HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-4-03Tenatative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APRIL 3, 2013
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. Alan Collier for service on the Equalization Board.
b. David Cooke for service on the Equalization Board.
c. Proclamation recognizing Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) April 21, 2013, as
Power Talk 21 Day.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
Discussion/Action Items:
9. Calendar Year 2013 Tax Rate Resolution.
10. Adoption of the FY 13/14 Operating and Capital Budgets.
11. ZTA-2010-00004. Industrial Uses (deferred from March 13, 2013).
12. ZTA-2012-00013. Industrial Uses in Commercial Districts (deferred from March 13, 2013).
13. Overview of Virginia Tourism Development Financing Program.
14. Telecommunications Network Upgrade.
15. 12:00 noon - Closed Meeting.
16. Certify Closed Meeting.
17. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
1:30 p.m. - Public Hearings:
18. SP-2012-00031. Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III Personal
Wireless Service Facility (Sign # 74). PROPOSED: Request for installation of a 110 foot
steel monopole with 2 flush mounted arrays and associated ground equipment with fencing within a
2,250 square foot lease area. 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. SECTION: 10.2.2.48 Tier III
personal wireless facilities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural
Area 2 - 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:
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0403/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 4:04:21 PM]
Tenatative
3070 Stony Point Road TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04700-00-00-01800. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Rivanna.
19. FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
Presentations:
20. VDOT Quarterly Report, Joel DeNunzio.
21. Update on Long Range Transportation Plan, Steve Williams, TJPDC.
22. Community Health Improvement Plan, Lillian Peake, Thomas Jefferson Health District.
23. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
24. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
25. Adjourn to April 10, 2013, 4:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: December 5, 2012 and January 16, 2013.
8.2 WPO-2012-00066. Ragged Mountain Dam Borrow Area – Request to extend the deadline
for installing permanent vegetation.
8.3 SDP-2012-046. Cascadia Preliminary Site Plan, Variations #1-4 from ZMA-2002-004.
8.4 Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC Application for a Certification of Public Convenience and Necessity.
8.5 Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Funding.
FOR INFORMATION:
8.6 Board-to-Board, April 2013, A Monthly Report from the Albemarle County School Board to
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
NEW: CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0403/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 4:04:21 PM]
Tenatative
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0403/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 4:04:21 PM]
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle recognizes the importance of parents talking with their
teens about alcohol; and
WHEREAS, high school students who use alcohol or other substances are five times more
likely to drop out of school or believe good grades are not important; and
WHEREAS, teen alcohol use kills about 5,000 people each year, more than all other illegal
drugs combined; and
WHEREAS, the majority of kids say their parents are their primary influence when it comes
to decisions about drinking alcohol; and
WHEREAS, PowerTalk 21® day is established on April 21, 2013, to encourage parents and
caregivers to embrace their important role in influencing America’s youth and
their decisions about drinking alcohol; and
WHEREAS, to equip parents to talk with their teens about alcohol, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving® (MADD) will offer free community parent workshops to give parents the
tools in a parent handbook to effectively talk to their teens about alcohol; and
WHEREAS, these local parent workshops, also replicated across the country, will offer
parents a research-based parent handbook to help them talk with their teens
about alcohol and encourage adults to consider creating a safer community by
becoming involved in reducing underage drinking; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Ann H. Mallek Chair, on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle, County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim
Sunday, April 21, 2013
as
PowerTalk 21® Day
in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and urge all citizens to join in the local and
national efforts to raise awareness of the importance of parents and teens
talking together about alcohol in order to reduce the risks and dangers posed to
teens and communities.
Return to summary
3/27/2013 1
PowerTalk 21®
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mothers Against Drunk Driving®
Founded by a mother whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver, Mothers Against Drunk Driving ®
(MADD) is the nation’s largest nonprofit working to protect families from drunk driving and underage
drinking. MADD also supports drunk and drugged driving victims and survivors at no charge, serving
one person every eight minutes through local MADD victim advocates and at 1-877-MADD-HELP.
Learn more at www.madd.org or by calling 1-877-ASK-MADD.
Did You Know?
→ About 30% of 8th graders have tried alcohol.
→ About half of all 10th graders drink alcohol.
→ One in six teens binge drink.
→ Yet, only one in 100 parents believe his or her child binge drinks.
→ Teen alcohol use kills about 5,000 people each year, more than all other illegal drugs
combined.
Power of Parents®
Parental influence is the most important factor in helping keep teens safe. A GfK Roper Youth Report
showed that 74 percent of kids (8-17) said their parents are the leading influence on their decisions
about drinking. That’s why MADD began an underage drinking prevention initiative, beginning with a
community-based parent program, Power of Parents, developed and launched with the national
sponsorship of Nationwide Insurance. MADD has partnered with Dr. Robert Turrisi from Pennsylv ania
State University and adapted his handbook model to reach parents of high school students. The
parent handbook is the cornerstone of this community-based program and is available free to
communities through the website and through 30-minute parent workshops facilitated by trained
MADD staff and volunteers.
The goals of MADD’s parent program are to influence parenting behavior to prevent underage
drinking, maintain the 21 minimum drinking age law in all 50 states and engage new supporters to
carry on MADD’s lifesaving work.
PowerTalk 21®
PowerTalk 21, April 21st, is the annual day for parents to talk with their kids about underage drinking,
using the Power of Parents parent handbook as the guide. Each year, MADD and participating
program partners and sponsors focus on reaching as many parents as possible, with the vision that
April 21st will become widely known as the day to talk about kids and alcohol.
In partnership with other national organizations focused on the welfare and safety of America’s youth,
MADD promotes PowerTalk 21 day annually by engaging parents and teens with the resources to
start talking about alcohol, spearheaded through strategic national events. Local MADD Affiliates,
working with schools and program partners, participate in significant outreach to parents to conduct
workshops, distribute parent handbooks and promote PowerTalk 21 day. This local activation includes
conducting parent workshops, hosting press events, distributing handouts, and collecting signed
mayoral and gubernatorial proclamations. In 2012, the media impressions for PowerTalk 21 day
totaled over 112.3 million.
3/27/2013 2
For 2013, PowerTalk 21 will be driven by the strength of MADD’s national program partnerships,
affecting national and local activation and MADD’s grassroots support through schools, parents, and
partnerships.
We invite you to join us this year to reach parents and kids with the resources to help them have the
potentially lifesaving conversations together about alcohol. Thank you in advance for your
commitment to preventing underage drinking.
View proclamation
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
WPO 2012-00066 Ragged Mountain Dam Borrow Area –
Request to extend the deadline for installing permanent
vegetation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval to extend the deadline for installing permanent
vegetation at the Ragged Mountain Dam borrow area site
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Brooks
PRESENTER(S): Glenn Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 3, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
County Code § 17-207(B)(2) requires that permanent vegetation be installed on all denuded areas within nine (9) months
after the date the land disturbing activity commenced. The deadline for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA)
to install permanent vegetation at the Ragged Mountain Dam borrow area site is June 15, 2013. County Code § 17-
207(B)(3) allows the Program Authority to extend the deadline for up to six months and the Board to extend the deadline
beyond that period.
This request is for the borrow areas adjacent to the reservoir. It is separate from the dam itself, which began earlier.
Below is a timeline for the project:
Permit for the Ragged Mountain Dam
April 19, 2012 - Permit issued
December 5, 2012 - Deadline for permanent stabilization extended to May 1, 2014 by Board. (15 month extension)
Permit for the Borrow Areas
September 5, 2012 - Permit issued
February 19, 2013 – Extension to May 5, 2014 requested by applicant
The Board may grant an extension under County Code § 17-207(B)(3)(b) if it finds: (1) the additional time is necessary
due to factors beyond the control of the owner; (2) the owner had made good faith efforts to comply with the time limit;
and (3) the owner has plans to effectively control or has effectively controlled erosion and sedimentation on the property
during the land disturbing activity. In granting an extension, the Board must set a new deadline and may impose other
reasonable conditions.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy.
Goal 4. Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management policies.
DISCUSSION:
This project is moving forward as anticipated. Due to the project’s size, and the amount of fill and borrow areas on-
site, neither staff nor the RWSA expected that the borrow area site would be ready for permanent vegetation to be
installed by June 15, 2013. RWSA is requesting an extension of this deadline to May 5, 2014.
In considering an extension to the Erosion and Sediment Control Permit, County Code § 17-207(B)(3)(b) requires that the
Board must make three findings. Those findings and staff’s analysis of those findings are as follows:
AGENDA TITLE: WPO 2012-00066 Ragged Mountain Dam Borrow Area – Request to extend the deadline for installing
permanent vegetation
April 3, 2013
Page 2
(i) the additional time is necessary due to factors beyond the control of the owner;
The size of this project is such that it cannot be done in the nine month timeframe without considerably more
resources than are feasible.
(ii) the owner had made good faith efforts to comply with the time limit; and
The owner’s project schedule anticipated the work taking until May 2014 and the owner has demonstrated diligence in
maintaining this schedule.
(iii) the owner has plans to effectively control or has effectively controlled ero sion and sedimentation on the
property during the land disturbing activity.
The owner has measures in place that effectively control erosion and sedimentation from leaving the property. That
has not been an issue on the site.
Based on the above analysis, staff concluded that the evidence supports all three findings taking into account the size of
the project. County Code § 17-207(B)(3)(b) provides that the Board is to place a time limit on an approved extension and
may include reasonable conditions as part of granting the extension. Staff has no recommended conditions, and believes
that the proposed deadline extension of eleven (11) additional months is reasonable.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Water Protection Ordinance requires yearly renewal fees of $100 per disturbed acre. No changes to funding or staff
resources are anticipated as a result of this request.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions;
1. Permanent stabilization shall be installed by May 5, 2014.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Ragged Mountain Dam borrow area extention request
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
CASCADIA VARIATION
April 3, 2013 BOS
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP2012-046 Cascadia- Preliminary Site Plan-
Variations #1-4 from ZMA 2002-004
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the following sections of the Zoning
Ordinance:
1. Section 8.5.5.3 Variations From Approved
Plans, Codes, And Standards Of
Developments
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish, Ms. Yaniglos
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: April 3, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Cascadia was rezoned to Neighborhood Model District, with an associated application plan and Code of Development
(COD), in August 2006 (ZMA2002-004). The proposed development will require four variations from the approved
Application Plan and Code of Development. These variations are necessary before the final site plan can be approved by
staff. The applicant is requesting the following four variations from the approved rezoning plan and code of development:
1. To vary the street layout.
2. To allow public maintenance of various streets.
3. To allow variations to the front and rear yard setbacks.
4. To vary the street sections for Delphi Drive and provide new street sections for the townhouse lots.
DISCUSSION:
1. VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
The variation requests have been reviewed for Zoning and Planning aspects of the regulations. Section 8.5.5 .3(a)
authorizes the Director of Planning to grant variations from the approved application plat and/ or code of development.
However, due to a recent State Supreme Court decision, these variations must now be approved by the Board of
Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 31.8.
VARIATION #1- To Vary the Street Layout:
The applicant submitted the following (Attachment A): In an effort to meet VDOT minimum street design requirements, we
propose the modified street layout, as shown in the attached exhibit. We have eliminated Summit Park Circle in favor of
fitting a reverse curve in Delphi Lane and making a T -intersection at Delphi Lane and Glisssade Lane near Lot 71. Also,
Delphi Lane has been made a through street extending to the Fontana subdivision and a T-intersection with Glissade
Lane near Lot 52 has been provided. Short Street has been renamed and Alley’s G and I have been removed. Alley H has
been named Backwater Alley and it extends from Flat Waters Lane to Delphi Lane. Backwater Alley is one-way. Staff
analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The revised street layout is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan by providing on-
street parking, rear access to lots via alleyways while allowing for safe access for Fire and Rescue vehicles and
meeting VDOT requirements. The design changes were also recommended and/or required by Fire Rescue,
VDOT and Engineering.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of developm ent.
CASCADIA VARIATION
April 3, 2013 BOS
2
Density is not increased.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application while also addressing the concerns of
VDOT and Fire and Rescue.
VARIATION #1 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request #1 with the following conditions:
1. Provide “Do Not Enter” and “One Way” signage for Backwater Alley.
VARIATION #2- To Allow Public M aintenance of Various Streets:
The applicant submitted the following: The Code of Development (COD) denotes certain streets to be publicly maintained
per Note 1 on Page 21 of the COD. It also allows the developer to request other streets in the developmen t to be publicly
maintained as approved by VDOT and the Director of Planning per Note 2 on Page 21 of the COD. Streets requested to
be publicly maintained: The 120 linear foot portion of Delphi Lane east of the intersection with Glissade Lane, Oval Park
Lane, Flat Waters Lane and Boulder Hill Lane. Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives by allowing for the streets to be publicly maintained
instead of privately, which is a County policy.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development.
Density is not increased.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
The variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application by the review and approval of this
request by the Director of Planning and VDOT per the Code of Development.
VARIATION #2 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request #2 with no conditions.
VARIATION #3- To Allow Variations to the Front and Rear Yard Setbacks:
The applicant submitted the following: Request to vary the required setbacks per the COD for Lots 118-125 to be as
follows: front build to range be revised from 5 feet-25 feet to 3 feet-25 feet, and rear setbacks from 10 feet to five (5) feet.
Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives by allowing Lots 118-125 to front on an amenity (Summit
Park) and have access from the rear of the property. This creates a more pedestrian friendly development and is
consistent with the Neighborhood Model principles.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development.
Density is not increased.
CASCADIA VARIATION
April 3, 2013 BOS
3
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
This request is in general accord with the approved rezoning application by allowing the lots to front on a park,
maintain rear vehicular access, and provide a development consistent with the Neighborhood Model principles.
VARIATION #3 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request #3 with the following condition:
1. Maintain 18 feet from the garage to the edge of pavement from the road.
VARIATION #4- Vary the Street Sections for Delphi Drive and provide New Street Sections for the Townhouse
Lots.
The applicant submitted the following: Request a modification to the Delphi Drive street sections from the intersection
with Fontana Drive at Station 10+00 to Station 11+58 and from Station 11+58 to its intersection with Delphi Lane at
Station 14+30 to address the unavailability of right of way in that area. Request for the street sections be modified to 29
feet from face of curb to face of curb for Oval Park Lane and Flat Waters Lane. Also, request for Backwater Alley to be 20
feet wide to accommodate Fire and Rescue requirements. Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
6) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The design is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan while recognizing the practical
engineering realities of this development. The design changes were also approved and/or required by VDOT and
Fire Rescue.
7) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of developm ent.
Density is not increased.
8) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
9) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
10) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application while also addressing the concerns of
Fire Rescue, and the lack of right of way available at the entrance off of Fontana Drive.
VARIATION #4 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request as described in the narrative provided by the applicant. This
does not approve the exhibit for Variation #4 that was provided with the request, as they show pavement
sections that provide more detail than necessary, and these details will be worked out for the street sections
during the site plan review process in accordance with the requirements of the ordinance.
31.8 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the authority to consider and act upon special exceptions as follows:
a. Matters requiring a special exception. Notwithstanding any other section of this chapter:
1. Any request for a waiver, modification, variation or substitution permitted by this chapter shall be
considered and acted upon by the board.
2. Any requirement for a decision by the planning commission required by this chapter shall be considered
and acted upon by the board. For the purposes of this section, a decision by the planning commission
does not include the consideration and action by the commission on a preliminary or final site plan under
section 32 of this chapter or any action provided in section 32 enabled under Virginia Code § 15.2-
2242(1).
CASCADIA VARIATION
April 3, 2013 BOS
4
b. Consideration and action. In acting upon a special exception, the board shall consider the factors, standards, criteria,
and findings, however denominated, in the applicable sections of this chapter, provided that the board shall not be
required to make specific findings in support of its decision.
c. Conditions. In approving a special exception, the board may impose reasonable conditions to address any possible
impacts of the special exception.
d. Time for action. A request for a special exception shall be acted on by the board within ninety (90) days after the date
of the request, or concurrently with a zoning map amendment, special use permit, or site plan appeal, whichever is
longer.
e. Request. Each request for a special exception shall be made as provided under the applicable section of this chapter.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of variations #1, #2, #3, and #4 with the conditions and recommendations listed in
this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Applicant request and exhibits.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
172 South Pantops Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
434.979.8121 (p)
434.979.1681 (f)
DominionEng.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
January 28, 2013
Ms. Megan Yaniglos, ASLA
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development Department
Division of Current Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Cascadia – Preliminary Site Plan (SDP 2012-046) and Preliminary Subdivision Plat (SUB
2012-091) – Variation Requests Letter
Dear Megan,
Thanks very much for meeting with us on January 4, 2013 to discuss our proposed revisions to the
above-referenced plan. This letter and attached exhibits summarizes the variations to the Code of
Development that are being requested.
Variation #1: To vary the street layout
In an effort to meet VDOT minimum street design requirements, we propose the modified street layout as
shown on the attached exhibit. We have eliminated Summit Park Circle in favor of fitting a reverse curve
in Delphi Lane and making a T-intersection at Delphi Lane and Glissade Lane (formerly Summit Park
Lane) near Lot 71. Also, Delphi Lane has been made a through street extending to the Fontana
subdivision and a T-intersection with Glissade Lane near Lot 52 has been provided. Short Street has
been re-named Flat Waters Lane and Alleys G and I have been removed. Alley H has been named
Backwater Alley and it extends from Flat Waters Lane (formerly Short Street) to Delphi Lane (formerly
Summit Park Circle). Backwater Alley has been made one-way as agreed at our January 4 meeting.
Also, Oval Park Lane has been “flattened out” with a larger radius. Please note that the offset
intersection between Oval Park Lane and Boulder Hill Lane (formerly Hill Lane) was approved verbally by
VDOT at the January 4 meeting.
Variation #2: To allow public maintenance of various streets
The COD denotes certain streets to be publicly maintained per Note 1 on Page 21 of the COD. It also
allows the developer to request other streets in the development to be publicly maintained as approved
by VDOT and the Director of Planning per Note 2 on Page 21 of the COD.
Streets to be publicly maintained per Note 1 on Page 21 of the COD:
a) Cascadia Drive
b) Delphi Lane
c) Delphi Drive
d) Summit Park Lane (now Glissade Lane)
172 South Pantops Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
434.979.8121 (p)
434.979.1681 (f)
DominionEng.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2 of 3
Streets requested to be publicly maintained per Note 2 on Page 21 of the COD:
a) The 120-LF portion of Delphi Lane east of the intersection with Glissade Lane (42+21.88 to
43+43.57).
b) Oval Park Lane
c) Flat Waters Lane
d) Boulder Hill Lane
Variation #3: To allow variations to the front and rear yard setbacks.
In order to meet the intent of the COD, it is necessary to redefine the minimum front build-to lines and the
rear yard setbacks for lots 118-125. These lots are unique in that the street frontage is provided on the
garage side of the lot, thereby creating a rear yard on the townhouse side of the lot. Based on this, we
are requesting that the front build-to range be revised from 5’-25’ to 3’-25’, and the rear setbacks be
reduced from 10’ to 5’. The COD states that the garage setbacks be 3 feet or less, so we feel justified in
requesting the front build-to range be adjusted accordingly. We would further request that the rear yards
be set to what would have been the closest front yard build-to-line, which is 5 feet. Again, we feel this
request is in conformance with the COD.
Variation #4: To vary the street sections for Delphi Drive and provide new street sections for the
townhouse lots.
In order to accommodate the available right-of-way width and as discussed and agreed upon at our pre-
application meeting on Monday, April 30, 2012, we are respectfully requesting a modification to the Delphi
Drive street sections from the intersection with Fontana Drive at Station 10+00 to Station 11+58 and from
Station 11+58 to its intersection with Delphi Lane at Station 14+30. In between 10+00 and 11+58, we are
proposing a 26’-wide pavement section and no planting strip. This is necessary due to the unavailable
right-of-way. In between Stations 11+58 and 14+30, we are proposing a 26’-wide pavement section and
we are including the planting strip. No parking will be allowed on any portion of Delphi Drive. Our
proposed sections are shown on the attached exhibit.
In order to accommodate the current VDOT and Fire Marshal requirements, it is necessary to update the
typical street sections internal to the townhouse lots. First, for Oval Park Lane and Flat Waters Lane, we
are proposing public roads at 29’-wide measured from curb to curb and are including roll-top curb on one
side of each street to accommodate driveways. Also, we are proposing sidewalk on only one side of the
roadway on Flat Waters Lane. A waiver request to eliminate this sidewalk will be provided with the final
subdivision plat. Finally, we are proposing a 20’-wide pavement section that is crowned in the middle for
Backwater Alley, a privately owned and maintained one-way street. This additional width is necessary to
accommodate Fire Marshal requirements.
Typical sections for Delphi Lane, Boulder Hill Lane and Glissade Lane are in accordance with the
approved Code of Development.
172 South Pantops Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
434.979.8121 (p)
434.979.1681 (f)
DominionEng.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
3 of 3
We thank you for taking the time to work with us to develop the needed variations and look forward to
your thoughtful review. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Very truly yours,
Michael Myers
Michael Myers, P.E.
Attachments
Cc: Charlie Armstrong
Keith Lancaster
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC Application for a
Certification of Public Convenience and Necessity
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC’s application for
a certification of public convenience and necessity to
allow additional connections to the Keswick central water
and sewer system.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Kamptner, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 3, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 1993, the Board adopted a resolution approving Keswick Utility Company’s application to provide central water and
sewer services within the Keswick Real Estate Development and acknowledging that both central systems would
eventually serve 50 or more customers. In 2010, the Board adopted a resolution approving Keswick Utilities, Inc.’s
application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide water and sewer services to 50 or more
customers within the Development with the understanding that the additional customers would not require the expansion of
either central system (see September 1, 2010 executive summary and resolution, Attachments A and B). Keswick
Utilities, Inc. submitted its application to the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) in 2010 pursuant to Virginia
Code § 56-265.3.
In 2011, the owner of Keswick Hall, Keswick Club and Keswick Estates sold the property, and the new owner created a
new entity named Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC to provide the water and sewer services before the SCC approved
Keswick Utilities, Inc.’s application. Keswick Utilities, Inc. sold its assets to Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC. Before the SCC
will further process the pending application, it is requiring that the Board adopt a new resolution approving Keswick Estates
Utilities, LLC’s application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide water and sewer services to 50
or more customers.
DISCUSSION:
Roudabush, Gale and Assoc., Inc. submitted a request (Attachment C) on behalf of Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC and
the Riverstone Group, the current owner of the Keswick property, requesting that the Board adopt a resolution approving
Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC.’s application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide water and
sewer services to 50 or more customers. The request provides additional background information regarding the utility
company. A Resolution approving the Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in the name of
Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC is attached (Attachment D) for the Board’s consideration.
Staff’s opinion is that there have been no substantive changes in circumstance since the Board adopted the resolution
approving Keswick Utilities, Inc.’s Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on September 1, 2010, except for the
change in ownership and the creation of the new entity to provide the services.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact would result from this action.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) To Approve Keswick Estates Utilities,
LLC’s Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the SCC to allow more than fifty customer
connections to the existing central systems.
ATTACHMENTS
A – September 1, 2010 Executive Summary
B – September 1, 2010 Resolution
C – Applicant’s Request
D – Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution approving Keswick Utilities, Inc.’s application
for a certification of public convenience and necessity
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution approving Keswick Utilities, Inc.’s application
for a certification of public convenience and necessity to
allow additional connections to the Keswick central water
and septic system
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Benish, and
Ms. McDowell
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 1, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On January 13, 1993, the Board of Supervisors adopted A Resolution Approving the Application of Keswick Utility
Company to Obtain a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the State Corporation Commission (Attachment A),
allowing the issuance of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit for its central water and
septic system. At that time, the Keswick Utility Company (since re-named Keswick Utilities, Inc.) provided water and
sewer services to less than fifty customers. The Resolution anticipated additional customers in the future stating,
“WHEREAS, the Company projects that the number of customers to be served in the Development will exceed fifty, which
would necessitate the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the State Corporation Commission
(“SCC”).”
Also on January 13, 1993, a “ring easement” was recorded. The easement, held by the Piedmont Environment Council,
created a buffer between the Keswick properties and adjacent properties and prevents any expansion of the central
systems that would include connections to properties outside of the approved Keswick Estate boundaries. The Piedmont
Environment Council has been advised of Keswick Utility Inc.’s application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity.
DISCUSSION:
In anticipation of more than fifty connections to the existing system, Keswick Utilities, Inc. submitted an application to the
State Corporation Commission (“SCC”) for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. Private utility companies must
obtain a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the SCC when the number of customers exceeds fifty.
According to the SCC Office of General Counsel, in order to complete Keswick Utilities, Inc.’s application, an updated
Resolution from the Albemarle Board of Supervisors is required. The SCC wants “to make sure that the governing body
is aware of Keswick Utilities, Inc.’s current application and does not oppose such.” Virginia Code §56-265.3.C. states: “If
the initial application provides for the furnishing of water or sewerage service within any political subdivision in which there
has been created an authority for either or both of such purposes pursuant to Chapter 51 (§ 15.2-5100 et seq.) of Title
15.2, the Commission shall not hold any hearing on such application or issue any certificate for the allotment of territory
unless the application shall first have been approved by the governing body of the political subdivision in which the
territory is located..”
The request of Keswick Utilities, Inc. would only allow additional connections to the existing central systems. An
expansion of the central systems has not been requested. Keswick Utilities, Inc. has confirmed with its engineer that the
existing system has the capacity to serve the additional customers without expanding the central systems.
Staff opinion is that there has been no substantive change in circumstance since the Board adopted the resolution
approving a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the SCC on January 13, 1993.
A Resolution approving a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the SCC (Att. B) has been prepared for the
Board’s consideration.
AGENDA TITLE: Resolution approving Keswick Utilities, Inc.’s application for a certification of public convenience and
Necessity
September 1, 2010
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impacts would result from this action.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) Approving Keswick Utility, Inc.’s
Application to Obtain a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the SCC to allow more than fifty customer
connections to the existing central systems, provided that the additional connections do not create a need to expand the
existing central systems.
ATTACHMENTS
A – January 13, 1993 Board Resolution
B – Resolution Approving the Application of Keswick Utility, Inc.
C – August 16, 2010 Correspondence to Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
Return to exec summary
Attachment D
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE KESWICK ESTATES UTILITIES, LLC’S APPLICATION
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
WHEREAS, Keswick Utility Company and Keswick Utilities, Inc. provided central water and sewer
services to fewer than 50 customers within the Keswick Real Estate Development (hereinafter, the
“Development”) from 1993 until 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Board adopted a resolution in 1993 approving Keswick Utility Company’s application
to provide central water and sewer services within the Development and acknowledging that both central
systems would eventually serve 50 or more customers; and
WHEREAS, Keswick Utilities, Inc. applied to the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) in
2010 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Virginia Code § 56-265.3 for approval
to provide water and sewer services to 50 or more customers; and
WHEREAS, the Board adopted a resolution in 2010 approving Keswick Utilities, Inc.’s application for
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide water and sewer services to 50 or more customers
within the Development with the understanding that the additional customers would not require the expansion of
either central system; and
WHEREAS, before Keswick Utilities, Inc.’s application was approved by the SCC, Keswick Utilities,
Inc. sold its assets to Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC, which was created in early 2012 to provide central water
and sewer services within the Development; and
WHEREAS, because authorities for both water and sewer utilities have been created within Albemarle
County under Virginia Code § 15.2-5100 et seq., to provide water and sewer utilities, Virginia Code §§ 56-
265.3(C) requires that Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC’s application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity to increase the number of customers it serves be approved by the Board of Supervisors before the
SCC may hold a public hearing on the application; and
WHEREAS, the SCC is requiring that the Board adopt a new resolution approving Keswick Estates
Utilities, LLC’s application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide water and sewer
services to 50 or more customers within the Development before it will process the application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves Keswick Estates Utilities, LLC’s application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to
provide water and sewer services to 50 or more customers within the Keswick Real Estate Development.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of ______ to ______, as recorded
below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Funding
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve appropriation to Economic Development Authority
for use by Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis and Henry
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 3, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center (“LCEC”) leases property jointly owned by the County of Albemarle and the City of
Charlottesville located at Darden Towe Park for the purpose of establishing the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center. The
LCEC was awarded grants totaling $800,000.00 from the Transportation Enhancement Fund Program (“VDOT
Enhancement Program”) administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) to provide funding (to be
combined with other funds to be raised by the LCEC) for the construction of an educational building, an access road and
parking area, and a connecting trail network at Darden Towe Park. The LCEC’s application for the VDOT Enhancement
Program required the County to be responsible for accepting the grant from VDOT. The County was required to enter into
a Project Agreement between VDOT and the County to ensure VDOT’s requirements for funding eligibility were met. The
County then entered into a separate Pass-Through Agreement with LCEC that, in turn, passed along all of the County’s
responsibilities under the VDOT Enhancement Program to the LCEC, including holding the County harmless from any
liabilities created by the County’s acceptance of the VDOT Enhancement Program grants.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4. Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management policies.
DISCUSSION:
As provided in the Pass-Through Agreement, the LCEC is responsible for managing the Project. The LCEC is
required to pay the Project invoices and then submit reimbursement requests, including all necessary documentation,
to the County’s Office of Facilities Development. The County is responsible for coordinating the submittal of the
reimbursement request documentation, and all reimbursements are made to the County for its pass-through to the
LCEC.
Of the $800,000 appropriated by the Board on March 14, 2012, the County has paid the LCEC $794,000. There have
been four reimbursement requests submitted to VDOT, totaling $726,008.26, with the fifth and final request to be
submitted in the near future. VDOT has wire-transferred to the County $538,155.44 in reimbursements for the first
three requests and the fourth reimbursement request for $187,852.82 is currently under review. The County advanced
to the LCEC the funds for the fourth and fifth reimbursements prior to receipt of the funds from VDOT to ensure the
contractor was paid in a timely manner and to keep the project on schedule.
The LCEC has advised the County that their fund raising efforts have fallen short of the goal and they are requesting
assistance from the County to ensure the project is completed and all requirements related to the enhancement grant
are met. The project is nearing completion and staff estimates a total shortfall of approximately $260,000 to complete
the work. The LCEC submitted a letter to the County and the City (Attachment A) requesting that the County and the
City provide funding assistance in the form of a short-term loan to complete the project. In order to assist the LCEC
and ensure that the grant requirements are met, staff recommends that the Board appropriate $130,000 to the
Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) for the purpose of the EDA providing a short-term loan to the LCEC. Staff
also recommends that the use of the appropriation for this purpose be subject to the following: (1) an agreement
between the County and the EDA regarding the EDA’s reimbursement of the funds to the County when the LCEC
repays the loan; (2) a note or some other instrument acceptable to the County Attorney by which the LCEC would
agree to repay the loan to the EDA within 6 months, even though the LCEC has requested that it be given 36 months
AGENDA TITLE: Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Funding
April 3, 2013
Page 2
to repay the loan; and (3) the City of Charlottesville contributing or committing to contribute the other $130,000
required to make up the $260,000 shortfall.
BUDGET IMPACT:
One hundred thirty-thousand dollars ($130,000.00) would be appropriated from the General Government CIP fund
balance to the EDA for the purpose of funding a short-term lease to the LCEC. The funds will be reimbursed to the
County within 6 months of the EDA granting the loan to LCEC.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve an appropriation of $130,000.00 (Appropriation 2013-083) (Attachment B)
to the Economic Development Authority for the purpose of funding a loan to the LCEC for completion of the project
subject to the following: (1) an agreement between the County and the EDA regarding the EDA’s reimbursement of the
funds to the County when the LCEC repays the loan; (2) a note or some other instrument acceptable to the County
Attorney by which the LCEC would agree to repay the loan to the EDA within 6 months, even though the LCEC has
requested that it be given 36 months to repay the loan; and (3) the City of Charlottesville contributing or committing to
contribute the other $130,000 required to make up the $260,000 shortfall.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Lewis & Clark Letter
B – Appropriation
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment B
1
Appropriation #2013083 $130,000.00
Source: Local Revenue $ 130,000.00
As described in the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Funding Executive Summary, also on the Board’s April 3
agenda, this request is to appropriate $130,000.00 in General Govern ment CIP fund balance to the Economic
Development Authority for the purpose of funding a short-term loan to the LCEC.
Return to exec summary
Board‐to‐Board
April, 2013
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Redistricting Update –Following a public hearing on March 14, the School Board approved the redistricting options
presented in February by Superintendent Moran which were based on the recommendation of the community advisory
subcommittees. Beginning next August and based upon current projections, 94 students will be reassigned from Agnor-
Hurt Elementary, with 46 students attending Broadus Wood, 28 students to Greer and 20 students moving to Woodbrook.
Rising fifth graders and their siblings have the choice to remain at Agnor-Hurt but will be required to provide their own
transportation or use an existing Agnor-Hurt bus stop. Separately, the Board voted to give parents of middle school
children in the neighborhood of Northfield/Huntington, which is being redistricted to Woodbrook, the option of keeping
their children at Burley rather than transferring them to Jouett. The Board also voted to approve the Superintendent’s
recommendation that no action be taken to redistrict students from Meriwether Lewis.
iSTEM Teacher Scholars—Earlier this month, Albemarle was one of five Central Virginia school divisions to share in a
$43,000 grant award from the Battelle Foundation for a new program that will train teachers in the humanities to
incorporate STEM technologies in their curriculum. This expands the reach of these technologies to students in courses
other than math and science. Among the applications will be the use of geospatial technologies, for instance, in the study
of history. Chris Bunin, an Albemarle High School history teacher, will lead the program.
Art Exhibits—Artwork from Albemarle County public school students is on display at three exhibits in the area. In its
20th year at Fashion Square Mall, the division is featuring more than 1,200 pieces of art from students in grades pre-K
through 12. There are some 150 self-portraits at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and 75 pieces of art on display as
part of CitySpace on the downtown mall. A selection of the best works will be on display throughout May at the County
Office Building on McIntire Road.
School Calendar – The School Board voted to extend the current school year to Wednesday, June 12, 2013 to account for
the school days missed due to inclement weather.
AVID—Jack Jouett Middle School is completing its year-long application process to become a Demonstration School for
the AVID (Advancement via Individual Determination) program, which works with students to prepare them for lifelong
success as students and professionals. A large percentage of program participants often are the first in their family to
attend college. The AVID program, which teaches research, communication, writing and critical thinking skills, is in
nearly 5,000 schools throughout the world. Less than three percent of all schools earn demonstration or model school
status. Jouett will learn next month if they will be approved as a demonstration school.
Jouett also will be one of two Albemarle County public schools that will work with the Curry and Engineering Schools at
the University of Virginia to create the first lab school in the nation. Two Charlottesville City schools also will join the
program, which received a $300,000 planning grant from the state. The new lab school will focus on advanced
manufacturing technologies in its curriculum.
Virginia School Boards Association (VSBA) Business Honor Roll – The Virginia School Board Association has
established a Business Honor Roll to allow school divisions to recognize those local businesses that have provided support
for schools and their programs, either financially, as advisors, through internships or as mentors in the schools. At its
March 14th meeting, the School Board approved resolutions to list several businesses on the honor roll, including the
Battelle Foundation, Better Living Furniture, Martha Jefferson Hospital, State Farm Insurance, University of Virginia, and
the Virginia Biotechnology Association.
Also, the state school board association announced that its deputy executive director, Gina Patterson, will become its next
executive director on January 1 of next year. She will succeed Barbara Coyle, who will retire.
Spelling Bee – A sixth grader from Sutherland Middle School, Roshan George, placed second in the Regional Spelling
Bee this past weekend at Monticello High School. Roshan earlier came in first place at the division’s Spelling Bee. At
the divisional level, eight participants qualified for the regional competition, including:
First Place – Roshan George, Sutherland Middle School
Runner Up: Francesca Bernardino, Cale Elementary School
Hayden Miller, Brownsville Elementary School
Mark Pellissier, Burley Middle School
Sylvia Seay, Crozet Elementary School
Johanna Hall, Greer Elementary School
Ashley Huang, Jouett Middle School
Serena Loomba, Yancey Elementary School
Piedmont Regional Science Fair – Albemarle County middle and high school students turned in remarkable
performances at the Piedmont Regional Science Fair, winning 68 awards including both Best in Show awards. Albemarle
High School, Western Albemarle High School and Sutherland Middle School students all earned first place awards with
Albemarle earning 10 first place honors in the 15 senior division categories.
Two seniors at MESA won Best in Show honors, earning expense-paid trips to the International Science & Engineering
Fair at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, AZ from May 12-17. Simanta Gautam’s project featured a novel
algorithm using abstract mathematics for distributing points on higher dimensional spheres, while Sydney Giacalone’s
project tested foods for genetically modified ingredients (GMO) and discussed the need for GMO labeling reform.
Best in Show alternates are also Albemarle County students: Andreas Ravichandran of Albemarle High School studied
more effective measures for containing infection from the spread of influenza, and Xiaoran Zhu developed a nasal
spirometer to assist asthmatics.
First place winners in the senior division from Albemarle High School included:
Ana Daley and Lindsey Brown in Behavioral & Social Sciences;
Camille Leech and Megan Schnell for Biochemistry;
Collin Hensien and Reece Echelberger in Cellular & Molecular Biology;
Selena Feng in Computer Science;
Meredith Hooper in Earth & Planetary Science;
Ben Beiter for Energy & Transportation;
Molly Thompson and Elizabeth Rintels for Environmental Management;
Simanta Gautam in Mathematical Sciences;
Andreas Ravichandran for Medicine & Health Sciences; and
Sydney Giacalone in Plant Sciences.
Xiaoran Zhu of Western Albemarle High School was the first place winner in Materials & Bioengineering and
received seven individual awards for his work.
In the junior division, John Barber from Sutherland Middle School won first place in Electrical & Mechanical
Engineering.
Destination Imagination - Eighteen student teams from 12 different Albemarle County public schools have qualified for
the state Destination ImagiNation finals. The state competition will be on Saturday, April 13, at Western Albemarle High
School.
Destination ImagiNation is an international organization that delivers educational programming to students from
kindergarten through college with a focus on creative and analytical thinking skills, problem-solving and teamwork.
Nine schools captured first place, including Albemarle High School in the technical challenge. Burley, Walton and
Sutherland middle schools joined together to win first place in the science challenge, and Burley and Walton jointly won
first place in the structure challenge. Among elementary schools, Brownsville teams placed first in the technical and
science challenges; Cale was first in the structure challenge; Murray was first in fine arts; Greer placed first in the
improvisational category; and Woodbrook was first in community service.
With each team consisting of between two and seven members, there were 236 Albemarle County Public Schools students
who competed in the Destination ImagiNation regional competition. All teams are responsible for raising the funds to
support their projects and their appearances in the regional competition, and for those teams that qualify, in the state and
global competitions in April and May.
Donations to Albemarle County Public Schools – Albemarle County Public Schools received the following donations:
Brownsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1.000 from the Whitney and Anne Stone
Foundation. The donor has requested this contribution be used to support the Brownsville Elementary Snack
Program.
Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from the Wal-Mart Foundation. This
donation was issued in recognition of the volunteer service of Vicki Hoovis who volunteered 25 hours for the
Albemarle County Public Schools.
Red Hill Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $300.00 from the Cove Garden Ruritan Club.
The donor has requested that this contribution be used to support the Touch Math program at Red Hill Elementary
School.
The Stone Robinson PTO donated a total of $6,961.82 to Stone Robinson Elementary School. They donated
$6,500.00 to cover the cost of the volunteer coordinator’s salary and $461.82 to reimburse for afterschool classes
in Floor Hockey and Film Makers.
Donna and Chris Schuler donated $12,000.00 and asked that $10,000.00 be used toward repairs and upgrades
around the stadium/turf field. They asked that the remaining $2,000.00 be given to the Girl’s Lacrosse program to
be used by the coaches/team as they see fit.
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $7,965.76 from Henley Middle School PATSO.
These funds are local. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to purchase 4 Activboards for
Henley Middle School.
Stony Point Elementary School received donations totaling $606.86 from the Stony Point PTO. The contribution
of $500.00 will be used to pay for a performance by Peter Jones – Storyteller on February 22nd, 2013 and
$106.86 will be used to pay for 10 Master Series Plastic Chess Sets from The Chess Store. All items will be
located at Stony Point Elementary School.
Walton Middle School received a donation in the amount of $200.00 from the BCWH Scholarship fund. The
donor has requested that this contribution be used for any needs in the outdoor Amphitheater at Walton Middle
School.
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from James McVay. The
donor has requested that this contribution be used to help with any expenses in the science department at
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School.
Albemarle High School received a donation of a Williams “8 Ball”. The donor asked that this contribution be
used for the MESA program for a project at Albemarle High School.
School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Calendar Year 2013 Tax Rate Resolution
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Approval of the Calendar Year 2013 Tax
Rates
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis, and Ms. Allshouse L.
PRESENTER (S): Lori Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 3, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 27, 2013, a public hearing was held on the proposed calendar year 2013 tax rates. The advertised rates were
$0.766/$100 assessed valuation for real estate, public service, and manufactured homes and at $4.28/$100 assessed
valuation for personal property, including machinery and tools.
The attached resolution to set the calendar year 2013 (tax year) tax rates must be approved by April 15, 2013. However,
adoption of the tax rate at the April 3rd meeting would assist in the timely printing and mailing of the tax bills that are due on
or before June 5, 2013.
DISCUSSION:
The attached resolution sets the tax rates for calendar year 2013. The proposed rates are set at $0.766/$100
assessed valuation for real estate, public service, and manufactured homes and at $4.28/$100 assessed valuation for
personal property, including machinery and tools.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution to set the proposed calendar year 2013 tax rates.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Tax Rate Resolution
Return to agenda
Attachment A
RESOLUTION TO SET
CALENDAR YEAR 2013 TAX RATES
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set
the County Levy for Calendar Year 2013 for general County purposes at Seventy-Six and Six-Tenths
Cents ($0.766) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at Seventy-Six and Six-
Tenths Cents ($0.766) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured homes; at
Seventy-Six and Six-Tenths Cents ($0.766) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of public
service property; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of
assessed value of personal property; and at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One
Hundred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect the taxes
on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a meeting held on April 3, 2013.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Adoption of the FY 13/14 Operating and Capital Budgets
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Adoption of the FY 13/14 Operating and
Capital Budgets
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis, and Ms. Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER(S): Lori Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 3, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 22, 2013, the County Executive presented his Recommended FY 13/14 Operating and Capital Budgets to the
Board of Supervisors. On February 25, 2013, the Board held a Public Hearing on the Recommended Budget and then
held three public Work Sessions. On March 11, 2013, the Board authorized the advertising of a $0.766/$100 real estate
tax rate for the 2013 Tax Year. On March 27, 2013, a Public Hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’ Proposed FY
13/14 Operating and Capital Budgets and on the Calendar Year 2013 Tax Rates.
DISCUSSION:
The Board’s proposed FY 13/14 Operating and Capital budgets total $322,450,923. This reflects the County Executive’s
Recommended Budget, changes made during the Board’s work sessions, and changes in revenue projections due to
additional information on State and Federal revenue. The budget is based on the proposed $0.766/$100 real estate tax
rate for the 2013 tax year. The changes made during the work sessions are summarized below:
GENERAL FUND
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
Tax Rate Adjustment (from $0.762 to $0.766) $607,525
General Fund fund balance 11,000
Revenue Adjustments Total $618,525
EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS
JABA – Mountainside Operations $53,821
Adult Care Facility Reserve (53,821)
CAT Option A 47,294
Municipal Band 8,000
Historic Preservation 13,000
Reserve for Contingencies (68,294)
Earlysville EMT Training 11,000
Transfer to School Division 607,525
Expenditure Adjustments Total $618,525
SCHOOL FUND
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
Transfer from the General Fund $607,525
School Fund fund balance 616,967
Revenue Adjustments Total $1,224,492
EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS
VRS Group Life Insurance $616,967
Other Adjustments 607,525
Expenditure Adjustments Total $1,224,492
AGENDA TITLE: Adoption of the FY 13/14 Operating and Capital Budgets
April 3, 2013
Page 2
In addition to the above adjustments, staff has identified a net of $61,872 in additional projected revenue from the
following sources:
State Compensation Board funding $44,372
State funding for Department of Social Services employee raises 31,500
State reimbursement for Bright Stars Program 21,000
Reduction in Federal Housing funding due to sequestration (35,000)
Total Additional Revenue $61,872
Staff recommends that this additional funding be used to restore funding in the County’s Reserve for Contingencies
which was included in the Recommended Budget at $250,000. This adjustment would restore this contingency to
$243,578.
The attached resolution formally approves the FY 13/14 Budget. As a reminder at a later date, staff will request the
Board amend the FY 13/14 Budget to include the CIP Multi-Year projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached FY 13/14 Budget Resolution approving the FY 13/14 Operating and
Capital Budgets as recommended by the County Executive and amended by the Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Budget Resolution
Return to agenda
FY 2013/2014
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2013 is made up of the County
Executive’s Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the Board of Supervisors,
including the revised Financial Management Policies.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2013 is summarized as follows:
FY 13/14 Adopted
Administration $11,056,304
Judicial 4,197,135
Public Safety 34,709,613
General Services 3,820,244
Human Development (including PVCC)15,505,964
Parks, Recreation, and Culture 6,391,303
Community Development 6,299,971
Other General Government 2,332,390
General Government Special Revenue Funds 16,439,695
General Government Capital Projects 8,624,719
General Government Debt Service 4,094,923
Stormwater Improvements 391,445
Education - School Operations and Self-Sustaining Funds 168,228,920
Education - Capital Projects 10,722,904
Education - Debt Service 12,704,060
City/County Revenue Sharing 16,931,333
TOTAL $322,450,923
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2013 as described in 1) and 2)
above is approved.
****************
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of _____ to _____,
as recorded below, at a meeting held on April 3, 2013.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Virginia Tourism Development Financing Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Overview of new State program to finance qualified
Virginia tourism development projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Kamptner, and Cilimberg;
and Ms. Catlin and Ms. Stimart
PRESENTER (S):Lee Catlin; Staff from the Virginia
Tourism Corporation
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 3, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan emphasizes the importance of supporting tourism initiatives as a
primary focus of Goal 5 of the Plan, recognizing the critical role that tourism plays in the local economy. In recent
years the County has significantly strengthened its approach to encouraging partnerships and leveraging outside
resources to help meet needs in the locality. Towards this end, the Board’s FY13 – 17 Strategic Plan includes an
objective to assess and implement appropriate incentive options to support economic development in the County.
The State has established a financing program (the Virginia Tourism Development Financing Program, hereinafter,
the “Program”) for qualified Virginia tourism development projects. The Program enables localities to provide
economic and regulatory incentives for tourism development projects which are identifie d as critical to local economic
development and are developed in partnership with developers, localities, financial institutions, the Virginia Tourism
Corporation and the Virginia Resources Authority. The economic incentives under the Program allow approved
tourism projects to receive a portion of the State and Local tax revenue generated from the project site combined with
a matching contribution from the developer to provide gap financing for up to 20 % of the project's total cost.
Because of the Board’s interest in considering economic incentive options as stated in its Strategic Plan, and because
of the potential of the Program to bring additional resources into the community to support tourism initiatives that meet
identified needs, staff wanted to bring this opportunity to the Board’s attention for information and further
consideration.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
Virginia Code § 58.1-3851 enables localities to establish, by ordinance, one or more tourism zones (Attachment A).
The Program can only be used for projects located in designated tourism zones, which can be established by any city,
town or county. Under Virginia Code §§ 58.1-3851 and 58.1-3851.1, projects in tourism zones are eligible for
economic and regulatory incentives, such as reductions in fees and pledges of gross receipt taxes, for up to 20 years .
The locality determines which incentives authorized by Virginia Code §§ 58.1-3851 and 58.1-3851.1 will be available
to a project. A tourism zone can be established solely for the purpose of providing regulatory incentives or solely for
the purpose of providing access to the Virginia Tourism Development Financing Program if desired.
The Program is unique in that it may pledge portions of the State and Local sales tax to tourism projects remitted
through the Economic Development Authority (EDA). In order for a project to be eligible for this sales tax incentive
program, a locality must, by ordinance:
Establish a tourism zone;
Adopt a tourism development plan; and
Authorize a proposed project to qualify for gap financing.
AGENDA TITLE: Virginia Tourism Development Financing Program
April 3, 2013
Page 2
The project developer must also enter into a performance agreement with the EDA. A developer must demonstrate
that at least 80% of a project’s funding is secured from equity and debt financing. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-
3851.1 (Attachment A), once a project is certified by the State Comptroller, the State may pledge 1% of its State sales
and use tax generated by the project if the local government also pledges 1% of its local sales taxes generated by the
project. The project developer also is required to pay a program access fee to match the amount of the State’s 1% tax
payment to the project. The pledged tax revenue and the program access fees are used to pay the principal and
interest on the financing secured to close the funding gap.
A more detailed description of the program is included in Attachment B.
Representatives from the Virginia Tourism Corporation will be in attendance on April 3 to explain the program and to
answer questions from the Board.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no immediate budget impact related to this item.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to continue exploring the Tourism Development Financing Program , and
to provide more detailed information regarding the establishment of a Tourism Zone and the adoption of a tourism
development plan for the Board’s consideration and action at a future Board meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Virginia Code §§ 58.1-3851 and 3851.1
B – Tourism Development Financing Program Overview
Return to agenda
Attachment A
58.1-3851. Creation of local tourism zones.
A. Any city, county, or town may establish, by ordinance, one or more tourism zones. Each locality may
grant tax incentives and provide certain regulatory flexibility in a tourism zone.
B. The tax incentives may be provided for up to 20 years and may include, but not be limited to (i)
reduction of permit fees, (ii) reduction of user fees, and (iii) reduction of any type of gross receipts tax.
The extent and duration of such incentive proposals shall conform to the requirements of the
Constitutions of Virginia and of the United States.
C. The governing body may also provide for regulatory flexibility in such zone that may include, but not
be limited to (i) special zoning for the district, (ii) permit process reform, (iii) exemption from
ordinances, excluding ordinances or provisions of ordinances adopted pursuant to the requirements of
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (§ 10.1-2100 et seq.), the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§
10.1-560 et seq.), or the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (§ 10.1-603.1 et seq.), and (iv) any other
incentive adopted by ordinance, which shall be binding upon the locality for a period of up to 10 years.
D. The establishment of a tourism zone shall not preclude the area from also being designated as an
enterprise zone.
(2006, c. 642; 2008, c. 462.)
§ 58.1-3851.1. Entitlement to tax revenues from tourism project.
A. For purposes of this section, unless the context requires a different meaning:
"Economic development authority" means a local industrial development authority or a local or regional
political subdivision, the public purpose of which is to assist in economic development.
"Gap financing" means debt financing to compensate for a shortfall in project funding between the
expected development costs of an authorized tourism project and the debt and equity capital provided
by the developer of the project.
B. 1. If a locality has established a tourism zone pursuant to § 58.1-3851, has adopted an ordinance
establishing a tourism plan as determined by guidelines set forth by the Virginia Tourism Authority, and
has adopted an ordinance authorizing a tourism project to meet a deficiency identified in the adopted
tourism plan approved by the Virginia Tourism Authority, and the tourism project has been certified by
the State Comptroller as qualifying for the entitlement to tax revenues authorized by this section, the
authorized tourism project shall be entitled to an amount equal to the revenues generated by a one
percent state sales and use tax on transactions taking place on the premises of the authorized tourism
project. The entitlement shall be contingent on the locality enacting an ordinance designating certain
local tax revenues to the tourism project pursuant to subsection C and shall be subject to the conditions
set forth in subsection D. The purpose of such entitlement shall be to assist the developer with obtaining
gap financing and making payments of principal and interest thereon. The entitlement shall continue
until the gap financing is paid in full. Entitled sales tax revenues shall be applied solely to payments of
principal and interest on the qualified gap financing.
2. On a quarterly basis, the Tax Commissioner shall certify the amount of the entitled sales tax revenues
to the Comptroller, who shall remit such revenues to the county or city in which the authorized tourism
Attachment A
project is located. The county or city shall remit the revenues to the economic development authority.
No payments herein shall be made until an agreement exists between the developer of the authorized
tourism project and the economic development authority.
3. The state sales tax entitlement established in subdivision 1 shall not include any sales tax revenues
dedicated pursuant to § 58.1-638 or 58.1-638.1.
C. If a locality has adopted the ordinances required by subdivision B 1 to entitle an authorized tourism
project to an amount equal to the revenues generated by a one percent state sales and use tax on
transactions taking place on the premises of the authorized tourism project, the local governing body of
the county or city in which the authorized tourism project is located shall also direct by ordinance that
an amount equal to the revenues generated by at least a one percent local sales and use tax, or an
equivalent amount of other local tax revenues as designated by the ordinance, generated by
transactions taking place on the premises of the authorized tourism project shall be applied to the
payment of principal and interest on the qualified gap financing. Such revenues shall be remitted in the
same manner, for the same time period, and under the same conditions as the remittances paid in
accordance with subsection B, mutatis mutandis.
D. Prior to any entitlement to tax revenues for an authorized tourism project pursuant to subsections B
and C, the owner of such project shall have a minimum of 80 percent of funding for the project in place
through debt or equity, enter into a performance agreement with the economic development authority
or political subdivision, and enter into an agreement to pay an access fee. The access fee shall be
equivalent to the state sales tax revenue generated by and returned to the project pursuant to
subdivision B 1 and shall be collected by the locality and remitted to the economic development
authority on a quarterly basis. The access fee and the sales tax entitlement shall be used solely to make
payments of principal and interest on the qualified gap funding.
E. In the event that the total amount of sales tax entitlement and the access fee exceeds any annual
debt service on the qualified gap financing, such excess shall be paid to the principal of the loan until the
qualified gap financing is paid in full.
For those tourism projects that are eligible, (A) one percent of the state sales tax, (B) one percent of
the local sales tax and (C) a developer access fee equal to 1% of the state sales tax are used to pay
the debt service on the project.
Return to exec summary
Attachment B
Commonwealth of Virginia Tourism Development Financing Program
The Commonwealth of Virginia has established a financing program for qualified Virginia tourism development
projects. The purpose of the program is to provide a gap financing mechanism for projects in partnership with
developers, localities, financial institutions, and the state. This program provides a method of financing to
compensate for a shortfall in project funding not to exceed 20% of a qualified project’s total cost.
Section 58.1-3851.1 of the Virginia Code details the requirements for eligible tourism projects, the code language is
provided at the end of this overview. As required in the legislation, localities that are interested in pursuing the
financing program will need to complete the following steps:
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
The first and key component to applying for the Tourism Development Financing Program is the securing of
development, financial local economic development partners, as well as insuring that 80% financing is in place.
Localities should structure its debt and equity financing and enter into a performance agreement with the
appropriate political subdivision in the locality and confirm participating project developers will pay an access fee
equal to one percent of the sales tax revenue generated and returned to the tourism project.
It is important to note that the tourism funding provision is ONLY for gap funding and, among the other
eligibility requirements, it is MANDATORY that the tourism project developer has in place 80% of the funding for
the project (debt or equity). Also, consider in your planning that the sales tax revenues generated will not be
available until the tourism project is complete and generating sales tax revenues so it is crucial to work with your
financial advisors to plan accordingly
Partnerships: A first step and key component to applying for the Tourism Development Fund is the securing of
development partners, financial advisors and support from one’s local economic development authority or other
appropriate political subdivision.
Committed Financing: Partners that are interested in pursuing the gap financing will need to work with their
own financial advisors and consultants to determine whether they have the 80% financing in place.
Legal Counsel: Localities should work with their legal advisors to ensure the performance agreement complies
with the legislation.
Debt Structuring: Work with financial advisors to structure your debt and equity financing so that the gap funds
to be provided through the sales taxes returned to you will not be required until construction is complete and
the project is generating revenues subject to sales tax.
Reimbursement: The gap financing debt service on a project is paid by the following:
• One percent of the state sales tax
• One percent of the local sales tax
• Developer access fee equal to 1% of the state sales tax
Performance Agreement: Enter into a performance agreement with the economic development authority or
other appropriate political subdivision in the locality where the tourism project will be located. The performance
agreement should include, among other things, that the tourism project developer will pay an access fee equal
to one percent of the sales tax revenue generated and returned to the tourism project. Also, the performance
agreement should specify that the access fee, plus the returned sales taxes will be used to pay annual debt
service on the gap funding until such debt is paid in full. The Performance Agreement should provide for the
locality in which the project is located to notify the State Comptroller and the Department of Taxation when the
taxes are no longer subject to being remitted. (The Tax Department remits the tax revenues to the locality and
the locality remits them to the economic development authority or other appropriate political subdivision).
Attachment B
Prior to receiving any return of sales taxes generated, the State Comptroller must certify that the tourism
project is entitled to those revenues.
TOURISM ZONE IDENTIFICATION OR ESTABLISHMENT
Localities that are interested in pursuing the financing will need to have a defined tourism zone(s) enacted by
ordinance within which the proposed project is contained. Virginia cities, counties, or towns can establish such
tourism zones as allowed for in the Code of Virginia. This section of the Virginia Code can be found at Section 58.1-
3851 - Creation of local tourism zones, the code language is provided at the end of this overview.
Examples of tourism zones from other Virginia localities can be found at the following links:
City of Fredericksburg, VA
http://www.fredericksburgva.gov/Departments/economicdevelopment/index.aspx?id=572
County of Stafford, VA
http://www.spotsylvania.org/TourismZone.htm
Town of Pocahontas, VA
http://www.pocahontasva.org/Tourism%20Zone%20Ord%2018-76%20%20011711.pdf
TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PLAN IDENTIFICATION OR ESTABLISHMENT
Localities that are interested in pursuing the financing will need to submit a Tourism Development Plan which will be
reviewed and certified by the Virginia Tourism Corporation (VTC). The Tourism Development Plan submitted can be
an existing plan already adopted by a locality, or a plan can be created using VTC’s Tourism Development Plan
website.
The purpose of the plan is to (1) outline the specific void the proposed project will fill; (2) provide accurate
representations of a locality’s current tourism product and assets, infrastructure, marketing efforts and visitor
profiles; and (3) show the return on investment the proposed project will have to the local tourism economy. Upon
approval by VTC the locality must adopt an ordinance authorizing the tourism project. Upon approval of the Tourism
Development Plan by VTC, the locality must adopt such plan by ordinance. VTC will advise localities throughout the
approval process. Localities should be aware that there is a $500 application and processing fee paid to the Virginia
Tourism Corporation upon submission of their plan for approval.
SUBMISSION AND PAYMENT
After complying with all the stages of the application process, outlined in Section 58.1-3851.1 of the Virginia Code, all
necessary documentation supporting a locality’s application will be submitted to the VTC. VTC, on behalf of the
locality, will submit the application to the Virginia State Comptroller for certification.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Telecommunications Network Upgrade
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Capital Project Update
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Scheivert, and Culp
PRESENTER (S): Vincent Scheivert
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April, 3, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In September of 2012, the School Division submitted a FY 13/14 CIP request to upgrade the school’s network
telecommunications infrastructure. The project, which was supported by the CIP Oversight Committee and utilizes funds
from previously approved projects (LAN/WAN Upgrades) involves on-going replacement of networking hardware and fiber
optic cabling between all school campuses ostensibly to provide increased bandwidth and high speed capabilities for
school operations. In conjunction with connecting schools, it is a lso possible to make direct connections to key local
government facilities (office buildings and fire stations) thus enabling local government operations to participate in the
improved capability at no additional cost. This County owned network infrastruc ture will be maintained by the Department
of Accountability, Research, and Technology of the School Division and through an independent contractor; those
segments of the network involved in connecting government facilities will be supported by the local go vernment’s IT
department budget.
The School Division’s request for CIP funding for this project is included in the Recomm ended FY 13/14 CIP. A
description of the funding request is attached.
When complete, this fiber optic project will increase the data, voice, and video services capacity for both School and Local
Government operations by at least 100 times over what it is today, and at significantly less cost than today’s existing
capacity. This capacity can support many new services, including capacity to support remote school video monitoring by
Police Officers from vehicles and headquarters.
This fiber optic network could also potentially be expanded to provide internet access capability for citizens, however not
without legal, business and policy complications as well as additional capital expenditure.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Provide Excellent Education Opportunities to All Albemarle County Residents
Goal 2: Provide Community Facilities that meet existing and future needs
Goal 3: Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
The fiber optic network owned by the County is intended to serve all Local Government and School Buildings. In the
future, the additional capacity could support limited wireless transmission to student/parent households. Any
additional expansion of services - for example to enable citizen access - would require a legal determination of
enabling authority, a vetting of potential plans, an analysis of security issues, and a determination of the scope of the
service to be provided. Such a project would likely require significant additional funding.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The fiber optic cable installation is included in the recommended CIP budget for FY 13/14. Maintenance costs are
included in the School and Local Government’s operating budgets.
AGENDA TITLE: Telecommunications Network Upgrade
April 3, 2013
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the CIP project as proposed in the recommended budget. Any further expansion of the
infrastructure project to provide citizen internet access, if directed by the Board, would require additional analysis,
evaluation and expenditures.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – School Division Telecommunications Network Upgrade CIP Funding Request
Return to agenda
FY 13/14 RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VA
Page 174
Telecommunications Network Upgrade
(Funding Recommended)
Project Type: Construction / Technology
Project Status: New*
Requestor: Department of Accountability, Research & Technology
Project Description:
This project will provide funding to upgrade the Albemarle County network telecommunications infrastructure to meet the
expanding instructional and administrative data needs. The upgrades would provide for substantial increases in
bandwidth by migrating to the latest wireless and physical networking technologies, including the construction of county
owned wide area wireless and optical data transport facilities. The upgrades will allow the division to utilize high density
and bandwidth application of contemporary web technologies that will demand video, collaboration tools and distance
learning in addition to normal operational needs. *This CIP request represents the combination of the previously
submitted Local Area Network Upgrade and Wide Area Network Upgrade to maintain/replace network routers, switches,
and data cables (both copper and fiber), and enables opportunities for Local Government Information Technology to
increase its operational capacity.
Location:
All schools, CATEC, VMF, Building Services/DART, COB additional government locations
Relationship to an Approved county Policy or Plan:
County Strategic Plan: This project is consistent with Goals 1 and 2 of the County's Strategic Plan.
Comprehensive Plan: This project is consistent with the objectives and goals listed in the school section of the
County Community Facilities Plan.
Guiding Principles:
Provide and maintain education facilities and technologies that enhance teaching and learning;
Support and enhance Albemarle County’s overall quality of life and community desirability and livability,
including projects that contribute to the arts, education, community events, outdoor recreation, historic and
cultural heritage, and social opportunities;
Respond to technological innovations and incorporate technological rather than spatial solutions when
appropriate.
Other: This plan is consistent with Goals 4 and 5 of the School Division Strategic Plan.
Project Justification:
The Albemarle County network is a required and critical component to provide access to the internet, online instructional
materials, SOL testing, distance learning, telephone/voice and video services, as well as centralized administrative
applications and database systems. The demands placed on our current network infrastructure have quickly outgrown
capacity; creating difficulties providing the basic levels of access our students and staff require, being inconsistent with
our vision as outlined in our various technology and organizational plans. This funding requested allows the division to
maintain network routers, switches, and data cables (both copper and fiber). There are several distinct areas where the
division upgrades to equipment and services will allow Albemarle County Public Schools to meet both current and future
needs. The division will routinely replace switches, routers, and associated equipment that manage data on our network.
The division must maintain the physical cabling that carries the data between the numerous network devices; this includes
cabling located inside a building as well as cabling between buildings, both copper and fiber optic. The division must
routinely replace the access points and related hardware that is essential to the wireless access, inside a building as well as
outside. Network and wireless hardware required to sustain the local area network as well as the wide area network have
been included at the previous funding request levels; usable equipment lifecycle is typically 3-7 years. Network cabling
has an estimated useful life of approximately 25-50 years.
Change/Reasons for Revisions:
This funding will enable us to increase the quantity of equipment that our vendors will bid on and that will most likely
result in more competitive pricing and a reduction in equipment unit costs.
Alternatives/Impact if Project Not Funded/Completed:
If this project is not completed, Albemarle County will not be able to continue to meet the data needs of our students and
staff which will greatly limit learning opportunities, create difficulties in administering state mandated SOL testing and will
be detrimental to the overall operational efficiency of the organization.
FY 13/14 RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VA
Page 175
(Continued: Telecommunications Network Upgrade)
Other Special Considerations:
Technical/Oversight Committee Recommendations:
No changes are recommended to the project request.
Telecommunications Network Upgrade FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 14-18
Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Total
PROJECT EXPENDITURES
Architectual/Design/Engineering Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Land Acquisition Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction/Site Preparation/Utilities Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Furniture/Fixture/Equipment/IT Costs $0 $900,000 $0 $0 $0 $900,000 $1,800,000
Other Initial Capital Expense Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Project Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PROJECT EXPENDITURES TOTAL $0 $900,000 $0 $0 $0 $900,000 $1,800,000
PROJECT REVENUES
Loan Proceeds $0 $675,000 $0 $0 $0 $810,000 $1,485,000
Equity Funding $0 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $315,000
PROJECT REVENUES TOTAL $0 $900,000 $0 $0 $0 $900,000 $1,800,000
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS - None
Appropriated
to Date*
*Appropriated to date: Budgets appropriated to date are recorded for currently funded projects that have a defined start and stop (i.e. a construction project or
specific technology replacement). Projects that do not have a defined start or stop (i.e. maintenance/replacement projects) are recorded as “on-going.”
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: March 26, 2013
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List
______________________________________________________________________________
Attached, please find an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through March 26, 2013.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART)
Advisory Committee, Crozet Community Advisory Council, Rivanna River Basin Commission and Village of Rivanna
Community Advisory Council.
Listed below are the names and term expiration dates of individuals who wish to be appointed and/or reappointed to
the respective committees:
Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART):
David Shreve, term expires April 3, 2013
Crozet Community Advisory Council: One vacancy
Jason Nichols
Jennifer Lafferty More
Janice Applebach
Rivanna River Basin Commission
Richard Randolph
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council:
Linda Porterfield
View attached list
Return to agenda
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
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Mark Gorlinsky 5/5/2010 4/17/2014 Resigned
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council David van Roijen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible
CHART Advisory Committee David Shreve 4/3/2013 4/3/2016 Yes
Crozet Community Advisory Council Lucy Goeke 3/31/2013 3/31/2015 waiting on response Advertised, 3 application recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council Charles Mitchell 3/31/2013 Resigned
Crozet Community Advisory Council Following application received:
Jason Nichols
Jennifer Lafferty More
Janice Applebach
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
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Terry Rephann 7/8/2012 7/8/2014 No 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 DeMellon Forest 9/30/2012 9/30/2016 No
Natural Heritage Committee Jim Byrom 9/30/2012 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned
Rivanna River Basin Commission Lizbeth Palmer 4/30/2013 4/30/2017 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Rivanna River Basin Commission Following application received:
Richard Randolph
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
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Steve Runkle 3/31/2013 3/31/2015 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Following application received:
Linda Porterfield
Workforce Investment Board Sue Goldman 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 No Recommendations to come from TJPED
Revised 03/26/2013
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 26, 2013
Drew Patterson
1831 Rady Court
Richmond, VA. 23222
RE: SP201200031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility
TAX MAP PARCEL: 04700000001800
Dear Mr. Patterson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 5, 2013, by a vote of
5:1, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's
request and site plans, entitled “Eastham,” with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 11/06/12
(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.
Recommendation of special exception for the modifications :
Recommend approval of the special exception for the modifications to S ections 5.1.40(c)(3),
and (d)(6):
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)-size of antenna
2. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-height of the antenna in relation to the reference tree.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on April 3, 2013.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
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
Zoning Division
Cc Fox, Harry Paul or Catherine E
3070 Stony Point Rd.
Charlottesville, VA. 22911
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201200031 – Verizon Wireless
“Eastham” Fox Property Tier III PWSF
Staff: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 5, 2013
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Harry Paul or Catherine E. Fox Applicant: Verizon Wireless-Drew Patterson
Acreage: 1.99 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 47 Parcel 18
Location: 3070 Stony Point Road
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas, and EC Entrance
Corridor
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request for installation of a 110 foot steel
monopole with 2 flush mounted arrays and associated
ground equipment with fencing within a 2,250 square foot
lease area.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural
Area 2.
Character of Property: This property is zoned Rural
Areas, as well as all the surrounding properties. The site
contains an existing dwelling unit and is located on a
wooded parcel.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas-
single family residential and vacant containing
both wooded and open areas.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal will provide improved 3G and 4G
wireless service for the surrounding area.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has
recommended approval of the proposed monopole
and associated ground equipment stating that the
location is expected to sufficiently minimize its
visibility.
3. The proposal meets all of the requirements of
5.1.40 (with waivers that are supported by staff).
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Included are modifications for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3) and (d)6. Based on findings presented in the staff
report, staff recommends approval of SP2012-31 and all waiver (special exception) requests with a
condition.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 5, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201200031: Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property
Tier III PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: Harry Paul or Catherine E. Fox
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless-c/o Drew Patterson
PROPOSAL:
This is a request for installation of a 110 foot Above Ground Level (“AGL”) steel
monopole with 2 flush mounted arrays and associated ground equipment with fencing
within a 2,250 square foot lease area that will be accessed by an existing driveway.
The 1.99 acre property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 18, is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District and is zoned Rural Areas (“RA”) and Entrance Corridor (“EC”)
(Attachment A).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This property is zoned Rural Areas, as well as all the surrounding properties. The site is
on a mostly wooded parcel. The surrounding areas contain both wooded and open
areas.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
N/A.
DISCUSSION:
The PWSF Ordinance states that facilities should be located at least 200 feet outside of
a scenic highway or by-way and is considered an avoidance area. This parcel fronts on
Route 20, which is designated as a Virginia byway. The Applicant has stated that the
tower has been sited to be located over 200 feet from the byway. A portion of the site is
also located in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District which is considered an
avoidance area under the Ordinance. The proposed tower will be approximately 15
feet taller than the reference tree. These situations render that the tower be processed
as a Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility requiring a Special Permit (“SP”).
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:
3
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The monopole is proposed to be 110 feet AGL in a largely wooded area. A reference
tree is identified as a 94.7AGL black oak. The Applicant has requested a waiver of
the reference tree requirement as the monopine will be roughly 15 feet taller than the
reference tree. (Attachment B). It is not anticipated that the proposed monopole will
be of any detriment to the adjacent properties, aside from limited temporary
construction activity. The new tower will not substantially change the visual impact of
the existing area since it is located on a heavily wooded lot and elevation increases to
the west and portions of the north limit visibility.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
As mentioned above, no substantial changes will occur with construction of this tower
aside from limited construction activity associated with the change. Although the
tower as proposed will be 15 feet taller than the reference tree visibility is limited. A
balloon test was performed on January 11, 2013 and although the balloon was visible
at certain brief points it was significantly camouflaged by trees, the elevation changes
and the winding nature of Stony Point Road (Attachment C).
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 visibility is limited. Additionally,
Staff has not received any negative comments from citizens.
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 tower will provide
more reliable access to the wireless communication market, to include schools,
travelling public 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.
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)
4
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:
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 does not meet the required Rural Areas setbacks and the
Applicant has submitted a fall zone easement due to the narrowness of the lot. The
Application and plans meet all other area and bulk regulations and minimum yard
requirements in accordance with 5.1.40(b)(2). The 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 ter rain, 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 monopole does not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted
with any whip antennas at this time. All other requirements have been met.
5
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 Applicant has identified that one of the proposed antennas on one of the arrays will
be approximately 1581 square inches and has requested a waiver of the requirement
since it will exceed the ordinance requirement of 1152 square inches. It is not
anticipated that the size difference will have a significant impact to the structure as it will
be flush-mounted and painted to match the tower. The 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 Applicant has stated that the installation of the proposed personal wireless service
facility will not require the removal of any significant trees. The Applicant has
acknowledged that a tree conservation plan will be submitted as required.
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
The Applicant has stated that the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility
will be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
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, 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.
An annual report will be submitted at the required time.
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 Applicant has stated that no 2:1 slopes will be created with installation of this
facility.
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
7
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 proposing to construct a six (6) foot board on board wood fence around
the tower. Staff has determined that a fence is necessary since an onsite visit identified
livestock on the site. Additionally, the fence will not be visible from adjacent properties
or Route 20.
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 tower will be located in a heavily wooded area and is adequately screened.
Portions of an adjacent property are subject to a conservation easement, but the trees
and topography will minimize visibility to the property.
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 proposed 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.
The application plan lists the base of the monopole as 30 inches and the top at 18
inches.
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
8
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 the tower will be
approximately 15 feet taller than the identified reference tree, which is a 94.7 AGL Black
Oak. Although the height is being increased, the lot is heavily wooded and the
surrounding topography adequately screens the tower. 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)(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 tower, antennas and ground equipment 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 will be designed to conceal the cables. Any remaining cables will
be affixed to the outside of the monopole on the side facing away from the street.
9
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the
special use permit.
The facility will comply 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 intende d 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. The proposed facility
and 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.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The proposal will provide improved 3G and 4G wireless service to the
surrounding area.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval of the
proposed monopole and associated ground equipment stating that the location
is expected to sufficiently minimize its visibility.
3. The proposal meets all the requirements of 5.1.40 (with waivers that are
supported by staff).
10
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. None identified.
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.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Tier III personal wireless
services facility based upon the analysis provided herein.
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 are to waive the ordinance requirements with respect to the reference tree
and antenna size. Staff is able to support all of the recommended modifications
described in the staff report. 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 in the proposed area. Staff is supportive of the modifications that
are listed below:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i)-Size of antenna.
2. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-Height of tower to reference tree.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff
recommends the following condition:
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 “Eastham”, with a final
zoning drawing submittal date of 11/06/12 (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. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan
C. Applicant Photo Simulations
Return to PC actions letter
11
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201200031) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve or deny the modifications for
Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)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 20120031
Eastham -Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF as 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 201200031-
Eastham Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF (Planning Commission needs to
give a reason for denial).
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201200031) 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 20120031 Eastham -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 201200031-EasthamVerizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial).
Return to actions letter
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 January 23, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
294 ft
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 5, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III PSWF
Submitted to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 5, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 5, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph,
Don Franco, and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Absent was Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice
Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virgin ia
was absent.
Other officials present were Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Elaine Echols, Principal
Planner; 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 Item:
SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III Personal
Wireless Service Facility
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a 110 foot steel monopole with two (2) flush
mounted arrays and associated ground equipment with fencing within a 2,250 square
foot lease area.
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.
SECTION: 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 2 -
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: 3070 Stony Point Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04700-00-00-01800
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Sarah Baldwin)
Sarah Baldwin presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This property is located on tax map 47, parcel 18. It does contain a dwelling that is
located on a steep hill. This is a request for installation of a 110 foot tall monopole
structure with two (2) flush mounted arrays and ground equipment within a 2,250
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 5, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III PSWF
Submitted to BOS
2
square foot lease area. The applicant is requesting two (2) waivers which staff is
supporting.
The tower will be approximately 15 feet taller than reference tree, which is a 94.7 AGL
black oak. Additionally, one of the proposed antennas will be 1,581 square feet, which
exceeds the Ordinance requirements
Staff attended a balloon test on January 11, 2013 and viewed the balloon from various
areas. There were brief certain points that were camouflaged by trees, but also some
brief points that did show the balloon. The applicant provided a location map showing
where it is visible. She referred to several photo simulations provided by the applicant
of some of the visible locations:
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal will provide improved 3G and 4G wireless service for the surrounding
area.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval of the proposed
monopole and associated ground equipment stating that the location is expected to
sufficiently minimize its visibility.
3. The proposal meets all of the requirements of 5.1.40 (with waivers that are
supported by staff.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this Tier III Personal Service Wireless Facility with the
modifications (special exceptions) provided herein.
Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this application to
the Board of Supervisors, staff recommends the following condition:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the
applicant's request and site plans, entitled “Eastham,” with a final zoning drawing
submittal date of 11/06/12 (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 b e
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson said in the staff report it was mentioned given the size and shape of the
parcel that an easement would be sought from an adjacent property for the fall zone.
He asked if that is a condition of the approval or something already in the ordinance that
does not need a condition.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 5, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III PSWF
Submitted to BOS
3
Ms. Baldwin replied that it was already a condition in the ordinance. If it is determined
the lot is of a certain size then that is a requirement. Staff has a copy of the easement.
Mr. Benish pointed out the easement has been obtained.
Mr. Randolph asked if there was another application that has come before the
Commission for a Tier III where they are looking to waive the height, the setback for the
rural area, and the antenna size. He asked staff to cite a precedent of another case
where all three of those factors have been waived.
Mr. Baldwin replied she did not know of an example with all three factors. However, she
knows that the antenna size as well as the reference tree and possibly some other
modifications have been waived at the same time.
Mr. Benish pointed out he believed there was one recently approved on Route 29 south
in the North Garden area, which he thought needed an easement for the fall zone. It is
not uncommon to have at least two of th ose three factors in some combination.
Mr. Randolph said he was just struck that there were three waivers here. In the past
they have certainly looked at waivers for height and antenna size. It seemed to be a
little unusual from that standpoint. He questioned precedence in the request for all
three modifications.
Mr. Benish said the third waiver is related to a safety issue of the fall zone where the
other two are more visibility issues. He can’t recall a combination where they have had
all three. However, it is not uncommon to have some combination of two of those three
factors, which address different issues.
Mr. Loach asked if they have made a change in standards from the normal 7’ to 10’,
which has come down from the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Benish replied no, that from the general ordinance guidelines visibility primarily
guides staff. However, as they review sites and determine the extent of the visibility
they have been willing to grant exceptions for that.
Mr. Loach pointed out it seems like the last time the height was 7’ to 10’.
Mr. Benish noted that further south on Route 20 they have had two applications that
were actually approved at 30’ and 40’. Those two were on a very large tract of land.
That site may have a fall zone requirement because it is right at the corner of the
property and set about 400’ off of Route 20. However, the monopoles are very tall.
Mr. Morris pointed out when he attended the balloon test he found the site is well above
the road. W atching from Stony Point Road, which is like a roller coaster, the antenna
was not visible. He was literally on top of the balloon before he looked up and saw it
was a balloon. It is a very interesting site and one that is probably not going to be
visible either moving north or south on Stony Point Road. The Black Oak is a huge
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 5, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III PSWF
Submitted to BOS
4
tree.
Mr. Benish said he thinks Mr. Randolph’s intent is to indicate certain exceptions to this.
However, the fall zone area is just a requirement. If the setbacks are not met, then a fall
zone agreement is obtained. It is not a waiver or special exception.
Mr. Dotson said he had a question for Mr. Kamptner. Reading in the staff report on page
8 it is talking about 7’ and 10’. It says the Commission may approve the height up to
10’. He asked if there is something else that says “or more” since they were being
asked for 15’. He was just curious what the ordinance provided.
Mr. Kamptner replied that was the special exception, which was the modification of that
particular regulation. Any regulation of Section 5 of the zoning ordinance can be
modified and the process is the special exception. That is the section that allows this
request to go up to 15’.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing
for the applicant and public comment. He invited the applicant to come forward and
address the Planning Commission.
Laurie Schweller, an attorney with LeClair Ryan, represented Verizon Wireless and
presented a PowerPoint presentation.
- The reason they are requesting a special use permit for a Tier III is basically for
two reasons. One is that they need more than 10’ above the reference tree to
serve their radio frequency needs in this area. Therefore, they are requesting
15’. The other reason is because it is an avoidance area and would not qualify
as a Tier II. It is in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. The site is
wooded and they believe the visibility is kept to a minimum because of the trees,
backdrops, and the sets of antenna are flush mounted and painted brown. That
would cause this to be a Tier III application.
- They have obtained a fall zone easement from the neighbor whose property
surrounds this site on three sides. Therefore, they can comply with the
requirement of the 110’ setback that being the height of the monopole itself.
Again, they are doing a monopole with two sets of flush mounted antennas so
they can do the LTE at the top set and then a dual antenna for PCS and cell on
the second set. That is why they needed the full 15’ feet they are requesting
above the reference tree to get both of those sets of antenna up there.
- The current coverage map shows good coverage along Route 20 going north
and south. To the east of that along Route 20 the coverage is not as good. With
this site they are hoping to improve this particular area in the eastern part since it
would connect with existing sites to have continued coverage . Again, as Ms.
Baldwin pointed out, they did a balloon test on January 11th. Coming up from
Charlottesville, as Mr. Morris explained, it is very difficult to see the site. From
most locations along the road it would not be visible since it is at a high elevation.
Directly east of the site, from the house next door, the balloon was seen just
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 5, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III PSWF
Submitted to BOS
5
above the trees. The balloon was not visible from Wood Creek Drive, from
Rivanna Farm, and farther south at the corner of Stony Point Road and Profit
Road.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Dotson asked in what way is the one antenna larger. He asked if it looked like the
other one, but was taller.
Ms. Schweller replied the larger antenna looks similar to the others, but the square inch
area is larger. The LTE antennas tend to be larger to provide higher strength. They
also have the dual antennas that have both the 850 and 1,950 in them. Sometimes
those are larger as well. She did not know which of the six antennas will be larger.
Mr. Dotson asked if having this larger antenna was part of their new norm and if each
tower would raise the same issue of having an antenna that exceeds the ordinance.
Ms. Schweller replied she did see it frequently. In fact, she would guess they are going
to see it more and more frequently. They have suggested considerations for ordinance
revision that square inch limitation be removed because they have a variety of antennas
they need to use.
Mr. Randolph asked about the height of the monopole and if our county requirement is
also outdated because of the pace of technology.
Ms. Schweller indicated that the antenna needs to be 15’ higher that the largest
neighboring adjoining tree.
Mr. Randolph asked if the county needs to revisit that requirement.
Ms. Schweller replied yes; however, she believed the county is revisiting that
requirement. She knows Bill Fritz is working steadily on the special project of updating
the ordinance. In fact, Mr. Fritz has invited industry representatives to a couple of round
tables to discuss that. They have not only the three frequencies or technologies that
she mentions to the Commission frequently, but they have more technologies coming
down the pike. The process is going to start all over again the next time they have a
new technology that they need to get up on each site for all of the extensions for LTE,
which they have requested over the past year and a half. From the industry’s point of
view the best way to handle that is with a full array. In other words, the antennas would
not be flush mounted because it is a better way to propagate those signals. It is cleaner
and has more separation between the frequencies. They would have more redundancy
in case something goes down because of the 360 degree propagation. There are lots
of reasons why the industry prefers it. However, the reason why localities sometime
accept it is because with a full array they can get all of the technologies for a single
carrier at one point on the monopole, which leaves room for other carriers to provide
their technologies on the same pole. It is a policy decision obviously because
Albemarle County has decided in the past they would prefer to have more monopoles
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 5, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III PSWF
Submitted to BOS
6
as long as the antennas are flush mounted. However, it is getting to the point where
each carrier has to have more than one set of antennas. Monopoles are just going to
get taller and taller as they have to put more technologies on the same monopole.
Mr. Randolph said that is very helpful. However, he has one other question. They have
previously seen applications that show the extent of the impact on the site for where the
trees are going to be removed. On page 5, it says the applicant has stated the
installation of the proposed personal wireless service facility will not require the remova l
of any significant trees. He asked what a significant tree is. That could be defined as
everything less than a tree that is 100 years old that could come down because they
define significant as old trees.
Ms. Schweller said it is defined, but she can’t recall exactly what that diameter is.
Mr. Randolph asked roughly how many trees are going to come down.
Drew Patterson, consultant for Verizon with NB&C, noted in visiting the site and dealing
with their A&E firm he did not anticipate that any trees will have to come down. They
indicated no trees of significant size. Really what they are d ealing with basically is
twigs. In visiting the actual tower site he found the site is already cleared. Therefore, he
did not think they are going to have to take down any trees.
Mr. Morris agreed because there were no other trees in the intermediate area except
the reference tree. The only thing that could be damaged is the dog house or chicken
coop.
Ms. Baldwin agreed. When she attended the balloon test it did not seem there was any
significant trees right around the intermediate area where the monopole would be.
Mr. Morris pointed out the only concern he heard from people in the area was about the
driveway. About 50 yards after coming off of Route 20 someone would have to take
almost a U-turn to go up the driveway to where the site is. The re sidents were
extremely concerned about trucks deteriorating the driveway on that sharp turn area.
He had mentioned this to the applicant and asked if she cared to address that situation.
Ms. Schweller replied Verizon W ireless has become aware of this question regarding
that portion of the driveway f rom Route 20 to where it turns off to the subject property.
They would be willing to add gravel or regrade and add gravel. They would do
whatever needs to be done to either avoid damaging it or repair damage that would be
done by any trucks for construction. They do want to have th e driveway in good
condition because they will have a service person go up once a month to ch eck
anyway.
Mr. Morris said that was great. He suggested when this application goes to the Board
of Supervisors if that question is already addressed it would be great. There being no
further questions for the applicant, he invited public comment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 5, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III PSWF
Submitted to BOS
7
Mr. Fleming said he owns property with his brother right across the road from the
proposed site. It is the last piece of 106 acres that his parents bought back in 1959.
The property has been in their family for over 50 years. They are attached to the land
for sentimental reasons although there is no longer a residence on the land. When his
mother died they found the house to be in such poor condition and not feasible to
renovate so they simply had it torn down. However, they plan to put one and possibly
two houses back up on that site. He provided a couple of panoramic pictures of their
view of the proposed tower site. It is not the end of the world, but certainly the proposed
monopole would be detrimental to the view. The view was the main asset of their real
estate at this time other than the ability to grow the usual hay or soy beans. The view is
the selling point for this piece of land if they decide to sell. (Attachment – Two Photos
submitted by Mr. Fleming on file with minutes in office of clerk) (B OS see separate .pdf
file)
Mr. Fleming pointed out they have heard mention of studies that were done where
Verizon apparently went around and estimated where the monopole would be visible
from. There may be a number of other properties around which may h ave an
unobstructed view of the proposed monopole. He knows of at least one gentleman who
lives adjacent to the property, who was unable to attend tonight, who will definitely be
able to see the monopole that will definitely impact his view. They can expect to hear
from him on the topic either through Ms. Baldwin or at the County Board of Supervisors
meeting when this is addressed. The 110’ monopole is going on a bank on the west
side of Route 20. Along that stretch it goes up a very steep hill, which is part of the
reason why the driveway has the hairpin turn in it. The base of tower will be about 25’
or 30’ above the level of the road, which makes it that much more prominent in the
views from the road and adjacent properties.
Corky Shackleford said he lives within three mile of this site along the crooked road.
He understands that this group is naturally concerned with the appearance and the
visual impact of the monopole. He is more concerned with what they need out of it.
Along that road he could probably count on one hand the spots where someone can get
any coverage at all on the telephone. He cannot get any coverage within his house and
has to go to certain spots high up on the farm to get a signal. They need coverage badly
all along that road from here to Barboursville and who knows how much further. He
would encourage them to consider this request as favorably as they can.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Morris asked if the applicant wanted to take advantage of five minutes for rebuttal.
Ms. Schweller said she appreciates Mr. Fleming’s comments. It is correct that his best
view would be from across the road because those properties are on an elevation.
However, she would point out that even though the subject parcel is at higher elevation
than the road it is within a forested area and there is a whole bank of trees in front of it.
So it is very well screened. Only the very top, as the photos show, would be visible.
The top of the monopole has to be visible for it to work because that is where the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 5, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III PSWF
Submitted to BOS
8
antennas are and how they propagate the signal. They have minimized the visibility as
much as they possibly can in the area and think they have done a pretty good job. She
asked that they consider the importance of the service in this area as well as the
diminishment of the visibility.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Dotson asked Ms. Schweller if she had a chance to look at the drawings that were
passed out to the Commissioners. He asked about whether that representation of what
the tower would look like is accurate and consistent with her understanding.
Ms. Schweller replied she was not sure what these are drawings of.
Mr. Morris asked Ms. Schweller to summarize the conversation because the
Commissioners could not hear a thing.
Ms. Schweller explained the drawing passed out to the Commission. Mr. Fleming was
telling her one photo was taken from the home site that has been demolished. The
other photo is from the front of the house. When their engineers do photo simulations
they are very careful to use scientific methodology to make sure that they appear the
actual height that they will be. When they do a balloon test and they take photographs
they know exactly how far they are from those and how big the poles should be. First of
all what they are seeing is that it looks huge. She did not believe it is going to be this
obtrusive. These are not flush mounted antennas. A flush mounted antenna is not
visible from this distance since it would just look like part of the pole. It just would not
look like this. She asked to take them back to her presentation. Mr. Fleming’s property
is directly south of the one where they drove up the drive to a certain degree and took a
photo. They did not drive onto his property and don’t have a photo from that area. She
knows they have one photo from Rivanna Farm where it was not visible at all. They
drove all over that property. It is just hard to say what the visibility would be. She
pointed out in a photo simulation that the monopole is a very slender pole and has flush
mounted antennas. It would not look like this simulation.
Mr. Dotson suggested it might be useful before this went to the Board to prepare the
type of photo simulation she was speaking about from the property of the speaker.
Ms. Schweller said they might be able to do that. They would need to have another
balloon test in order to do that because they would not guess.
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring SP-2012-00031 back to the Planning
Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Dotson said he picked up on a point that Mr. Loach raised as a question at the
beginning. He did not have a good memory to know whether they are actually seeing 7’
above the tree or 10’ or 15’. He did not want 15’ to become the new norm unless the
ordinance is amended. It may be forthcoming. If this is a special exception they should
be saying what is special about this application. He thinks from Mr. Morris’ comments if
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 5, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III PSWF
Submitted to BOS
9
they preceded any motion to approve with something like because of the unusual rolling
topography and location of the tower, then they should go ahead. He did not want the
next application to come along and be a very different site and have set a precedent of
15’. His concern is 15’ might work here, but not at other places.
Mr. Randolph pointed out they are looking at 429 inches larger than what is normally
acceptable, which is a 37% larger antenna. He echoed Mr. Dotson’s point that he did
not want this to be the new norm. They have to be very careful in this case. It may be
appropriate and applicable, but in terms of precedent he did not want this to come back
and be used as the basis to argue they should go even higher. For example, let’s go 50
percent larger than what is usually acceptable to the County.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Kamptner if he had any problem recommending this.
Mr. Kamptner replied no.
Mr. Loach noted the Commission’s action was only a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors. However, just to make a point he won’t support it since he thinks it is
important that they start to get additional feedback. If they are going to change the
standard because the technology is changing, he felt it should be done so there can be
an open discussion.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved to recommend approval of the modification of SP -2012-
00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III Personal Wireless Service
Facility with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Randolph seconded the motion.
Mr. Kamptner clarified there was a single condition that staff noted.
Mr. Smith agreed it was a single condition.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Mr. Loach voted nay)
Mr. Morris noted the next motion would be on the special exceptions.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of SP-
2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility with the condition outlined in the staff report. He also suggested that
the applicant try to have a picture from that location for the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Kamptner questioned the motion because the condition should be attached to the
special use permit and not to the modifications.
Mr. Benish noted typically they do the special exceptions first. The condition does need
to go with the special use permit and not the special exception.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 5, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III PSWF
Submitted to BOS
10
Mr. Kamptner suggested a motion to reconsider so they could undo what they did .
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to reconsider the requests.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Kamptner suggested they go back and restate the motion.
Ms. Baldwin pointed out the correct order of the motions was on the screen.
Motion for Modifications: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve modifications for Sections
5.1.40(c)(3) and (d)(6) under the special exception criteria of Section 31.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Section 5.1.40(c)(3)-size of antenna
Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-height of the antenna in relation to the reference tree.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Loach voted nay)
Motion for Special Use Permit: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to
recommend approval of SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier
III Personal Wireless Service Facility with the condition outlined in the staff report.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the
applicant's request and site plans, entitled “Eastham,” with a final zoning drawing
submittal date of 11/06/12 (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.
.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Loach voted nay)
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2012-00031 Verizon Wireless “Eastham” Fox Property Tier III
Personal Wireless Service Facility and the special exception for modification requests
would go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval. He thanked the applicant for being flexible and taking a
look at the driveway.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2013 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $ 5,104,757.83 and approval
of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2013078,
#2013079, #2013080, #2013081 #2013082 and #2013084
for local government and school division programs and
projects.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri and Davis, and Ms. Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 3, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: 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 cumulative total of the FY 2013 appropriations from the time period of November 7, 2012 through April 3, 2013 and
itemized below is $ 5,104,757.83. Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the
currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required.
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:
The proposed increase of this FY 2013 Budget Amendment totals $ 5,104,757.83. The estimated expenses and
revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 586,437.50
Special Revenue Funds $ 563,240.42
School Fund $ 851,877.27
School Programs $ 1,307,454.54
Capital Improvements Funds $ 1,543,863.51
ECC $ 251,884.59
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 5,104,757.83
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenue (Non-Tax)* $ 1,447,845.89
State Revenue $ 84,027.46
Federal Revenue $ 652,343.93
Loan Proceeds $ 519,750.00
General Fund Balance $ 5,538,047.00
Other Fund Balances $ (3,137,256.45)
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 5,104,757.83
*The local revenue included in this amendment includes $979,335.89 in recovered costs, $143,510.00 in donations
and contributions, and $325,000.00 in miscellaneous revenue,
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
April 3, 2013
Page 2
The budget amendment is comprised of thirty-three (33) separate appropriations as follows, twenty-seven of which
have already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved November 7, 2012:
One (1) appropriation (#2013050) totaling $105,000.00 for Avemore bond funds;
One (1) appropriation (#2013051) totaling $38,675.00 for a grant awarded by the Virginia Department of Motor
Vehicles to the Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013052) totaling -$31,764.51 for various re-appropriation and proffers adjustments;
and
One (1) appropriation (#2013053) totaling $40,000.00 for various Emergency Communication Center projects.
Approved December 5, 2012:
One (1) appropriation (#2013054) totaling $27,188.00 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program;
One (1) appropriation (#2013055) totaling $20,000.00 for two grants awarded by the Virginia Department of
Motor Vehicles to the Sheriff’s Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013056) totaling $210,477.36 for grants awarded to the Emergency Communication
Center and project costs for the Computer Aided Dispatch system replacement project; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013057) totaling $22,000 for a due diligence study.
Approved January 9, 2013:
One (1) appropriation (#2013058) totaling $50,000.00 for School Division donations;
One (1) appropriation (#2013059) totaling $22,552.00 for the Offender Aid and Restoration Drug Court officer;
One (1) appropriation (#2013060) totaling $12,918.00 for Police overtime and related FICA costs to assist the
Game Warden in providing additional services during hunting season. This funding is provided from the
Reserve for Contingencies and will not increase the total budget; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013061) totaling $24,900.00 to reappropriate funding to complete the Parks and
Recreation Department’s online reservation system project.
Approved February 6, 2013:
One (1) appropriation (#2013062) totaling $2,785.00 for donations to the Department of Fire and Rescue;
One (1) appropriation (#2013064) totaling $80,127.46 for the ACE program from the Farmland Preservation’s
Local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program Grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2013065) totaling $5,500,000.00 for a transfer from the FY12 General Fund balance
to the FY13 Capital Improvement Program Funds. This appropriation increases the budget $500,000.00 due
to the reduction of use of capital fund balance by $5,000,000.00;
One (1) appropriation (#2013066) totaling $880,800.00 for the Revenue and Taxation component of Access
Albemarle. This appropriation increases the budget $692,945.47; the remaining $187,054.53 are from
currently appropriated funds;
One (1) appropriation (#2013067) totaling $38,583.27 for reimbursed and recovered costs received by the
Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013068) totaling $35,995.00 for a grant awarded by the Department of Criminal
Justice Services to the Police Department. This appropriation includes a local match of $4,000.00 provided
from the County’s appropriated Grants Leveraging Fund;
One (1) appropriation (#2013069) totaling $292,506 for the purchase of an ambulance and related equipment
to serve the Seminole Trail/Rio Road area of the County. This appropriation will not increase the total budget
because the funding will be re-appropriated from the balance of current apparatus funding;
One (1) appropriation (#2013070) totaling $50,000.00 for school division grants; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013071) totaling $25,929 for training and professional development for various
departments. This appropriation will not increase the total budget because the funding will be re-appropriated
from the Training Pool funding.
Approved March 13, 2013:
One (1) appropriation (#2013063) to re-appropriate funding from previously appropriated Line of Duty Act
contingency reserve to the Police and Fire Rescue Departments. This appropriation will not increase the
County budget;
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
April 3, 2013
Page 3
One (1) appropriation (#2013072) totaling $597,147.00 to appropriate funding related to service delivery
changes for Emergency Medical Services;
One (1) appropriation (#2013074) to re-appropriate funding to the Police and Fire Rescue Departments for
recruitment and retention incentive programs from the previously appropriated Police and Fire Recruitment
Initiatives Reserve and Reserve for Contingencies. This appropriation will not increase the County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2013075) totaling $107,565.00 to appropriate a Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters Grant (EMW -2012-FO-00667) awarded to the Fire Rescue
Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013076) totaling $700.00 for donations made to the Sheriff’s Office; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013077) totaling $3,900.00 for a grant awarded to Offender Aid and Restoration
(OAR).
The six (6) appropriations requested for Board approval on April 3, 2013 are as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013078) totaling $1,275.00 for donations to the Department of Fire and Rescue;
One (1) appropriation (#2013079) totaling $75,000.00 for a Department of Criminal Justice Services grant
awarded to the Department of Social Services;
One (1) appropriation (#2013080) totaling $173,781.33 for expenditures related to the impacts of the June 29-
30, 2012 derecho storm that will be reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
One (1) appropriation (#2013081) totaling $1,969,331.81 for various school division programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2013082) totaling $100,000.00 for miscellaneous school division contributions and
miscellaneous revenue; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013084) totaling $146,593.64 for two U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration grants.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2013 Budget Amendment in the amount of $ 3,135,426.02
and approval of appropriations #2013078, #2013079, #2013080, #2013082 and #2013084 to provide funds for various
local government projects and programs as described in Attachment A. Staff also recommends consideration of
appropriation #2013081 in the amount of $1,969,331.81 for various school projects and programs (also described in
Attachment A) which, if approved would bring the total amount of the FY 2013 Budget Amendment to $5,104,757.83.
Representatives from the schools will be available at the Board meeting to provide more information or answer
questions regarding the school requests.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to agenda
Attachment A
1
Appropriation #2013078 $1,275.00
Source: Local Revenue (donations) $ 1,275.00
This request is to appropriate $1,275.00 in donations received by the Fire and Rescue Department (FR) from
Martha Jefferson Hospital's Community Outreach Program . This donation will provide three specialized cardiac 12
lead EKG transmission modems. This equipment, which will operate in concert with equipment installed at Martha
Jefferson and UVA hospitals, represents a substantial improvement in the standard of care for the treatment of
heart attack victims. In 1998 a Special Reveune Fund account was established for donations received by FR.
Periodically, these funds are requested for appropriation to help fund needed items for the department.
Appropriation #2013079 $75,000.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 71,250.00
Local Revenue (Contribution from YMCA) $ 3,750.00
This request is to appropriate a $75,000.00 grant received from the Department of Criminal Justice Services (#13-
C2141AD11) by the Albemarle County Department of Social Services along with Piedmont Family YMCA,
Albemarle County Public Schools and the Broadus Memorial Baptist Church to open and operate an after -school
program for students at Stony Point Elementary. There is no local match required by the County.
Appropriation #2013080 $173,781.33
Source: Federal Revenue $ 173,781.33
This request is to appropriate $173,781.33 for expenditures related to the impacts of the June 29-30, 2012 derecho
storm that will be reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These costs include debris
removal, facility and equipment repairs, overtime and emergency shelter management costs in the General
Services, Parks and Recreation, Social Services and Police departments.
Appropriation #2013081 $1,969,331.81
Source: Local Revenue (Recovered Costs) $ 940,752.62
Local Revenue (Donation) $ 10,000.00
School Fund Balance $ 293,124.65
Self-Sustaining Funds Balances $ 725,454.54
This request is to re-appropriate and appropriate funding as approved by the School Board:
From the December 13, 2012 School Board meeting:
The Self-Sustaining School Bus Replacement Fund had an unexpended fund balance of $472,499.28 in FY
12 . This request is to re-appropriate those funds for the School Division’s purchase of school buses in FY
13.
The Self-Sustaining Computer Equipment Replacement Fund’s purpose is to provide students and staff
reliable access to technology and support its use in meaningful ways. This request is to re -appropriate the
available FY 12 fund balance of $252,955.26 for use in FY 13 to purchase computers.
From the February 14, 2013 School Board meeting:
The School Division’s E-rate Program is designed to ensure that all eligible schools and libraries have
affordable access to modern telecommunications and information services. The E-rate Program, which was
established by the Federal Government, provides discounts for eligible telecommunications services,
depending on economic need and location (urban or rural). The level of discount i s based on the percentage
of students eligible for participation in the National School Lunch Program or other federally approved
alternative mechanisms. This request is to appropriate $532,000.00 in recovered costs for the School
Division’s use in FY 13. These funds will be used to provide students and staff reliable access to te chnology
and support its use in meaningful ways by purchasing network hardware, wiring, and associated services.
Attachment A
2
Staff comment: Staff suggests that in future years, the School Division consider including the anticipated E-
Rate Program discount proceeds during the development of their intitial budget.
Design 2015 is the Innovation Laboratory for Albemarle County Public Schools. Educators throughout the
division are invited to submit proposals for pilot programs that incorporate innovative technologies, develop
new instructional models, enhance the learning environment and include components to assess student
progress. Programs can be for an individual school or a group of schools and must have the capability to be
shared across the division. Local revenues were received from an insurance reimbursement total
$408,752.62. These revenues are reimbursements for costs expended by the School Division in prior years
from the School Divison’s transportation fund and are one-time revenues requested for appropriation for the
Design 2015 Innovation Laboratory.
Staff comment: Staff recocognizes that the School Division consider s this to be a valuable program;
alternatively however, if not used for this purpose, the funds could drop to fund balance and potentially be
used towards critical capital projects. School representatives will be available during the Board meeting to
address the importance of the Innovation Laboratory program and answer any questions of the Board.
Annually, following completion of the audit and evaluation of current year revenues, re-appropriation of
school carryover funds is requested and portions of building rental funds are requested to be returned to
school. This practice, which is contingent on certain conditions such as whether the funding is needed to
fund a capital project, allows for schools to carry over no more than ten percent of its annual appropriation
in a given year and was approved by the School Board and the Board of Supervisors in 1993. (See
attached Board Resolution for more details.) Based on this long-standing practice, the School Division
requests the re-appropriation of $207,759.41 of school carryover funds and $85,365.24 in building rental
funds for a total appropriation of $293,124.65 from the School Division’s Fund fund balance to be used for
education and recreation supplies.
From the March 14, 2013 School Board meeting:
This request is to appropriate a $10,000.00 donation that was awarded to Western Albemarle High School
to be used toward repairs and upgrades around the stadium/turf field.
Appropriation #2013082 $100,000.00
Source: Local Revenue (Donations) $ 75,000.00
Local Revenue (Miscellaneous) $ 25,000.00
At the July 11, 2012 Board meeting, the Board approved streamlining the appropriation process for anticipated FY
12/13 School Fund revenue for grants, donations, and School Activity Funds. On August 1, 2012, the Board
approved an initial appropriation of $30,000.00 for donations and miscellaneous revenue. Subsequent
appropriations of $50,000.00 each were approved on September 5, 2012 and January 9, 2013, bringing the total
appropriated amount to $130,000.00. The School Division has already exceeded this amount in donations and
miscellaneous revenue. This request is to appropriate an additional $75,000.00 in donations and $25,000.00 in
miscellaneous revenue. Funds will not be expended until the revenues are received.
Appropriation #2013084 $146,593.64
Source: Federal Revenue $ 146,593.64
This request is for the appropriation of funds from two grants, which, when combined total $146,593.64 and cover
the time period of July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.
In fall 2011, the County of Albemarle, in its capacity as f iscal agent for the Commission on Children and Families
(CCF), received a Strategic Prevention Framework – State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG) from the U.S. Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevent ion (CSAP)
through its subcontractor, Virginia Commonwealth University. The purpose of the grant funding is to reduce the
number of motor vehicle crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers between the ages of 15 and 24. As a grantee,
the County is eligible to receive up to five years of funding, contigent upon compliance with program rules and
regulations and VCU’s receipt of continuing funding from SAMHSA/CSAP.
Attachment A
3
The time period of the initial grant was February 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013 which spans two of the County’s
fiscal years. This request is to re-appropriate $86,114.64 from the initial grant amount for those expenses incurred
during the time period of July 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013.
CCF was dissolved in December 2012, so the second SPF-SIG Project Grant was awarded directly to the County
for the time period of February 1, 2013 through January 31, 2014 with an estimated total of $145,150. The budget
amount currently provided by the subcontractor, Virginia Commonwealth University, is $60,479 for the time period
of February 1, 2013 through June 30, 2013.
Attachment: Board of Supervisors’ 1993 School Carry-Forward Resolution
Return to exec summary
Page 1 of 3
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
April 2013
Special Issues
None at this time
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 53 Safety Project – Shoulder
Widening 0.4 Mi E. of Monticello Loop
Road
Advertisement Construction February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project – Shoulder
Widening 0.06 Mi E. of Monticello
Loop Road
Advertisement Construction February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project – Intersection
Improvements at Route 20 Advertisement Construction 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 Right of Way Advertisement October 2013
Route 616, Black Cat Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way – May
2013 March 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way –
August 2013 December 2014
Route 637, Dick Woods Road
Bridge Replacement over Ivy Creek Design Public Hearing Right of Way –
August 2013 December 2014
Route 29 Widening, Ashwood to
Hollymeade Town Center Survey Preliminary Design
– Spring 2013 December 2015
Route 250, Bridge replacement over
Little Ivy Creek Survey Preliminary Design January 2018
Route 774, Bear Creek Road, Unpaved
Road -- Project Scoping –
2016 November 2019
Route 703, Pocket Lane, Unpaved
Road -- Project Scoping –
2016 November 2019
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Best Buy Ramp Design Public Hearing Right of Way –
Summer 2013 November 2014
Page 2 of 3
Construction Activities
Route 29 Bypass (FO)0029-002-844
Scope: Design and construction 6.2 miles of highway between Route 250 to north of South
Fork of the Rivanna River.
Next major milestone: Submit Environmental Assessment to FHWA
Contract Completion Date: September 16, 2016
Only activities authorized being performed to include IJR/Traffic Studies for northern and
southern termini. If FONSI issued by FHWA, remaining PE activities (survey, geotechnical
exploration, environmental delineations, etc.) as well as Final design, RW & CN activities can
be initiated. Additional Public Involvement scheduled: Citizen Information meeting tentatively
April/May. 2013, Design Public Hearing tentatively June/July 2013.
McIntire Interchange 0250-104-103, PE101
Scope: Construct Interchange at McIntire Road and Rte 250
Next Major Milestone: Utility Relocations
Contract Completion date: July 2, 2015.
Project Construction started on March 4, 2013.
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: Construct right turn lane from Melbourne Road.
Contract Completion: October 15, 2013
Surface Treatment Schedule
Scope: Surface Treat various roads.
Next Major Milestone: Contractor planning to begin work in Albemarle County in May.
Contract Completion: October 31, 2013 (Contractor should com plete work in Albemarle County
in June)
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 250 Ivy Road near Boars Head Inn Guardrail review – Study memorandum complete;
awaiting funding for installation.
Route 250 Richmond Road and 1054 Glenmore Way (E. of Shadwell): Study complete
recommend signing adjustments. Sign installation complete. Pavement markings expected in the
spring. VDOT Study Number- 003-1054-20120410-016
Page 3 of 3
Route 726 James River Road: Guardrail review; chevrons installation pending. VDOT Study
Number- 003-0726-20120925-003
Route 20 Scottsville Road @ Route 726 James River Road: Intersection safety review; Report
complete, awaiting county comments. VDOT Study Number- 003-0020-20120614-007
Route 760 Red Hill School Road: Speed complete; resolution complete; sign installation
pending. VDOT Study Number- 003-0760-20120822-011
Route 1815 Old Trail Drive: School zone review; sign installation pending. VDOT Study
Number- 003-1815-20121203-010
Route 20: Bus Stop Sign review; review complete, installation pending. VDOT Study Number-
003-0020-20130102-010
Route 795 James Monroe Parkway: Safety study at Ash Lawn entrance; report complete.
Signing adjustment pending. Re-grading of embankments recommended. VDOT Study Number-
003-0795-20130109-007
Route 250: Bicycle “Sharrows” pavement markings review; complete. Pavement markings
pending. VDOT Study Number- 003-0250-20130109-006
Under Review
Route 672 Blufton Road: Speed study on Rural Rustic Project; draft complete, pending review.
VDOT Study Number- 003-0672-20130115-011
Hydraulic Road, Route 743 and Route 29: Safety review of left turns along hydraulic and u-
turns; in progress. VDOT Study Number - 003-0743-20130305-007
Route 6 @ Porters Road, Route 627: Signing review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-
0006-20130221-010
Route 20, Scottsville: School bus stop ahead signing review; pending. VDOT Study Number -
003-0020-20130305-010
Route 20 @ Route 250: Intersection pavement marking review; pending. VDOT Study Number -
003-0250-20130301-006
Route 684 @ King Family Vineyards: Signing review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-
0684-20130305-010
Route 692, Plank Road: School bus stop ahead signing review; pending. VDOT Study Number -
003-0692-20130305-010
Route 676, Tilman Road @ Route 250: Safety review; in progress. VDOT Study Number - 003-
0676-20130305-007
Maintenance Activities
Limbing Operations on various Secondary Routes
Machining/ grading/applying stone to non-hard surfaces roadways
Pipe Cleaning and ditching operations
Pothole patching operations
Debris Removal from March 6th Storm
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
1
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
POB 1505, 401 E. Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org
(434) 979-7310 phone ● (434) 979-1597 fax ● info@tjpdc.org email
Memorandum
To: Board of Supervisors, County of Albemarle
From: Steve Williams, Executive Director
Date: March 20th 2013
Re: Status of Long Range Transportation Plan Update Process
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO is in the process of updating its Long Range Transportation Plan, with
adoption of the new plan expected to occur in May 2014. The new plan, 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP), would replace the current plan, UnJAM 2035, which was adopted in May 2009. This has been a major
update process for the Long Range Transportation Plan. Prior to beginning the update process MPO staff upgraded,
calibrated and validated our Regional Travel Demand model to have a base year of 2010 and a forecast year of
2040. This update process for the model took about a year. In addition, many of the projects that have been
priorities for the MPO have moved into the Transportation Improvement Program and are proceeding through
project development. Finally, we are developing scenario plans and performance measures that will inform the
LRTP project list and over all planning process. With the update of the travel demand model, as well as the
creation of performance measures and scenario plans, this LRTP update process is more robust than previous
efforts with a greater emphasis on the application of quantitative approaches to analyze the affects projects have on
the community. The following brief describes activities completed to date as well as those remaining in the update
process. MPO staff estimates that the process is approximately half complete as of the March MPO Policy Board
meeting. Italicized titles indicate that the task identified has been completed:
Outreach Workshops – As part of the Livability Project, MPO staff and staff from Charlottesville, Albemarle
County and the University of Virginia have conducted two workshops to seek input from the public on
transportation needs.
Candidate Project List – After the workshop series, MPO staff worked with its committees to develop
preliminary projects lists for potential capacity improvements to be included in the LRTP. This initial list
included 13 road projects and 12 transit projects. All of these projects were modeled individually to determine
how each project would affect the 2040 transportation system. The results of the modeling analysis were taken
to the MPO committees by staff with recommendations regarding projects that should be advanced. At the May
2012 meeting the MPO Policy Board narrowed the list of candidate projects to seven road projects and eight
transit projects. Although these projects are currently under consideration, it is likely that as the process moves
forward and further information is developed about the future transportation needs of the area that the MPO
Policy Board may remove some projects from consideration and add other projects that are not currently under
consideration.
Goals and Needs – The MPO has developed a set of goals and identified critical transportation system needs
for 2040. The goals set the target for the 2040 transportation system, while the needs identify portions of all the
modal systems that fall short of the goals. Copies of the transportation system goals and needs as previously
adopted are attached.
Cost Estimates – Once the project list was narrowed MPO staff worked to develop cost estimates for the
remaining potential projects. These cost estimates were assessed over a 20-year period and included both the
initial development cost as well as 20 year cost for maintenance and operation. The costs were factored down to
cost per passenger for all road and transit projects. This factoring process allowed for comparisons between
2
road projects and transit projects and helped identify the most cost efficient approaches to meeting
transportation needs. These cost estimates were reviewed by the MPO Policy Board in September and
November 2012.
Performance Measures - Currently the MPO is in the process of finalizing performance measures that will
allow our MPO committees to assess community benefits and impacts of potential projects more qualitatively.
These performance measures will be finalized at the March 2013 meeting.
Project Scenarios - the MPO is also in the process of developing project scenarios. The purpose of the
scenarios is to demonstrate the benefits and impacts of alternative approaches to meeting long range
transportation needs. These scenarios will be made up of combinations of the projects under consideration for
inclusion in the 2040 LRTP. The scenarios that will serve as the starting point for the process will be reviewed
at the March 2013 meeting.
Analysis of Project Scenarios Using the Performance Measures – The initial scenarios will be analyzed
using the performance measures to provide data on the impacts and benefits of the scenarios. This is anticipated
to be an iterative process in which scenarios are analyzed using the performance measures and revised to move
closer to a final scenario that meets the identified transportation goals.
Input Process on Scenarios – After the analysis of the scenarios is complete and one or more final scenarios
have been identified, MPO staff will conduct outreach to the public, the Planning Commissions, the City
Council and Board of Supervisors. The intent of the input process will be to provide an opportunity to review
the scenarios and the associated performance measure data and provide input for consideration in structuring
the preferred scenario. This input process would occur during summer 2013.
Preferred Scenario – After completion of the input process on the scenarios, MPO staff will conduct a process
with the MPO Committees to identify the preferred scenario. This scenario will incorporate projects designed to
meet all future transportation needs in 2040. This process will be an iterative one that could take more than one
round of MPO committee meetings and potentially extend from July to November 2013. Once the preferred
scenario has been identified it will be adopted by MPO Policy Board.
Final Prioritized Project List – Based on the preferred scenario, MPO staff will work with staff from the
localities, the University of Virginia, the transit systems, and Virginia Department of Transportation to develop
a final prioritized project list. This list will be composed of all projects necessary to implement the preferred
scenario. The costs for all projects on the final list will be estimated. Staff will then conduct an outreach
process including a public workshop, the Planning Commissions, the City Council and Board of Supervisors.
Following the completion of the input process, MPO staff will work with the MPO committees to prioritize the
final project list. We expect that the final prioritized list will be submitted to the MPO Policy Board for
approval at the March 2014 meeting.
Fiscal-Constraint Analysis – After approval of the final prioritized project list, MPO staff will work with staff
from the local governments, VDOT and the transit agencies to conduct the fiscal impact analysis for the
prioritized project list. This analysis will identify the projects for all systems that can be built with anticipated
funding. Based on the fiscal-constraint analysis, the prioritized project list will be divided into the fiscally-
constrained project list and the vision project list. The fiscally -constrained project list is the list of the priority
projects for all modes for which funding is expected to be available between 2015 and 2040. The visio n list is
the list of priority projects for which funding is not expected to be available, but remain a priority. The vision
projects can be moved to the fiscally-constrained project list as funding resources are identified. We anticipate
the fiscally-constrained project list and the vision project list will be presented to the MPO Policy Board for
approval at the May 2014 meeting.
Final Public Input and Adoption – A final public workshop will be conducted in May/June 2014 on the
fiscally-constrained project list and the vision project list. The MPO Policy Board will hold a public hearing
and consider the updated long range transportation plan for adoption at the July 2014 meeting.
3
Return to agenda
Mobilizing for Action through Planning and
Partnerships
1.Locality CHA Councils
•Review, discuss and determine need for additional
quantitative and qualitative data
•Prioritize health issues
Charlottesville-Albemarle Fluvanna Greene Louisa Nelson
2.TJHD MAPP 2 Health Leadership Council
•Decide health questions for TJHD phone survey
•Complete Community Health Improvement Plan for
TJHD
• 1-2 reps per CHA locality council
• District-wide agencies serving TJHD
• Local government
• Schools
•Colleges
• Community agencies
•Healthcare organizations
•Non-profits
Source: Thomas Jefferson Health District
MAPP 2 Health 2011-12
M2H Organizational Partners
2012
Source: TJHD
Albemarle County Creciendo Juntos/United
Way Greene County Sheriff Martha Jefferson
Hospital (MJH) Smart Beginnings
Albemarle County Schools Downtown Family Health
Care
Greene County Transit
and Early Education MJH - Medical Group Stanardsville United
Methodist Church
ASG & CMHWC Emmanuel Christian Center JABA NCAE of ACE State VICAP Counselor
Blue Ridge Medical Center
(BRMC)
Family & Consumer
Sciences VA Cooperative
Extension Service
JABA-Nelson Center
Nelson County
Department of Social
Services
Thomas Jefferson Health
District
BRMC/Rural Health Outreach
Program (RHOP)
Fluvanna County
Administrator JAUNT Nelson County Health
Department United Way
Charlottesville City Schools Fluvanna County Health
Department. Jefferson Area CHIP Nelson County Schools University of Virginia (UVA)
Charlottesville Free Clinic Fluvanna County Public
Schools Adult Education
Library Literary Board of
Nelson County OK Collaborative UVA Curry School of
Education
Charlottesville Department of
Social Services Fluvanna County Schools Louisa County Board of
Supervisors
Piedmont Housing
Alliance
UVA Department of Public
Health Sciences
Children, Youth and Family
Services
Fluvanna Department of
Social Services Louisa County CSA Piedmont Virginia
Community College UVA Emergency Department
City of Charlottesville Greene Care Clinic
Louisa County
Department of Human
Services
Region Ten UVA School of Nursing
Commission on Children and
Families
Greene County
Administrator
Louisa County
Department. of Social
Services
Regional Literacy
Council
Virginia Cooperative
Extension
Community Action on Obesity Greene County Board of
Supervisors Louisa County Fire & EMS Ride Share Virginia Department of
Health
Community Dental Center Greene County Department
of Social Services
Louisa Health and
Wellness SARA
Community Mental Health and
Wellness Coalition
Greene County Health
Department MACAA Skyline CAP, Inc.
Data Driven
Community Health
Priorities
Goal 1
Decrease the
percentage of
persons who are
overweight or obese
in TJHD
by promoting school
and corporate
wellness programs
and
by engaging
residents in a Move
to Health campaign. Community Action on Obesity
Obesity Trends Among U.S. Adults
1985
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14%
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14%
Obesity Trends Among U.S. Adults
1990
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19%
Obesity Trends Among U.S. Adults
1995
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person)
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% ≥20%
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person)
Obesity Trends Among U.S. Adults
2000
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
Obesity Trends Among U.S. Adults
2005
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person)
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person)
Obesity Trends Among U.S. Adults
2010
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Percentage of Adults Who Are Obese
Albemarle and Charlottesville, 2009
Albemarle County
27.1%
Charlottesville
26.9%
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Diabetes Surveillance System
**Body mass was derived from self -report of height and weight from adults 20 and Over.
*Obese = Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person
Physical Inactivity
TJHD by Locality and Virginia, 2009
Source: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; County Health Rankings *Numbers are self-reported
19%
26%
22%
24%
30%
25% 24%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Albemarle Charlottesville Fluvanna Greene Louisa Nelson Virginia Estimated percent of adults aged 20 and over reporting no leisure time physical activity
Source: Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Self-Reported Adults with Diabetes
TJHD and Virginia, 2000-2010
3.9%
8.7%
6.1%
7.8%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
2000-2002 2001-2003 2002-2004 2003-2005 2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010
TJHD Virginia Percent of Total Adults Aged 20 and Over Living in Locality
1.Weight and Obesity (36.1%)
Which public health concern is the most
important for Albemarle County to give more
attention to?
www.tjhd.org