of math and science education and about career paths in
computer sciences.
Eliminating the Digital Divide – ACPS is in the process of implementing a four year plan to ensure all ACPS
students have internet broadband access in their homes, as well as in their classrooms. The lack of broadband
access in some geographic areas impairs educational opportunities for some students to complete research and
work assignments away from school. The school division will seek public-to-public and public-to-private
partnerships to facilitate the build out of the broadband capabilities.
Student Earns National Recognition—Patrick Bond, a rising senior from Monticello High School earned a
first place medal from the National Endowment for the Humanities and a $1,000 award at the National History
Day competition held in College Park, MD, June 10-14, 2012. Mr. Bond used the award to purchase a U.S.
Savings Bond. His presentation was on the Prosser slave rebellion of 1800. More than 500,000 students from
across the country participate in National History Day and a small, select group of students go on to state and
national competitions.
Burley Bearettes Win Bronze at World Event—Described as the “Olympics of Choral Music,” the World Choir
Games, featuring more than 350 choirs from more than 60 countries around the world, were held for the first
time in the U.S., in Cincinnati, Ohio. Burley Middle School’s young women’s choir, the Bearettes, competed in
the Championship Division from July 11-13 with 35 other choirs, winning a bronze medal and a standing
ovation. The girls’ program included “Horaru Koi,” “Nigra Sum,” “A Prayer for the Children,” and “A
Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square.” The Bearettes perform at many community venues, including hospitals
and fire houses during the year, and raised more than $30,000 from the community that was used to finance the
trip.
Donations to Albemarle County Public Schools – The School Board received the following donation at its July
12, 2012 Board meeting:
$25.00 from Gaston & Wyatt, Inc. to the Department of Instruction.
www.k12albemarle.org
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: July 26, 2012
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy List and Reappointments
______________________________________________________________________________
Attached, please find an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions
through July 24, 2012.
Appointments that need to be made at th is time are to the Route 250 West Task Force
and the Places 29 Community Advisory Council. In regards to the Places 29
Community Advisory Council the following vacancies need to be filled, development
community (1), large neighborhood (2), and other (2).
Listed below are the names and term expiration dates of individuals who wish to be
appointed and reappointed to the respective committees:
Route 250 West Task Force
Barbara Franko term expires September 5, 2012
Randall Switz term expires September 5, 2012
Dr. Martin Schulman term expires September 5, 2012
Places 29 Community Advisory Council
Peter Skoro
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
Acquisitions of Conservation Easements (ACE)Bill Edgerton 8/1/2012 8/1/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Steve Murray 4/17/2012 4/17/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council Chuck Johnston 3/31/2012 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council Charles Mitchell 3/31/2013 Resigned
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Christopher Dumler 11/21/2012 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Burton Webb 11/21/2012 Deceased
Historic Preservation Committee Melissa Celii Thackston 6/4/2012 6/4/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Jefferson Area Board for Aging Jean Wyant 4/6/2011 3/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Local Board of Building Code Appeals Burton Webb 11/21/2012 Deceased Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee Phil Stokes 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee Mike Erwin 9/30/2013 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Jim Byrom 9/30/2012 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned
Places29 Community Advisory Council Joseph Barnes 1/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Places29 Community Advisory Council Brian Johnson 1/31/2013 Resigned
Places29 Community Advisory Council Scott Elliff 1/31/2013 Resigned
Places29 Community Advisory Council Joel Spring 1/31/2013 Resigned
Places29 Community Advisory Council Joan Graves 1/31/2014 Resigned
Following application received:
Peter Skoro
Planning Commission Tom Loach 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 No, (White Hall)Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Planning Commission Following application received:
James Fulcher
PRFA Joseph Henley 12/13/2011 12/31/2014 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, No applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Vincent Day 12/31/2013 Resigned
Route 250 West Task Force Barbara Franko 9/5/2012 9/5/2015 Yes
Route 250 West Task Force Robert Bakalian 9/5/2012 9/5/2015 Waiting for response
Route 250 West Task Force Bonnie Samuel 9/5/2012 9/5/2015 Waiting for response
Route 250 West Task Force Randall Switz 9/5/2012 9/5/2015 Yes
Route 250 West Task Force Dr. Martin Schulman 9/5/2012 9/5/2015 Yes
Social Services Board Claude Foster 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 No, (White Hall)Advertised, No applications recv'd
Workforce Investment Board Sue Goldman 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 No Recommendations to come from TJPED
Revised 07/26/2012