Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-09January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 9, 2002, beginning at 4:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella Washington Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by the County Executive, Mr. Tucker, who welcomed Cub Scout Pack 114, Den 8, from Meriwether Lewis Elementary School who were present to led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Note: David Bowerman, Dennis Rooker and Sally Thomas, were elected/reelected to the Board of Supervisors on November 6, 2002, and were sworn in as members of this Board on December 13, 2001, which was acknowledged by certification received from Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Election of Chairman. Mr. Tucker asked for nominations for Chairman of the Board of Supervisor for Calendar Year 2002. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to reappoint Ms. Sally Thomas as Chairman of the Board. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman. Ms. Thomas asked for a motion for vice-chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Calendar Year 2002. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to appoint Mr. Dorrier as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. Certificate of Appreciation: James B. Murray, Jr. Ms. Thomas invited Mr. John Lowry forward to speak. Mr. Lowry said the County has had the good fortune to have a resident like Jim Murray serve as a member of the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) for more than 20 years, most of those years as its Chairman. In Mr. Murrays = corporate life, he has found it necessary to make a change. He is now leaving the IDA. He is not leaving as a volunteer for community services because he knows Mr. Murray has accepted a volunteer position at William & Mary. Mr. Thomas McQueeney, Chairman of the IDA, read a letter to Mr. Murray from the members of the IDA expressing their appreciation for his leadership and the guidance he has provided to the IDA for the past 21 years. Mr. Murrays presence will be sorely missed. = Ms. Thomas said that in recognition of Mr. Murrays dedicated service, she would like to present = him with a certificate of appreciation from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Murray thanked the Board saying it has been a pleasure to serve in this capacity. He said the IDA has consistently been comprised of a wonderful group of people. The meetings and the duties have not been onerous. In a way he was disappointed that some changes in State law made it necessary for him to step aside. He said it has been a wonderful thing to do, and he hopes his service has been of value to the County. He thanks everyone who has been associated with the IDA over the past 20 years. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. Appointment of Clerk and Senior Deputy Clerk. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to reappoint Ella Washington Carey as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors for the Calendar Year 2002, and to reappoint Laurel W. Bentley, as Senior Deputy Clerk to January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) the Board of Supervisors for the Calendar Year 2002. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 2002. Mr. Martin offered motion to set the regular meetings of the Board for the Calendar Year 2002 as the first Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m., and the second and third Wednesdays of the month at 7:00 p.m., with all meetings to be held in the County Office Building. Also, the Board's meeting which would have been held on December 18, 2002, is canceled. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. Rules of Procedure, Adoption of. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to readopt the Boards Rules of = Procedures as per the copy forwarded with the Boards materials for this meeting. = The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. (Note: The Rules of Procedure, as adopted, are set out in full below.) RULES OF PROCEDURE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS A. Officers 1. Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chairman who, if present, shall preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the year for which elected. In addition to being presiding officer, the Chairman shall be the head official for all the Board's official functions and for ceremonial purposes. He shall have a vote but no veto. (Virginia Code Sections 15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423) 2. Vice-Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a Vice-Chairman, who, if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and shall discharge the duties of the Chairman during his absence or disability. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422) 3. Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year terms; but either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422) 4. Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice Chairman are absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chairman. B. Clerk and Deputy Clerks The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy Clerks who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk shall be those set forth in Virginia Code Section 15.2-1539 and such additional duties set forth in resolutions of the Board as adopted from time to time. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) C. Meetings 1. Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January held after the newly elected members of the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting held in January of each succeeding year, shall be known as the annual meeting. At such annual meeting, the Board shall establish the days, times, and places for regular meetings of the Board for that year. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) 2. Regular Meetings. The Board shall meet in regular session on such day or days as has been established at the annual meeting. The Board may subsequently establish different days, times, or places for such regular meetings by passing a resolution January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) to that effect in accord with Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416. If any day established as a regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, the meeting scheduled for that day shall be held on the next regular business day without action of any kind by the Board. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman is unable to act) finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Board members to attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be continued to the next regular meeting date. Such finding shall be communicated to the members of the Board and to the press as promptly as possible. All hearings and other matters previously advertised shall be conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement shall be required. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjourned from day to day or from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting, until the business of the Board is complete. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) 3. Special Meetings. The Board may hold special meetings as it deems necessary at such times and places, as it deems convenient. A special meeting may be adjourned from time to time as the Board finds necessary and convenient. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1417) A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested by two or more members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to the Clerk of the Board and shall specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. Upon receipt of such call or request, the Clerk, after consultation with the Chairman, shall immediately notify each member of the Board, the County Executive, and the County Attorney. The notice shall be in writing and delivered to the person or to his place of residence or business. The notice shall state the time and place of the meeting and shall specify the matters to be considered. No matter not specified in the notice shall be considered at such meeting unless all members are present. The notice may be waived if all members are present at the special meeting or if all members sign a waiver for the notice. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1418) The Clerk shall notify the general news media of the time and place of such special meeting and the matters to be considered. D. Order of Business The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in consultation with the Chairman. The first two items on the agenda for each regular meeting of the Board shall be the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment for silent meditation. The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not on the agenda shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, no more than three persons will be allowed to speak during the time set aside on the agenda for "For the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda". Each person shall be permitted no more than five minutes to provide comments. Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the agenda for public hearing on the advertised date unless the applicant submits a signed written deferral request to the Clerk of the Board no later than noon on Wednesday of the week prior to the scheduled public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be granted administratively by the Clerk. The Board will be notified of the deferral in the next Board package and the deferral will be announced at the earliest possible Board meeting to alert the public of the deferral. Any request received later than the Wednesday deadline and any subsequent request for a deferral for the same application previously deferred will be granted only at the discretion of the Board by a majority vote. The deferral shall not be granted unless the Board determines that the reason for the deferral justifies the likely inconvenience to the public caused by the deferral. The staff will make every effort to alert the public when a deferral is granted. E. Quorum A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the Board. If during a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains present, no action can be taken except to adjourn the meeting. If prior to adjournment the quorum is again established, the meeting shall continue. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1415) A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established for any regular or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning such meeting from day to day or from time to time, but not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting. January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) F. Voting Procedures 1. Approval by Motion. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall be made by approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a motion properly made by a member and seconded by another member. Any motion that is not seconded shall not be further considered. The vote on the motion shall be by a voice vote. The Clerk shall record the name of each member voting and how he voted on the motion. If any member abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state his abstention. The abstention will be announced by the Chairman and recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall defeat the motion voted upon. (Article VII, Section 7, Virginia Constitution) 2. Special Voting Requirements. A recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all elected members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or resolution (1) appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2) imposing taxes; or (3) authorizing the borrowing of money. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1428) 3. Public Hearings. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board requiring a public hearing until the public hearing has been held. The Board may, however, at its discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public hearing or consideration of such matter. The procedures for receiving comment from the applicant and the public for public hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, the applicant shall be permitted no more than ten minutes to present its application. Following the applicant's presentation, any member of the public shall be permitted no more than three minutes to present public comment. Speakers are limited to one appearance at any public hearing. Following the public comments, the applicant shall be permitted no more than five minutes for a rebuttal presentation. 4. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, properly seconded, shall be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is taken on the original motion unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members making and seconding the original motion. If the motion to amend is approved, the amended motion is then before the Board for its consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original motion is again before the Board for its consideration. 5. Previous Question. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member moving the "previous question". Upon a proper second, the Chairman shall call for a vote on the motion of the previous question. If approved by a majority of those voting, the Chairman shall immediately call for a vote on the original motion under consideration. A motion of the previous question shall not be subject to debate and shall take precedence over any other matter. 6. Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Board may be reconsidered if a motion to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjourned meeting held on the same day at which the matter was decided. The motion to reconsider may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the matter for discussion in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon. 7. Motion to Rescind. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions, and ordinances, (these exceptions shall only be subject to reconsideration as provided above) may be rescinded by a majority vote of all elected members of the Board. The motion to rescind may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to rescind, if approved, is to nullify the previous decision of the Board. Zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions and ordinances may be rescinded or repealed only upon meeting all the legal requirements necessary for taking action on such matters as if it were a new matter before the Board for consideration. G. Amendment of Rules of Procedure These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the next regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given. H. Suspension of Rules of Procedure These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the Board members present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before the Board. Provided, however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the Board to act in violation of a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution of Virginia, or any other applicable law. January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) I. Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedures shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. (Adopted 2-15-73; Amended and/or Readopted 9-5-74, 9-18-75; 2-19-76; 1-3-77; 1-4-78; 1-3-79; 1-2-80; 1-7-81; 1-6-82; 1-5-83; 1-3-84; 1-2-85; 1-3-86; 1-7-87; 1-6-88; 1-4-89; 1-2-90; 1-2-91; 1-2-92; 1-6-93; 1-5-94; 1-4-95; 1-3-96; 1-2-97; 1-7-98; 1-6-99; 1-5-2000; 1-3-2001; 1-9-2002) _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Liz Palmore was present to represent the Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters. She said that before reading the Leagues statement, she needs to make an important clarification about = League statements in general. She said it is the Leagues policy that an elected official who is a League = member will not participate in the development of League statements which are to be delivered to the body on which that official serves. Ms. Palmore said at the Board of Supervisors Workshop on Water Alternatives on September 5, 2001, the Water Resources staff recommended the creation of a new regional body to develop Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) for the County, City, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority. Staff noted in its memo dated August 31, 2001, that an IRP is a comprehensive planning approach that brings water supply, environmental resource protection, water conservation and other issues into one discussion. The League and others submitted statements in support of this concept. This Board seemed very receptive but since then has taken no action. The League suggests that the Board enlist the support of the City, RWSA and ACSA, form a committee, and put funding for the IRP in the Countys budget. It is time to move forward and start the new year with this important initiative. = Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Tucker if there are any plans to move this along. Mr. Tucker said the Countys Director of Engineering & Public Works has started working on this idea. He will probably bring = something to the Board within the next 60 to 90 days. _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve Items 11.1 through 11.4 on the Consent Agenda, making a change in Item 11.4 so No. 2 reads: Approve purchase of the top four properties, including A Henley, and to accept the remaining items as information. @ The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. __________ Item 11.1. Set public hearing for February 6, 2002, on an ordinance establishing abatement of levies on buildings razed, destroyed or damaged by fortuitous happenings. It was noted in the staffs report that Virginia State Code Section 58.1-3222 enables a locality to = provide, by ordinance, for the abatement of levies on buildings which are (i) razed or (ii) destroyed or damaged by a fortuitous happening beyond the control of the owner. County Code Section 15-1001 provides for the assessment of all new buildings substantially completed or fit for use and occupancy prior to November 1 in the year of completion. The assessment is prorated based on the portion of the year the building is substantially completed or fit for occupancy. Currently, there is no County ordinance providing for the abatement of levies on buildings that have been razed, or destroyed or damaged after January 1 of each year. To promote taxation equity, the ability to abate levies as provided in Virginia Code Section 58.1-3222, should be enacted effective for the 2002 tax year. The financial impact to the County is deemed minimal. The County Attorney's office has drafted an ordinance based on the enabling State legislation. Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing on the draft ordinance for February 6, 2002. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set a public hearing on February 6, 2002, on An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 15, Taxation, Article X, Real Estate - In General, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to add Sec. 15-1003, Abatement of levies on buildings razed, destroyed or damaged by fortuitous happenings. __________ Item 11.2. Appropriations: $1000.00 (Form #2001-045); $507,312.00 (Form #2001-047); $600.00 (Form #2001-048). It was noted in the staffs report that the Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that the County =' amend its current budget only if the additional appropriated amounts exceed one percent of the original budget or $500,000, whichever is lesser. The following appropriations consist of two expenditure transfers and an expenditure and off-setting revenue reduction, and do not require a budget amendment. Appropriation #2001-045. At its December 12, 2001, meeting, the Board approved the transfer of $1000.00 from its Contingency Fund to the Industrial Development Authority for the TransDominion January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) Express Steering Committee. Appropriation #2001-047. Enrollment on September 30, 2001, was 231 students fewer than projected for the FY 01-02 budget. Due to the large difference between the actual number of > students that are attending school and the number that were projected, a correction should be made to reduce both expenses and revenues associated with these students. Appropriation #2001-048. At its meeting on December 5, 2001, the Board approved the transfer of $600.00 from its Contingency Fund to the Creative Communications Association for the Midnight Ramble Festival. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations as detailed. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolutions of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01 NUMBER: 2001-045 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for the Industrial Development Authority EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $-0- REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $-0- TRANSFERS 1 1000 89000 566225 Industrial Development Authority $1,000.00 1 1000 95000 999990 Board Contingency ($1,000.00) _____ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-047 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Reduction in School Budget Due to Decrease in Enrollment EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2100 61101 112100 Salaries-teacher $(393,961.00) 1 2100 61101 211000 FICA (30,138.00) 1 2100 61101 222100 VRS (42,824.00) 1 2100 61101 231000 Health Ins (35,833.00) 1 2100 61101 232000 Dental Ins. (1,404.00) 1 2100 61101 241000 VRS-group Life 3,152.00) TOTAL $(507,312.00) REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2000 24000 190104 VRS-INST $(8,062.00) 2 2000 24000 190106 FICA-Inst (14,574.00) 2 2000 24000 190108 Life Ins-Inst (620.00) 2 2000 24000 240201 State Sales Tax (83,955.00) 2 2000 24000 240202 Basic School Aid (314,343.00) 2 2000 24000 240504 Lottery Funds (16,313.00) 2 2000 24000 240206 Textbooks (5,180.00) 2 2000 24000 240272 Salary Supplement (7,527.00) 2 2000 24000 240208 Gifted/Talented (3,044.00) 2 2000 24000 240209 Sp Ed (40,762.00) 2 2000 24000 240213 Voc Ed (4,990.00) 2 2000 24000 240220 Remedial Ed (3,975.00) 2 2000 24000 240247 At-Risk Ed (1,852.00) 2 2000 24000 240248 Maintenance Reserve (1,269.00) 2 2000 24000 240603 SOL Materials (846.00) TOTAL $(507,312.00) _____ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-048 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for Creative Communications Associates January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $-0- REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $-0- TRANSFERS 1 1000 79000 566235 Creative Communication Associates $600.00 1 1000 95000 999990 Board Contingency ($600.00) __________ Item 11.3. Old Keswick Farm Road Name Change. It was noted in the staffs report that pursuant to Part I, Section 6(e) of the Albemarle County Road = Naming and Property Numbering Manual, road name change requests may be forwarded to the Board for approval. A request to change the name of Old Keswick Farm to Old Keswick has been received from the landowner. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. Staff requests that the Board approve the new road name as requested and grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the referenced change. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of changing the name of Old Keswick Road to Old Keswick, and authorized the staff to coordinate/implement this change. __________ Item 11.4. Final ACE Property Appraisals for Year 2000-01. It was noted in the staffs report that on April 4, 2001, the Board formally approved the ACE = Committee's recommendation to appraise the top five or six ranked properties from the inaugural pool of applicants. These properties were appraised in the fall of 2001. However, the methodology and level of documentation to support the appraisal figures did not initially meet approval of the Appraisal Review Committee (ARC). The ARC has the power and duties to: 1) Review appraisals and make recommendations thereon to the Board of Supervisors, and; 2) Determine the adjusted appraised values and make recommenda-tions thereon to the Board. The ARC, after several weeks of deliberations between it and the independent appraiser, recently approved the appraised values for the top five ranked properties from the initial applicant pool. These include, in order of ranking, Young, Powell, Lawson, Henley and McCaskill. Since the ACE budget for purchasing easements in the first year (FY 2000-01 which was carried over to FY 2001-02) is limited to $1.0 million, the County can only purchase the top three properties and 51 percent of the fourth property - Henley. Purchase of the fifth appraised property (McCaskill) is not possible with the first year's funding. Since the County can fund the majority of the Henley easement and this particular property is the most threatened by development, the ARC and ACE Committee recommend that the Board utilize some of the second year's funding (FY 2001-02) to pay any balance above and beyond the first year's budget of $1.0 million. This would require an additional $136,200. If the appraised values for the second pool of applicants are as projected, less than $1.0 million would be spent to purchase the top six easements in the second year, thus lessening the impact of borrowing from the second year's budget to help fund Henley. Utilizing the two years of funding as proposed will also ensure purchase of the highest scoring properties submitted in the first two years of the program. It is recommended that the Board: 1) Approve the final appraisals on properties appraised from the year 2000-01 applicant pool, and 2) Approve purchase of the top four properties, including Henley, which will require $136,200 from the second year's funding in the FY 2001-02 budget. (Ms. Thomas said she would prefer keeping the 2001 appropriation to that program intact. Mr. Tucker said there are adequate funds in the Board's Contingency Fund to cover the additional funding needed for the FY 2000-01 ACE program. If the Board approves the consent agenda today, staff will present the correct appropriation form for approval at next months meeting. = Mr. Martin said the Board would actually be putting in an additional amount in the first year of the program. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Bowerman asked if that will require an amendment to the budget. Mr. Tucker said it will only require approval of an appropriation. Mr. Rooker asked if this item is off of the consent agenda. Mr. Tucker said no because the Board A@ is actually approving the appraisals and formattings which have been proposed for the four properties outlined in the staffs report. = Ms. Thomas suggested amending recommendation No. 2 by putting a period after the word Henley and deleting the remainder of that sentence.) A@ By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the final appraisals on properties appraised from the FY 2000-01 applicant pool for the ACE Program; approved purchase of January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) easements on the top four properties (Young, Powell, Lawson, Henley); and, supported transfer of $136,200 from the Boards Contingency Account to fund purchase of the Henley property. == __________ Item 11.5. Charlottesville VDOT Residency Monthly Report, January 2002, was received for information. __________ Item 11.6. Copy of notice from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality dated December 10, 2001, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0051365, Charlottesville Oil Company, Inc. This is for existing industrial discharge resulting from the collection of minor spills and stormwater from the loading rack of the petroleum bulk station. The receiving stream is Morey Creek. This proposed permit action is tentative and consists of limiting the following parameter: TPH 30 mg/L average. This notice was received as information. __________ Item 11.7. Copy of letter dated November 30, 2001, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels under Section 10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, letter addressed to Brian S. Ray, Roger W. Ray and Assoc., Inc. - Tax Map 121, Parcel 70 (property of Floyd E. Johnson Estate). Letter was received as information. __________ Item 11.8. Copy of Thomas Jefferson Venture Heritage Tourism Project Summary Report dated , as prepared for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission by the Institute for July 2001 Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia, was received as information. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12a. Transportation Matters. Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, was present. He said he has enjoyed working with this Board over the last year. He is looking forward to the next year. Their priority continues to be in the area of snow removal. They had a good after-action review after the first snow event. They determined that they could probably do a better job if it did not snow during rush hour. He said these meetings have been productive, and he thinks their performance will get better and better. He said they hired a new planner, Mr. Matt Grimes, who did some intern work with the department a couple of years ago. They are still looking for an assistant resident engineer for maintenance. He offered to answer questions. __________ Mr. Perkins asked for an update on the Advance Mills Bridge. Mr. Bryan said the bridge was repaired just a couple of months ago. They inspect it routinely now. During an inspection, they noticed some cracks so closed down the bridge for about a week. The classification of the bridge has been lowered from 6 to 3. The bridge will be painted this summer, and VDOT will add new stringers and new decking. __________ Mr. Perkins asked for an update on Buck Mountain Road. Mr. Bryan said he will get back with Mr. Perkins. __________ Mr. Perkins asked when the public hearing on the Six-Year Road Plan will be held. Mr. Tucker said it is scheduled for January 16. __________ Mr. Dorrier asked if VDOT could extend the reflectors in the middle of Route 20 from Monticello High School all the way to Scottsville. He said that is a heavily traveled road, and those reflectors in the center add a lot to safety. When it is raining and dark, it is difficult to see the centerline on the road. The reflectors in the middle of the road give a driver a bearing they would not otherwise have. Ms. Thomas agreed, saying that when she was going door-to-door in that area, a constituent mentioned that when it is raining it is very hard to see the centerline on that road. Mr. Bryan said he will look into the request. __________ Ms. Thomas said she heard that the alignment for Meadow Creek Parkway has been approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. That is good news. __________ Referring to VDOT's Monthly Report, Ms. Thomas noted a reference to Redfields where it states: Traffic controls at the intersection with Sunset Avenue Extended has been submitted to the District Traffic A Section for review. She asked what this means. Mr. Bryan said the road was resurfaced and restriped in @ the summer of 2001. He thinks the stop sign was installed on a different corner. It looks fine to him, but if Redfields grows more, it may change the priority of the road. His office is looking into it. There was some confusion until drivers got used to it. Mr. Bryan said this is a new entry in his monthly report, traffic engineering issues which require a lot of the departments time. He is trying to collate information better. = This is information they send to Culpeper each month. _______________ January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) Agenda Item No. 13. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 7, Health and Safety, of the Albemarle County Code by amending Article II, Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties, to correct and update references to the revised Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 23 and December 30, 2001.) Mr. Tucker said that at the Boards meeting on December 5, 2001, it approved minor changes to = the Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual to incorporate efficiencies for administration. The Board set a public hearing for today to incorporate section numbering changes approved for the Manual. In Section 7-204 (c) of the County Code, it was proposed that "... has been allowed under Part III, Section 3 (c) of the Manual...." be changed to read: "... has been allowed under Part III, Section 2 (d) of the Manual...." This change corrects a misidentification in the ordinance as to the pertinent section of the Manual. It also will reflect the renumbering of this section in the revised Manual. Staff recommends rewording of the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance as proposed. With no questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. There was no one from the public who wished to speak, so the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin to adopt an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 7, Health and Safety, Article II, Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 7-204.C, Responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 02-7(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, HEALTH AND SAFETY, ARTICLE II, NAMING OF ROADS AND NUMBERING OF PROPERTIES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 7, Health and Safety, Article II, Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended as follows: By Amending: Sec. 7-204 Responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs. Sec. 7-204 Responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs. The responsibility for placing and maintaining road signs required by this article shall be as follows: A. The county engineer shall be responsible for placing signs at each intersection and at other locations deemed necessary by the agent on: 1. Each public street or private road which serves or is designed to serve three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures which is not approved as a part of a subdivision or site plan; 2. Each road funded by the county or the Virginia Department of Transportation; and 3. Each existing road serving more than two (2) parcels but not more than two (2) addressable structures, but only at such time when the road serves three (3) addressable structures; provided that if a subdivision or site plan is approved which would be served by the road, then the subdivider or developer shall be responsible for such placement, as provided in paragraph (B)(1). B. The subdivider or developer shall be responsible for placing signs at each intersection and at other locations deemed necessary by the agent on: 1. Each road approved as part of a subdivision plat or site plan; 2. Each existing road in an existing subdivision or development which is bonded for future acceptance into the secondary system of state highways; and 3. Each existing road for which the placement of signs becomes the responsibility of the subdivider or developer, as provided in paragraph (A)(3). C. The subdivider or developer shall maintain signs it is required to place until such January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) time as the roads are taken into the secondary system of state highways, or are taken over for maintenance by the homeowners as required pursuant to a private road maintenance agreement. Thereafter, the signs shall be maintained by the county except where a special installation has been allowed under part III, section 2(d) of the manual developed and adopted pursuant to section 7-202. ( 16.01-1, 16.01-5, 7-8-92; 10-13-93; Code 1988, 16.01-1, 16.01-5; Ord. 98-A(1), '''' 8-5-98; Ord. 02-7(1), 1-9-02) State law reference--Va. Code 15.2-2019. ' _______________ Agenda Item No. 14. Public hearing on proposed FY 2002 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 30, 2001.) Mr. Roger Hildebeidel said Code of Virginia 15.2-2507 stipulates that the County must amend its ' current budget if additional appropriated amounts exceed one percent of the original budget or $500,000.00, whichever is the lesser. This proposed FY 02 Budget amendment totals $1,299,211.10. The > chart below breaks out the estimated amendment of the expenses and revenues in the funds. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES General Fund $ 59,284.00 School Fund 27,175.29 Education Programs/Projects 781,501.81 Emergency Communications Center 198,500.00 Capital Improvement Fund 220,000.00 Debt Service Fund 12,750.00 Total Estimated Expenditures - All Funds $1,299,211.10 ESTIMATED REVENUES Local Revenues $ 29,772.60 State Revenues 532,454.81 Federal Revenues 137,603.49 Fund Balances 599,380.20 Total Estimated Revenues - All Funds $1,299,211.10 This budget amendment consists of 13 appropriations. The Board approved Appropriations #2001- 032, #2001-034 and #2001-035 on December 5 and Appropriation #2001-044 on December 12. These appropriations are included in this budget amendment as required by statute. The remaining nine appropriations will need approval subsequent to the public hearing. Staff requests approval of the FY 02 > Budget amendment in the amount of $1,299,211.10 and approval of Appropriations #2001-036, #2001- 038, #2001-039, #2001-040, #2001-041, #2001-042, #2001-043, #2001-044 and #2001-049. Appropriation #2001-036, $2271.00. This is a Department of Environmental Quality grant for localities and cooperative programs which fulfilled their FY 2001 grant obligations and have been awarded FY 2002 Litter Prevention and Recycling grants. This grant funds litter prevention and recycling activities at the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. There is no local match. Appropriation #2001-038, $280.00. Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $280.00 from Beth and Michael Samples to be used for the gifted program at the school. Appropriation #2001-039, $2000.00. Traffic activity continues to increase in the County. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles recognizes this problem and has funded grants using Federal pass- through moneys to increase traffic enforcement through selective enforcement assignments employing officers working overtime. The grant period extends from October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2002. There is no local match. Appropriation #2001-040, $10,000.00. The existing SMART sign is more than seven years old. It has been vandalized several times and only works for a day or so before the batteries go dead. It needs to be taken in for service. The operations for this program are funded with a Federal grant. There is no local match. Appropriation #2001-041, $12,750.00. SunTrust Bank currently serves as the County's paying agent for its bonds issued through the Virginia Public School Authority. The County remits its debt service payments to SunTrust and they remit the funds to the bondholders. For SunTrust's services, the County incurs annual agent paying fees on each issue. The original appropriation ordinance did not include these professional service fees which relate to the services provided to the County by its bond counsel during this issue. Appropriation #2001-042, $198,500.00. During the last several months, the public safety/ emergency services radio system has experienced an increase in radio interference with outside jurisdictions which prevent field units from being able to properly transmit and receive radio communica- tions. This disruption has made it necessary to upgrade the EMS radio system at a cost of $23,500.00. This upgrade should reduce the interference and disruption of communications. Based on current cash balances and budget projections, the Emergency Communications Center has approximately $223,000.00 in unallocated funds. The ECC Manager has requested that a substantial portion of this amount ($175,000.00) be appropriated to a contingency allowing the Management Board more flexibility in dealing January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) with current needs, especially as related to acquisition of the 800 MHZ radio. Appropriation #2001-043, $659,943.70. Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $322.00 from Robert and Alicia MacWright to be used for the gifted program at the school. Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1339.88 from the Meriwether Lewis PTO to be used to pay for books for the library. Western Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $1000.00 from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation to be used to support the Fine Arts Program at the school. The Frederick S. Upton Foundation made an additional award of $1000.00 to Henley Middle School in support of Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program. This project funds three artists-in-residency programs with hands-on-learning experiences for students in performing, visual and musical arts. Stony Point Elementary School has been selected by the University of Virginia to receive funding in the amount of $21,625.00 for Project BUILD (Bridges of Understanding to Inclusive Literacy Development Program). This project will help identify patterns in thinking, communication and actions that will improve teaching and learning and identify contexts wherein these efforts can be created and sustained over time. The Individualized Student Alternative Education Program (ISAEP) provides counseling, academic and occupational services to address a growing population of students at-risk of dropping out of school. Albemarle County Schools received $24,609.00 from the State for FY 01-02. The funds will be used for > consultants, software support, printing, educational materials and equipment. The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 provides funding to local school divisions for operating substance abuse programs to students. There is a fund balance retained by the State of $5111.82 from FY 00-01. In addition, funding for FY 01-02 was increased by $2141.00 from the >> original amount of $42,195.00. These grant funds will be used to pay for professional services. The Project Return II Grant has a fund balance of $1442.26 from FY 00-01. It is requested that the > fund balance be reappropriated for FY 01-02. In addition, State funding for Project Return II increased by > $1067.00 from the original budget amount of $47,501.00. These funds will be used to pay for teacher salaries. The Alcoa Grant has a fund balance of $23,731.88 from FY 00-01. It is requested that the fund > balance be reappropriated for FY 01-02. The funds will be used to purchase instructional materials. > The Standards of Learning (SOL) Training Initiative Program received $123,150.00 from the State for FY 01-02. There is a fund balance of $131,757.86 from FY 00-01. These funds will be used to >> support the following activities: graduate level courses for staff to support the division literacy recommendations; stipends for teacher training to support professional development efforts in the SOLs; consultant services in support of SOL training efforts; and, educational materials in support of the SOL training. The Reading Excellence ACT (REA) Grant Program is focused upon training teachers at Yancey Elementary School to provide reading instruction that develops systematic phonetic decoding and comprehension skills and learning to diagnose reading problems and apply specific early reading intervention. There is a fund balance of $200,000.00 from FY 00-01. It is requested that the fund balance > be reappropriated for FY 01-02. The funds will be used to pay for salaries, staff development, educational > materials and equipment. Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement existing classes. Revenues were received in the amount of $1554.72 from Farmington Country Club and $1000.00 from students in tuition fees for English as a Second Language class. There is also a fund balance of $4716.20 from FY 00-01. The funds will be used to pay teacher salaries. > The primary goal of the English Literacy/Civics Grant is to offer a series of classes designed for adult ESOL students to study, understand and work with essential elements of the American community; and, to produce six stand-alone, multi-media presentations. There is a fund balance retained by the State of $56,683.08 from FY 00-01. It is requested that the fund balance be appropriated for FY 01-02. The >> funds will be used to pay salaries, consultants, educational materials and building rental. The Virginia Department of Education has awarded Albemarle County Public Schools a Technology Literacy Challenge Grant in the amount of $57,692.00. This award represents the fifth winning proposal submitted to the Department of Education in as many years. The project specified in this grant is a continuation of the TSIP Teams Project, which received funding in 2000. The award will allow Albemarle County teachers who participated in the TSIP Teams Project to continue the development of materials to be used in a series of one-credit graduate courses to be offered through the University of Virginia's School of Continuing and Professional Studies. Appropriation #2001-044, $8510.00. At its December 12, 2001, meeting, the Board approved January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) Human Resources' request for an additional $8510.00 to fund a new Human Resources Manager position for the remainder of FY 02. This is the General Government's share of this position cost and is funded > from the Board's Contingency Fund. Appropriation #2001-049, $220,000.00. The Circuit Court Clerk's Office recently issued an RFP for a land records management system. Cott Systems was selected to install this system at a cost of $220,000.00. This system will employ imaging technology and will deal with all areas of the Clerk's office, including recording, receipting, indexing and accessing images, both on-site and from remote locations. This system will allow the users to search indices and view the resulting images. Imaging of other documents filed with the Clerk's Office, including Uniform Commercial Code filings, wills, and marriage licenses, will also be included in this system. Records dealing with real property transactions found in the Clerk's office date back to 1748. These records are in hardbound books for the period of 1748 through December 1979 and on 16mm-roll microfilm from January, 1980 to the present day. The current indexing system allows a user to search by several key items, including grantor/grantee name. To view the actual document, the user has to access it via the hardbound book or microfilm. Several years ago, the State established a Technology Trust Fund that is funded by an additional recordation fee placed on all documents recorded in each localitys clerk's office. This fund was established to assist with the = modernization of land records in clerk's offices across the Commonwealth. Annual estimated revenues provided by filings in the Albemarle Circuit Court Clerk's Office is $54,000.00. Request for funds from the Trust Fund can only be made in August of each year. As of June 30, 2001, Albemarle's current available balance in the State Technology Trust Fund was $180,768.00. The balance of this project, $39,232.00, will be funded from the Capital Improvement Fund Balance in anticipation of receiving reimbursement from the Technology Trust Fund in August, 2002. It is currently anticipated that the on-going operating costs associated with this new imaging system will be approximately the same as the indexing system now in place. However, there may be an overlapping of the two systems during the installation period that may require an additional appropriation at a later date. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Martin said he would like mention the fact that there are continuing donations by individuals in the County to the School System, and he also thinks the appropriation for the Clerk of the Circuit Court is one that will be beneficial in the future. Ms. Thomas said she does write individual thank-you letters to the individual citizens. She was interested in having the SMART sign revamped. That sign is something a lot of citizens are interested in having come to their neighborhoods. Also, she receives lots of comments about the litter funds. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins to approve the FY 02 budget amendment in the amount of > $1,299,211.10 as advertised, and to adopt the following Resolutions of Appropriation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-036 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for Litter Prevention Grant EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1400 42020 390004 Recycling $2,271.00 TOTAL $2,271.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1400 14000 240050 Dept of Environmental Quality $2,271.00 TOTAL $2,271.00 _____ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-038 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Authorization to Expend Donated Funds EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2304 61104 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies $280.00 TOTAL $280.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $280.00 TOTAL $280.00 January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) _____ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-039 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for Operation Safe Holidays GRANT EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1535 31013 120000 Recycling $1,858.00 1 1535 31013 210000 FICA 142.00 TOTAL $2,000.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1535 33000 330011 Federal DMV Grant $2,000.00 TOTAL $2,000.00 _____ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-040 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for SMART Usage Grant EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1534 31013 800100 Equipment $10,000.00 TOTAL $10,000.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1534 33000 330011 Federal DMV Grant $10,000.00 TOTAL $10,000.00 _____ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-041 FUND: DEBT SERVICE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for Professional Services for Bond Issuance and Bond Payment Fees EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 9900 68000 310000 Prof Services $8,500.00 1 9900 68000 312810 Bond Paying Agent Fees 4,250.00 TOTAL $12,750.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9900 51000 512004 Transfer from General Fund $12,750.00 TOTAL $12,750.00 TRANSFERS 1 1000 93010 930011 Transfer to Debt Service $12,750.00 1 1000 95000 999990 Budget Contingency ($12,750.00) _____ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-042 FUND: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for Upgrade to EMS Radio System and Allocation to Contingency Per ECC Management Board Request EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 4100 31041 331601 Radio Equipment $20,755.40 1 4100 31041 520300 Telecommunications 2,744.60 1 4100 31041 999999 Contingency 175,000.00 TOTAL $198,500.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 4100 51000 510100 Fund Balance $198,500.00 _____ January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-043 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for Various School Donations, Grants and Programs EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2304 61104 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies $322.00 1 2206 61101 601200 Books/Subscriptions 1,339.88 1 2302 61411 580000 Misc Expenses 1,000.00 1 3104 60252 312500 Prof Svc Inst 1,000.00 1 3148 61311 131400 PT Wages-Other 5,770.00 160300 Stipends-Staff/Curr 7,795.69 152100 Sub-Wages-Teacher 6,405.00 210000 FICA 1,654.31 1 3142 60410 312700 Prof Svc Inst 22,327.00 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 400.00 601700 Printing 600.00 800100 Mach/Equipment 1,282.00 1 3107 60000 312700 Prof Svc Inst 7,252.82 1 3122 63349 112100 Wages-Teacher 2,330.94 210000 FICA 178.32 1 3137 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 23,731.88 1 3139 60607 152100 Sub-Wages-Teacher 35,000.00 210000 FICA 2,677.50 312500 Consultants 75,000.00 550100 Routine Mileage 10,000.00 580100 Dues/Membership 6,000.00 580500 Staff Dev 100,000.00 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 26,230.36 1 3213 61101 112100 Wages-Teacher 90,000.00 210000 FICA 6,885.00 221000 VRS 9,783.00 231000 Health Ins 6,450.00 232000 Dental Ins 240.00 241000 VRS-Group Life 720.00 312000 Other Prof Svcs 7,600.00 580000 Misc Expenses 2,000.00 580500 Staff Dev 28,000.00 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 27,322.00 800100 Mach/Equipment 21,000.00 1 3116 63348 132100 PT Wages-Other-Teacher 6,754.22 210000 FICA 516.70 1 3147 63330 111400 Salaries-Other Manag 2,823.00 132100 PT Wages-Other-Teacher 42,665.65 210000 FICA 3,479.88 540200 Lease/Rent-Buildings 6,600.00 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 1,114.55 1 3131 61311 312500 Prof Svc Inst 31,721.00 580000 Misc Expenses 22,500.00 800700 ADP Equip-Addl 3,471.00 TOTAL $659,943.70 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $2,661.88 2 3104 18000 181221 Upton Award 1,000.00 2 3148 18000 181260 Project BUILD 21,625.00 2 3142 24000 240360 ISAEP Grant 24,609.00 2 3107 24000 240233 Grant Rev-State 7,252.82 2 3122 24000 240500 Grant Rev 1,067.00 2 3122 51000 510100 Approp Fund Bal 1,442.26 2 3137 51000 510100 Approp Fund Bal 23,731.88 2 3139 24000 240354 Rev-Tuition 123,150.00 2 3139 51000 510100 Approp Fund Bal 131,757.86 2 3213 51000 510100 Approp Fund Bal 200,000.00 2 3116 16000 161206 Tuition-Adult Ed 2,554.72 2 3116 51000 510100 Approp Fund Bal 4,716.20 2 3147 33000 330113 Categ Aid-Federal 56,683.08 2 3131 24000 240312 Tech Challenge Grant 57,692.00 TOTAL $659,943.70 _____ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-044 January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding For Additional Human Resources Manager Effective Jan. 1, 2002 EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2420 62140 111400 Salaries $29,676.00 1 2420 62140 210000 FICA 2,270.00 1 2420 62140 221000 VRS 3,226.00 1 2420 62140 231000 Health Ins 1,530.00 1 2420 62140 232000 Dental Ins 60.00 1 2420 62140 241000 VRS Group Life 238.00 1 2410 60100 999981 School Board Reserve (28,490.00) TOTAL $ 8,510.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 19000 190250 Recovered Cost-Personnel Services $8,510.00 TOTAL $8,510.00 TRANSFERS 1 1000 12030 930002 Transfer for Personnel Services $8,510.00 1 1000 95000 999990 Board of Supervisors Contingency ($8,510.00) = _____ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2001-02 NUMBER: 2001-049 FUND: CIP-GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Funding for Land Records Management System for Clerk of Circuit Court EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 9010 21060 800708 Document Imaging System $220,000.00 TOTAL $220,000.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9010 24000 240800 State Technology Trust Fund $180,768.00 2 9010 51000 510100 CIP Fund Balance 39,232.00 TOTAL $220,000.00 _______________ Agenda Item No. 15. Windham Assisted Living Proposal, Discussion of. Ms. Roxanne White summarized the staffs report. She said Windham is an assisted-living facility = in Crozet, which was initially renovated by the Jordan Development Corporation. The facility is currently owned by Genesis ElderCare National Centers, Inc. which is going out of business and has offered the facility for sale. The assessed value of the building and the land is $3.9 million. Stonehaus, Inc. currently has an option to purchase the building for $850,000.00. Stonehaus Development Corporation can either purchase the building with or without residents. They have approached the County and the City and the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) in an attempt to develop a viable solution to maintain the facility for assisted-living residents. The option closes the second week of January with an anticipated closing in March. After several lengthy meetings and discussions, County and City staff, JABA and Stonehaus have agreed to bring the following plan forward to the Board of Supervisors and City Council. Stonehaus would buy the property and commit to retaining the building as an assisted-living facility for a period of ten years or at least as long as the County would want it to continue. If the assisted-living facility was not successful, Stonehaus would convert the property to rental housing for low/moderate income elderly. JABA, the community agency responsible for care and services for the elderly, has agreed to manage the facility. To make the project financially feasible, JABA will need to change the mix of residents from a majority of auxiliary bed residents to more private-pay residents, as well as reduce the number of mentally ill residents current residing at Windham. The primary reason for Genesis' closing was allowing the number of auxiliary grant residents, including a large number of mentally ill residents from outside the area, to far outweigh the private-pay residents, thereby reducing their net profit. State funding for the auxiliary beds does not fully offset the cost of care. Over the first 60 to 90 days, JABA recommends reducing the maximum capacity to 115 instead of 142 to eliminate the triple rooms, which would mean relocating 27 individuals to other facilities around the state. Albemarle and Charlottesville residents would not be affected by the capacity reduction. The facility would offer a total of 33 private rooms and 44 double rooms. January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) The County and City would continue to have 55 auxiliary beds (currently 25 City and 30 County), which would require a subsidy until the private-pay residents began to offset the costs. JABA estimates the monthly cost per person is $1200.00; the state reimbursement rate for the auxiliary beds is $815.00. JABA believes there is a market for assisted-living services at $1600.00 to $1700.00 per month and that Windham could attract private-pay citizens if the mix is changed. During a 39-month transition phase to more private- pay residents, JABA would require a subsidy from the County and the City. For Albemarle County, over that three-year period, it would require $177,617.00. That assumes the building begins to break even after year 3. An anticipated VRS refund from the closed District Home could serve as a source of one-time revenues for Windham. It is anticipated that the City will receive $256,500.00 and the County will receive $238,000.00 in VRS reimbursement funds, which are due back to the localities with no restrictions, i.e., these funds could also be used for other General Government needs. A January 10 District Home meeting has been called to discuss the final disbursement of any revenues realized from the sale of the District Home property, although it is anticipated that the localities who bore most of the management burden will recoup any net profits. The VRS reimbursement amounts have all ready been determined for the various localities and are not linked to the sale profits. Ms. White said prior to its closing, the County funded the District Home operations at an annual subsidy of from $30,000.00 to $40,000.00, which made up the difference between the actual operating costs and the state auxiliary grant. A one-time County investment of $177,617.00 to Windham nets out to a $17,600.00 annual subsidy over the 10-year period. Mr. Rooker asked what kind of services the District Home provided as compared with what is being proposed by Windham. Ms. White said they were about the same. They provided basic living with some nursing care, and some recreational opportunities. Mr. Rooker asked who operated the District Home. Mr. Tucker said it was managed by about ten localities, mainly those in the Shenandoah Valley; Charlottesville and Albemarle were the only two localities on this side of the mountain. These localities funded and managed the District Home through a board of directors. Ms. White said JABA has been clear that they would not want the money to be a loan. They do not want to enter into that type of obligation. However, if the County and the City decided they needed to recoup their initial cash investment at some point during the ten-year period, they could by mutual agreement with JABA, further reduce the number of auxiliary beds and/or raise the private-pay rate to increase the project's net cash flow. To return any excess cash flow to the localities would require reducing the auxiliary beds to 50 instead of 55 and raising the private-pay by seven percent a year. However, these numbers are highly speculative at this point without knowing the final interest rate, operating cost expenses, state auxiliary grant increases, or the market demand for affordable assisted-living, etc. If the facility does not break even after the first three years and is forced to close, Stonehaus has stated that they would commit to maintaining the facility as rental housing for low to moderate income elderly. A second alternative proposed by Stonehaus would be to convert it to condominiums or some other private venture. In that scenario, Stonehaus has stated they would return the County and City's initial investment without interest. Ms. White said this is a new direction for the County, and there is no guarantee that this will work. Staff is looking at this as a way of entering into a public/private partnership with JABA to assure assisted- living beds for indigent County residents. If this project succeeds, a $17,000.00 annual subsidy for 30 residents ($566/year) should be considered well spent and a successful investment in keeping Albemarle senior citizens in their community and out of nursing homes. This is the first time the County has done this, and it is being done with a non-profit corporation, JABA ElderCare, which is different from subsidizing an actual private venture. Staff recommends that the Board support this proposal to invest one-time County resources into maintaining Windham as an assisted-living facility in Crozet and requests approval to proceed with developing a formal agreement with Jefferson ElderCare and/or Stonehaus Development. This agreement would be subject to the satisfactory resolution of all conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors and would be brought back to the Board for final approval in February. Ms. White said that on Monday night, City Council approved moving forward with this request and set two conditions. One is to have some type of an oversight management group, and, two, if there may be some type of profit in the future, something should be put in the agreement about gainsharing for both the City and the County. She said Gordon Walker is present from JABA, along with three members of the JABA Board appointed by the County, Sandy Wilcox, Ed Jones and Gene Smith. Mr. Bowerman asked how the oversight board called for by City Council is envisioned. Ms. White said nothing has been worked out so far. The group could consist of public officials, or public staff or people from the private sector. Mr. Tucker said the make-up of the group would be a part of the agreement which has not been drafted yet. Ms. White said City Council recommended that if this proposal goes forward, some details be worked for an oversight group in the agreement. Mr. Dorrier asked the reason that Genesis Centers are going out of business. Was there a problem with Windham itself that caused this? Ms. White said the market for assisted-living facilities is not very good. The auxiliary rates paid by the State do not cover their expenses. They had too many auxiliary grant January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) residents who did not pay their way, and the State does not cover the expenses for those people. Their net profits were cut because they did not have enough private pay residents. Mr. Rooker said a lot of operators of these types of facilities around the country have gone into bankruptcy. If they think they can make this facility successful by just changing the mix, why didn't the current operator change the mix? Ms. White said Genesis is going out of business across the state. It is not just Windham that is involved. Mr. Rooker said he assumes that projections have been run on the operation, and they believe they can turn this into a successful venture. Ms. White said JABA has done the ten-year projections. They feel that after the three-year period changing the mix, the operation will break even, not necessarily make a profit. That is based on the assumption that there will be private pay patients in the facility. She said some of the atmosphere at Windham changed because of the type of residents they took in, which caused some private pay patients to go elsewhere. Ms. Thomas said if the VRS money is a reimbursement, does that mean this is money the County has paid out in some previous year? Ms. White said it is coming from the Countys subsidy of the District = Home which was paid to VRS. Ms. Thomas said this is essentially the Countys money. She thinks it is = important to figure out how this request is unique enough that it does not start the Board on a path of picking up every failing nursing facility. Ms. White said because of JABA's involvement, it is different. JABA is the Countys agency responsible for addressing the needs of the elderly in the community. This request is = different from having a private entity come to the County for a subsidy. JABA is undertaking this as part of their responsibility for caring for the elderly. Ms. Thomas asked if there will need to be a major renovation of the facility. She said that most places that have private pay clients need to make a change every ten or so years. Where does that fit into the business plan? Ms. White said JABA feels the facility needs some cosmetic work. But, the facility itself is in good shape, and there are not a lot of major structural renovations needed. Ms. Thomas said the whole success of this proposal depends on moving out a large number of patients, where will these patients find places to go? Mr. White said they will be moved to other places throughout the state. Some of those residents are responsibilities of other jurisdictions. The Countys = Department of Social Services will be involved in moving some of these people. It will not be an easy job. Mr. Martin said the important part is the alternative which is that all of these patients would have to leave. That would put much more stress on Social Services. The other important thing to remember is that for every year the facility is successful, the County gets a great deal. Even if the money is put in for three years and the place closed at the end of that time, the County would have gotten its moneys worth at = $500+ per patient. Mr. Dorrier asked how many mental facilities there are in the area which take care of mentally-ill patients on a residential basis. Ms. White asked Ms. Ralston for a number. Ms. Ralston said she does know of any. Mr. Dorrier said basically that need is not addressed in this community. Ms. White said Region Ten will tell you it is not addressed well at all. There was a facility near the University, The Towers, which also closed. Mr. Gordon Walker said that facility was also run by Genesis, which is a national corporation. They bought six or eight different facilities in Virginia during an expansion period. They overexpanded their capacities. They sold off The Towers (also called Jefferson Park) about a year ago, which required some traumatic transfers of a good number of people. Some of those people were moved to Windham, predominantly the mentally ill who were patients at The Towers. Genesis has now come out of bankruptcy, and that piece of property is on the market for sale. What makes this different is that the private pay product will be priced $500-$600 less than the current rate for assisted-living in the community. This facility will not be competing against other privately-run facilities in the community. With the combination of the auxiliary grant which applies to the very low income, and bringing into the market a more moderate income assisted-living facility, JABA feels this could be accessable to City and County retirees. These people might not be able to afford up to $2300 a month, but might be able to afford $1600 a month, which is the private pay rate. JABA thinks this can meet two community needs. They are planning to put $50,000 immediately into some beautification efforts to dress up downtown Crozet. He said Genesis recently put a new roof on the building, and the facility itself is sound, but it does need some dressing up. Ms. Thomas said the Board does not have in front of it a very specific request. Ms. White said there are two things being requested. One is to approve use of the VRS reimbursement for this project, and, for the Board to give staff its blessing to move forward and develop an agreement. Ms. Thomas said the Board members might express whether they agree with the City's two conditions. Mr. Dorrier asked if City Council recommended that a member of Council be a member of this oversight committee. Mr. Walker said they did not recommend that an elected official be a member. They just thought it was necessary to have a guardian overseeing the City's interest. He said JABA was created by the City and County who appoint members to its Board of Directors, so the City and County have had that type of oversight. He would prefer that this not be included as a condition. However, if that is wanted, he thinks it might be more appropriate to have representation from the Departments of Social Services in the City and the County and, perhaps, someone from the private sector to help with the marketing and the January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) challenges which present themselves, to make this mix work there. Ms. Thomas asked if a Board member wanted to make a motion. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to give permission for staff to move forward with the concept using the VRS refund moneys, that staff explore the two concepts proposed by the City, and, that staff make a recommendation at a later time as to whether those or any other ideas are good. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Mr. Rooker said he would not support the request if the subsidy were going to a private company. He thinks it makes a big difference that JABA is involved. He thinks Mr. Walkers comments about the = oversight committee are something to be considered in the sense that creating another layer of bureaucracy may not be helpful. The roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 16. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001, Presentation of. Mr. Ed Koonce, Chief of Financial Management, said the June, 2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report has been completed and is submitted for the Board's review. The field work and audit testing was completed by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County's external auditors. This Report was submitted to the National Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting. This award has been received by the County for the last six years, and approval is anticipated for the seventh year. Mr. Koonce said the adjusted General Fund balance of $18,956,188 reflects a decrease from June 30, 2000, of $1,543,892, resulting mainly from an 18 percent increase in transfers. This increase in transfers reflects the new carry-over policy adopted by the Board in October, 2001 that transfers year-end balances to Capital Improvement Reserves. This year-end balance is $479,000, greater than the preliminary balance reported due to Federal revenues related to Social Services that the auditors determined should be accrued in FY 2000-2001. This amount will also increase the FY 2001-2002 beginning Fund Balance as shown on the October quarterly financial report and will be reflected in future quarterly financial reports for FY 2001-2002. Ms. Thomas said that on pages 42 and 43 of the Report, there is discussion of different contingent liabilities. She asked if this is supposed to include mentions of all situations where the County is in court with someone because it does not mention the Home Depot suit. Mr. Davis said he made a full disclosure of all potential liabilities in the report, so they were considered by the auditor. Mr. Koonce said the Audit Committee meet on January 4 and discussed this Audit Report, along with past and future events. He asked if Mr. Dorrier or Mr. Perkins, members of that committee, had any comments to make at this time. Mr. Perkins said they discussed the Findings from the Auditor and the replies made by Mr. A@ Koonce, and found those to be acceptable. They also had quite a discussion about the impending changes in financial reporting, known as GAS-B34. The committee made some comments and recommendations about how to proceed with that. They talked about software and a number of other things which might be helpful. Mr. Dorrier said what the committee was trying to do was to reconcile the School Systems method = of financial management with the Albemarle County Board's system so there is a uniform and easily understood analysis of both sets of figures, and that they both mesh. Now there is a tendency to not understand both sets of books. Mr. Melvin Breeden told the Committee that the County is looking at a system of software that will do the job of meshing both systems and making it more easily understood. It will actually save money in the long run and provide a better product. Mr. Koonce said County staff is looking for a new financial management system and not just an accounting system. It will encompass a lot of other areas. Mr. Dorrier said the Committee wants to make sure that all of the customers the County has, are at the table. They want to be sure the software is going to work for all parties. Mr. Koonce said a lot of work has to be done up-front before looking at any system. Ms. Thomas said she was interested in the charges for long distance telephone calls. That struck her as something that could be more expensive to fix than the problem itself was. Mr. Rooker asked if it was a recommendation of the auditor to install employee identification. Mr. Koonce said the County has attempted to do this a couple of times. The cure might cost more than the situation, but staff is still looking at that. He asked if Mr. Farmer would like to make comments. Ms. Jack Farmer said there was a very detailed meeting relative to the Financial Statements and January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 19) the issues in the Auditors letter, and at the same time looking to the future of the County and its = management system. He encouraged the Board to spend some time with the report. The County has a clean, unqualified opinion on its financial statements. If one reads the compliance sections, and government auditing standards, and single audit for Federal funds, there are no findings, there are no A@ reportings on internal control issues or compliance matters which may affect those particular funds, or the Boards handling of those funds. He said there is some good detailed statistical information in the financial = report starting with the tables which give a ten-year overview. He said as the Legislature is convening in Richmond no one knows what the future holds, so everyone needs to be aware of the events that may take place which are beyond their control. He said that on Page 99 there is Schedule 1 and Schedule 2, which are a comparative of actual performance relative to revenues and expenditures to the revised budget itself. That is based on the modified accrual basis of accounting, recording of contingent liabilities the County will incur from the current funds. With that, a good overview is made in the actual Letter of Transmittal. He said that between the Letter of Transmittal, the statistical section, and Schedules 1 and 2, the Board members will gain a feel for current year operations, as well as the historical direction of the County itself. He then offered to answer questions. Mr. Dorrier asked when the Board will get Phase II of GAS-B34. Mr. Farmer said they are in the process of working on that right now. There is a meeting tomorrow with Mr. Breeden and his staff. They have not set up a time line, but part of that discussion is to take the current year financials and recast them under the new statements. Hopefully, there will be a presentation of this ready by spring. At this point, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to accept the June, 2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 17. Recess into Meeting Room 235. At 5:00 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened in Room 235. _______________ Agenda Item No. 18. Closed Session: Personnel Matters. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions, and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding a legal matter requiring the advice of legal counsel regarding the Ivy Landfill, and a legal matter requiring the advice of legal counsel regarding pending litigation relating to a highway project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 20. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:05 p.m. in the Lane Auditorium. _______________ Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Closed Session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open = meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 22. SP-2001-032. Robert Finley (Devon Mobile Telecommunications) (Signs #58, 59 & 60). Public hearing on a request to allow 85.5' high wireless telecommunications "wood-like" pole in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 73 P 31C, contains 39.5 acs. Loc on E sd of Rt 708 approx .5 mls N of the intersec of Rt 708 & Rt 637. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 23 and December 30, 2001.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report. He said this is a request which initially went to the Planning Commission in October, 2001 for this facility on Route 708. At that first hearing, the applicant requested a deferral in order to research the possibility of other locations on the subject parcel, and to January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) conduct balloon tests for the Commissions benefits. He said there had been concern expressed by the = Commission about the visibility of this particular tower from several locations. After considering the possibility of an alternative location, the applicant decided all of the alternative possibilities had previously been exhausted and conducted a repeat balloon test at the original site. Mr. Cilimberg said this is in an area where there are three approved monopoles on an adjacent parcel. The view of this particular site from Route 708 is clear and unobstructed as one crosses the I-64 bridge traveling south. It is also clear from properties on the north side of I-64 which have their access onto Route 708. The three towers approved on the adjacent parcel are visible from Route 708 as well. The new grove of trees that are required by the ARBs condition may someday obscure the view of the facility from I- = 64 and other properties. However, the immediate result of approving this application will be another very visible monopole in this particular area. While this petition does have an ARB approval for a certificate of appropriateness, and is not visible from the south on Route 708, staff and a majority of the Planning Commission felt it was highly visible from the Route 708 bridge and properties on the north side of I-64 and the top of the pole is slightly visible from the east. Staff did not believe any landscaping would camouflage this facility from Route 708 in the near, or mid-term, future. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended denial. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 11, 2001, by a vote of 5:1 recommended denial of SP-2001-032 noting that approval of this proposal would be inconsistent with the goals set forth in the Wireless Communications Policy as the facility is highly visible from Route 708. An approval of this monopole at the proposed height would not be related to the height of trees within 25 feet. Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board of Supervisors concurs, then staff would request consensus direction regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Boards consideration and ultimate action. In the event the Board chooses to = approve the special permit, conditions of approval have been provided. However, Condition No. 6 would need to include the new language being used regarding surety which is not indicated in this version of the conditions, but which would be part of the Boards normal conditions. He offered to answer questions. = With no questions for staff at this time, Ms. Thomas asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Greg Tulley said he is Director of Site Acquisition for Shenandoah Tower Services located at 5 E. Main Street in Salem, Virginia. Also present with him are Mr. John McKay, legal counsel for Devon Mobile Communications, as well as several other members of Shenandoah Tower Services, a General Dynamics Corporation, and Devon Mobile Communications which is a subsidiary of Adelphia Cable. He said they have been charged with implementing Phase I of Devons build-out in Southwest Virginia. He said = Devon Mobile seeks to provide digital wireless service to Charlottesville and Albemarle County areas. The proposal tonight is for an 85-foot, six-inch treetop tower installation on property owned by Mr. Robert B. Finley. He said the proposal falls under the definition of a treetop facility as defined by the Albemarle County Design Manual due to the fact that the structure type is a wood pole, and the height of the pole is 784.2 feet ASL which is just less than ten feet taller than the tallest tree in close proximity to it. Mr. Tulley said he will limit his comments this evening to two primary areas of importance in reference to the long history of the development of this site. The first point is that of need. Devon Mobile, in keeping with their philosophy to make use of existing structures is co-locating on 92 percent of all sites under development in their Virginia build-out. To cover I-64, which is the coverage objective of this site, Devon is co-locating upon a 160-foot structure several miles to the east owned by Alltel. They have constructed a 58-foot wood pole several miles to the west located at Afton Mountain and Nelson County. This creates a significant gap in coverage along I-64 which this proposal should fill. Mr. Tulley said his second point has to do with visibility which he thinks is the most important concern of the Board. To that end, they tried to follow the guidelines of the Design Manual in developing this site. There have been seven different balloon tests, multiple meetings with staff, approval from the ARB, and two public hearings before the Planning Commission. They tried to distill the essence of the Countys fairly widespread dissatisfaction with this site. This evening, he asks that Devon Mobiles proposal == be evaluated according to the same criteria as the three existing treetop poles on the adjoining Weber property. He said their proposed site will be visible from the bridge over Route 708. However, according to the staffs report, the most recently-approved tower for SunCom on the adjacent parcel will be visible from = Route 708. It is noted in that report that the immediate result of approving this application will be the A proliferation of monopoles in one area, all slightly visible, or very visible from a variety of locations, therefore, creating an undesirable level of visibility throughout. Mr. Tulley said he could not find any @ reference in the Design Manual to the fact that three poles is an acceptable level of visibility, whereas four is unacceptable. He referenced Page 10 of the Design Manual which clearly shows five wooden poles in one area as a positive result. Mr. Rooker asked if the poles shown in the Manual are skylined. Mr. Tulley said they are all wooden pole structures like the one proposed. Mr. Rooker said there is a hill behind the poles in the figure. Mr. Tulley said Devon wishes to compete with Alltel, nTelos and Triton in covering a similar area. To the east there is a 160-foot tower with four tenants, (Triton, Alltel, nTelos and Devon). Slightly to the west, these same four service providers each need a single user treetop pole as is the requirement of the Design Manual. Three of them have their poles. Devon just wants to compete fairly with the others. He then introduced Mr. John McKay. January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. McKay, an attorney, was present to represent Devon Mobile. He has spoken to some of the Board members previously, and wished to respond to some questions which had been raised. One question was whether there is an alternative site. He has spoken with his client and apparently this site was selected in several meetings with County staff as being the best site inthis area where the other poles are being built to link up with the towers on the Camp Holiday Trails tower. In response to Mr. Rookers = comment, there was a decision to put the pole in this location because there would be a mountain behind it and it would blend in well during several seasons. After the denial at the Planning Commission, his client asked if there was a place in this lot where the pole could be placed so the request could obtain approval. The answer was no. Apparently, staff does not feel there is an alternative site. The applicant has done A@ everything staff asked. They have done everything Mr. Tulley mentioned that is in the Design Manual. The screening is there at the base. They will plant approximately 70 trees. The pole will be located where staff suggested. They did seven balloon test. Mr. McKay said he knows Ms. Thomas is concerned about visibility. He went out to the site yesterday and there are two homes north of the Route 708 bridge that could potentially be in the line-of- sight for this tower. If towers are in the line-of-site for this tower, they are also for the other three towers. The one house that is most in line is actually oriented ninety degrees away from the towers. The other home is actually down a dip, so would probably not be able to see anything over the other home. Beyond that, in the Peacock Hill area, the road curves and the tress would substantially block any view of these poles. For a brief instant as one comes down from Peacock Hill, all of the poles which are all ready there can be seen. One can also see the interstate highway. There is a slight departure from the bucolic atmosphere as one crosses the bridge on Route 708. From Route 708, the trunks of the towers which have been approved are very visible. This pole will be farther back into the woods, so there is a difference between seeing the thick trunks of the poles which are there, versus seeing a thin one farther away, which would be very similar to the one Mr. Tulley pointed out in the Design Manual. Mr. McKay said the County has obviously made a decision to go from the big ugly tower where co- location can take place, to individual poles. However, there is a price to pay since you cannot have co- location on the little poles and there must be more of them to do the same job as the big ugly towers. He asked the Board to consider that while there are several competing companies in this field, there need to be several poles located in the same areas because they all need to get the same coverage in order to compete in the same market. That is consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which says that all players should have a level playing field, and that local governments should not discriminate against applicants seeking the same functional service. He said there are four tenants of the Alltel tower, three of which have come down to link up with the monopoles, and the fourth is now unfortunately being told that since there are three, a fourth would be unsightly. He is asking that Devon be given fair and equal consideration. Mr. Rooker said the prior speaker mentioned that this is the only site available on this lot. He asked if the company has looked for other sites not on this particular lot in the area. Mr. Tulley said due to the sensitive nature of doing telecommunications business in Albemarle County, from his conversations with his staff and his colleagues, he understands that at the beginning of this process, they told County staff they needed to service this area, and asked where they should locate. They were directed to this spot by County staff. He said this process has been going on for several months and is not necessarily a spot that the applicant picked. Ms. Thomas asked for an answer to Mr. Rookers question. Did the applicant look at other sites on = this particular piece of property? Mr. Rooker said he asked if they had looked on other parcels. Mr. Tulley said they did not. With no further questions for the applicant, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Ms. Thomas said this site is located in her district. She has been influenced by the photographs. She was not invited to see the balloon tests. The impact of this tower is quite different than the page in the Design Manual because these poles are skylighted. She mentioned to Mr. McKay on the telephone that the Board actually does a service to the industry by promising landowners and neighbors that it will not easily allow areas to become tower farms; approving one tower does not mean that it will automatically approve all requests for poles. In her judgement this pole is too visible and does not fit the Countys criterion for = poles. She knows that different carriers can share panels, although it is not a popular idea because it does not give the carrier brownie points with the FCC so it can prove what the carriers actual network coverage A@= is. She thinks that is a technical thing and where there are all ready three poles with panels, it does not preclude a fourth company from being able to get their signals taken care of in a particular area. She said the various points in the staffs report about the visibility of this pole, and the changing of the character of the = area are important facets of what the Board should be considering. Mr. Bowerman said Albemarle Countys cellular policy is way ahead of that of states he recently = passed through. The towers are almost invisible in this county. They are monstrosities all along I-95, I-64, but when you reach Albemarle County, with the one exception of the tower just over the border which the Board approved three years ago before it knew anything, you can't find the cellular towers unless you are looking for them. In looking at a picture of the three existing towers, and the balloon tests, and having seen it from Route 708, the tower would be visible. The ARB looked at the proposal and the other three poles have been located according to the Boards policy. He knows the County policy precludes actual co- = location in many cases because so many of them are so low. In the beginning the Board was told the carriers wanted tall towers because they could get a wide range of coverage. As they got that filled in and got their capacity up, they would have to fill in with smaller towers. The County is actually forcing carriers to January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 22) fill in with small towers to begin with. It is clear the policy is working. What he sees is not a large difference in the tree that exists versus the one that will appear compared to the monstrosities that are all over the United States. This application, compared to other applications the Board has had, does not seem to be that much out of line. The only thing that is out of line are the three towers in close proximity, plus it is very visible from Route 708 and a couple of houses, but so are the other towers. Mr. Rooker said he feels there is one distinction between this tower and the other three. The surrounding trees, with respect to the other towers, are much denser, close to those towers, and they satisfy the requirement of not being more than seven feet over the tops of the trees within a 25-foot radius. There is no significant tree within 25-feet of this proposed tower. He thinks that when this request came to the Planning Commission there was one tree about 50 feet away that had some height, but the applicant proposed planting a number of trees closer to the tower that would grow quickly. They said that within 20 years the trees would be within 20 feet of the top of the tower. That is a significant difference between saying this tower on its own is a visibility problem, than saying there would be four towers close together. Mr. Rooker said he had voted against the third tower on the other property for the same reason. When you start putting a group of towers close together the visibility problem is significantly magnified. Mr. Bowerman said his point is that unless you know the towers are there, you dont see them. The = seven-feet is not an issue. Mr. Rooker said if a condition is added that the tower cannot be seven feet taller than the nearest tree within 25 feet, they will not be able to use the site because it is not even close to meeting that criteria. If it is lowered to meet the criteria, according to the applicant, it is not usable. Mr. Bowerman said there is a three-foot difference in elevation. Mr. Rooker said the staff report notes that the tallest tree is more than 50 feet away and it is only 68.48 feet tall. The differential is about 15 feet, not ten feet. The tower is 14.56 feet and 18.77 feet above the tallest tree. Even if the trees which are more than 50 feet away were counted, the tower would have to be lowered by eight to ten feet to meet the criteria. The applicant indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that doing this would make the tower not useful. Mr. Bowerman said he can see that the other three towers are at a higher mean level above sea level if this has any relevance to actual heights. He is just throwing out the issue for discussion. Mr. Perkins said there are good places in the County for towers and there are other places in the County which do not suit that purpose. He said the Board has to expect that there will be clusters of small towers. He does not know about the competitive nature of this business, and what the Boards responsibility = is in giving one company a tower site, and not the next. He does not think this will be the first time the Board has to deal with this issue. In many cases, the really ugly thing about towers is the equipment at their base, and not the tower itself. He does not see this one as being much more intrusive than an electric light pole. Mr. Dorrier said the applicant had said staff recommended this site. Mr. Tulley said staff directed them to this location in their initial conversation. Mr. Dorrier asked how that happened. Mr. Cilimberg said staff may have directed them to this site area, but not this specific site location. Normally, staff is not parcel specific when talking to people about site locations. Mr. Dorrier said if staff directed then to this area, it does not mean staff recommended this height of tower. The height of the tower was determined by the applicant. Mr. Tulley said the height of the tower was derived from the Countys Design Manual which says it should be ten feet taller than the tallest tree. He = said there is a significant elevation difference on the site. Looking at the applicants plans, the tallest tree, = ground elevation wise, is exactly ten feet lower than the top of their tower. Mr. Dorrier asked why they picked this particular site. Mr. Tulley said the specific site on the parcel was chosen because of the slope of the land. They were trying to get it away from I-64 keeping as close to the grove of trees as possible, and making sure it was construct able. The had the seven different balloon tests on the site and eventually settled on this site, with staffs input. Staff may not have recommended this = site, but they were certainly involved in picking this site. Ms. Thomas said the height of the pole is described accurately on Page 4 of the staffs report. She = is not going to support this request, but it is before the Board for action. Mr. Rooker said he would offer motion to deny SP-2001-032. Ms. Thomas said if the Board is going to deny the permit request, it must give staff a consensus of reasons for the denial, so they can draft the proper written report. She asked that the motion say it is the consensus of the Board that the permit be denied when staff comes back with a written report. Mr. Davis suggested that the motion be to defer SP-2001-032 and ask staff to prepare a written record based on the reasons identified in the staff report and the materials before the Planning Commission and at this hearing today. Mr. Rooker said he will adjust his motion to incorporate what Mr. Davis said. January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 23) Ms. Thomas said without a second, the motion is dead. Mr. Dorrier said he is concerned because the staffs report says that the towers are 14 feet and 18 = feet above the tallest trees, but the policy recommends that the towers be no more than seven to ten feet above the tallest trees. He asked if that means that if a tower is within seven to ten feet above the tallest trees it is legally acceptable. Mr. Davis said not necessarily. That is a policy guideline. The Board needs to look at every case on an individual basis and determine whether or not the particular situation is consistent with land use policies in general. That is a legislative decision made by the Board; the Board is not bound by the policy, but the policy guides the Boards decisions. = Mr. Dorrier asked if the visibility of the pole is at seven to ten feet above the tallest tree, because of the visibility from the road, would be inconsistent with the policy. Mr. Davis said the policy speaks to visibility and that is an important component of the policy. In general, it has been found from a policy standpoint, that a seven to ten foot visibility over the trees in certain situations is an acceptable visual impact. But, there are other factors which affect the visual impact. Mr. Cilimberg said an important thing to remember is that this is not a tower which is in a wooded area. It is not in a grove of trees. The trees are scattered and the heights are in scattered locations, so the relationship of the tower to the heights of the trees at the top elevation above sea level is different depending on where one views the site from. Mr. Martin asked if there was a balloon test done in a wooded area. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant indicated that they had done balloon tests early in the process, but he was not present at these tests so he does not know where the balloons were flown. The test he saw was from this particular location, and the test was conducted after the first Commission hearing. Mr. Martin asked if there was a site in a wooded area that they were directed away from after the tests. Mr. Tulley said he was not present for all of the tests. He understands they basically asked staff where to fly the balloon, and staff chose the areas. The more wooded areas they are talking about may be on the Weber parcel which adjoins this site, and they chose not to go on that site because there are three poles on that site and it is closer to I-64. Mr. Martin asked if the applicant checked with any other landowners. Mr. Tulley said no. They A@ did not pick the Weber site because there are all ready three poles on that site. Mr. Martin asked if that was due to technical reasons or because of the Countys Design Manual. Mr. Tulley said it had more to do with = the Design Manual. Mr. Dorrier asked how close this new tower would be to the three towers. Mr. Tulley said he was not sure of the distance. Mr. Bowerman asked what the applicants propagation study at the elevation of seven to ten feet, = indicated. Mr. Tulley said due to the difference in ground elevation, they would, in effect, be lower than the trees behind the towers. Mr. Bowerman asked if that is the trees on the Weber property. Mr. Tulley said no, in the other direction. A@ Mr. Martin said he has some concerns with just denying the application because of what Mr. Bowerman is saying. He has said this before. The Board started out with these monsters. There are two A@ on his side of the County, and he had argued strongly in opposition to one of them. Part of his argument was because there were all ready several radio towers in place, so the addition was too much. He was overruled. He said the County has worked hard to get the companies coming into Albemarle to lower heights, and for the most part, they have been cooperative. The Board knows there is going to be a lot of competition, and there will probably be another carrier coming into the County which will be led by technicalities to this general area. The question is, what does the Board do? Does the County go back to those monstrosities spread further apart which allow for co-location, or does it keep with the poles which can barely be seen, but increase the number of those? He does not know the answer to that question. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board should stick with the visibility guidelines. She thinks that is the only way to get companies to share panels. It was the only way the County got the idea for treetop towers. They responded to the Boards guidelines and the marketplace, and came up with that pole = design. She thinks the Board shapes things by holding to its policy, which is that visual impact is very important. She finds it important to stick to that policy instead of multiplying poles, particularly in an area where the new pole is completely sky-lined with very few trees around it. She believes the market has adjusted to the Boards policy and will continue to do so. = Mr. Dorrier asked how it was possible to put the other three poles in the same area. Ms. Thomas said it is because Camp Holiday Trails has a very tall pole that was approved over eight years ago. On that pole, a lot of co-location has taken place. Since the providers have to be essentially in sight distance of each panel, this curve of I-64 is a place where they all need to have the next set of panels in order to get the needed signal coverage. It is very easy for them to get the next panel over close to Afton where there are a lot of good slopes with trees behind them. Mr. Dorrier asked if this would be a different situation if they were co-locating. Mr. Bowerman said than cannot co-locate because the policy requires that the towers be shorter. This is one of the consequences of the tower policy. Because the towers which will be approved are benign when compared to other types of towers, it has forced certain spots to be very important. Maybe these people could locate on the Weber property, and then there would be a complaint about the density on one property. The Board January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 24) has created the problem it is dealing with through its adopted policy. Mr. Rooker said this tower does not meet the policy guidelines. Generally, towers have not been approved which are visible from public areas, or located in fields where there are no trees around them. There are many parcels around this one which have groves of trees where a tower could be located, and the typical guidelines set by the Board could be met. In this case, it is a different situation because there are no trees close to this tower. It would be in a field by itself. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Rooker had stated earlier that he voted against the third tower on the adjoining property because of the density, and that tower was to be located in the trees. Mr. Rooker said those three towers are very close together. He thinks that a proliferation of towers creates a bad visibility situation. In this case, this tower would not be bunched up with those towers. But, the tower, by itself, A@ does not meet the criteria which has been set for towers. It is not in a grove of trees, but in a field by itself. There is no tree of any significant height within 50 feet. In a prior report the applicant talked about planting trees which within 20 or 30 years would be within 20 feet of the top of the tower. By itself, it would not meet the criteria which this Board and the Planning Commission has typically applied. Mr. Bowerman said there is another application on the agenda tonight, and if the Board chooses to approve that application, one of the conditions is the planting of trees to diminish visibility of the structure. He is in a Catch 22" situation. A Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is time for a motion of some sort. Mr. Dorrier said the Planning Commission is against the application 5:1. Staff is against it. The Architectural Review Board is in favor. Mr. Rooker said he talked to Marcia Joseph about this several times, and the ARB does not think it is their job to determine if the use is appropriate, they do make recommendations for conditions in the event an application is approved. They have the power to recommend denial, but they dont view that as their = charge, and consequently, they do not make such recommendations. Mr. Dorrier said his dilemma is that there are all ready three towers there. Somehow staff was involved in the balloon testing. It appears that the applicant thought there was some reason the County might go along with where he wanted to put the tower. He thinks the height could be reduced, and even though it is not the best site, it is competitive with other towers and some sense of fairness has to exist. He wonders if the Board could send the petition back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration rather than having a flat denial. Mr. Bowerman said he would not know where to send the applicant since they are the ones who selected the site. They would have to pick another site which would meet their requirements. Mr. Rooker said the idea given by the applicant that the staff picked the site was never mentioned at the Planning Commission meetings. This is the first time he heard of this. He thinks staff, in order to help them with visibility, moved them around on the site to find different places to fly a balloon to find the least visible place on this parcel. Staff ultimately recommended against approving the tower. Basically indicating this particular parcel was not a good place to site a tower. The reason is, there are no groves of trees on this property which would meet the typical requirement of having a grove of trees around the tower to conceal it. Mr. Martin said it appears there is no second for Mr. Rookers motion. There is no one who has = come forth to make a second motion, so if there is no motion that is seconded, he assumes the issue dies. Mr. Davis said there must be definite action taken by the Board on this petition within a reasonable amount of time. Ms. Thomas said the Board must either take a vote on the petition, or defer the petition to another date. Mr. Dorrier said he would recommend that the petition be deferred to see if there can be a compromise reached. Mr. Davis said there are several options if the Board wishes to defer the petition. The Board can defer it to give the applicant more time to work with staff, the Board could refer the petition back to the Planning Commission and ask them to look at the issues again, or the Board could defer it until such date that the Board is ready to deal with the petition. Generally, the Board has a reasonable amount of time, up to 12 months, to decide an application after it has been filed. Unless there is some additional information the Board really wants to see, it is a matter which should be disposed of in due course. Mr. Tucker said when the Board defers an application, it needs to give some guidance to the applicant as to what it wants to see when the application comes back on the agenda. Mr. Martin said if no one is going to make a motion to approve this application, then he will move that the Board defer the application with the idea in mind that the applicant go back and work with staff to find a place that is more reasonable. It sounds like reasonable means near trees, but reasonable does A@ not mean that it has to be on this or the Weber parcel, but somewhere in the area. He thinks that staff, this Board and the Planning Commission have to realize that what Mr. Bowerman said is true. In the future the Board will be asked to approve others. The Board needs to wake up and smell the roses and realize that A@ January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 25) you cant have your cake and eat it too. A=@ Mr. Bowerman said if there were a motion to deny this application and the motion was approved, the County would prevail. He thinks one can argue that the site is inappropriate. Having said that, he is still perplexed by the issue that has been created here tonight. He does not know how to answer that. He is not an engineer, and does not know about co-location, or anything about two different signals coming off of the same panel. He knows there must be someone who is willing to let that be done. His concern is more with how far the Board wants to go with this compared to how far it has all ready gone. How fair does the Board want to be in terms of something which has been reduced from a large unsightly tower with four co- locators? He also has some questions about equity issues. Mr. Martin said he has agreed with Mr. Bowerman verbally in the past. He thinks what the County has now is much better than what was occurring before the policy was adopted. To him, if the Board has to deal with dilemmas and work with compromise, he would rather do it with the smaller towers that can barely be seen. He said Ms. Thomas is the one having to deal with the people in this district, but if the tower is visible, if it is an eyesore, if it is a terrible site, people would be present tonight saying so. He trusts Ms. Thomas to make that call, but since the motion was not seconded, he thinks the Board needs to look at from a bigger perspective. He would rather err on the side of having too many of the small poles. Mr. Dorrier said there were no public comments about this request tonight. This indicates that this may be an application on which the Board can come to a compromise. Ms. Thomas said she would like for the Board to come to some consensus which would be of help to the applicant. Since no one is willing to make the motion to accept the application, it means that everyone is somewhat uncomfortable. Mr. Bowerman said he would offer a motion that the application be approved with the conditions set out by staff in the staff report, but to change Condition No. 6 as stated by Mr. Cilimberg earlier. He said he would also have seconded Mr. Rookers motion just to get it on the table for discussion. He thinks a = motion should not die for lack of a second, even though he just did that. Ms. Thomas said she was going to suggest that people are uncomfortable with aspects of this request, but also want to be fair to the applicant and hope the applicant can come up with a slightly better proposal. There is a motion on the floor now to approve the application with the conditions outlined by staff, and also with the change in Condition No. 6 which expands it to talk about the possibility in the future of bonding if the Board decides to go that way. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Ms. Thomas said the Board has discussed this application for an hour, so she will ask that the Clerk call the roll on the motion to approve. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. As shown on the construction plans, the top of the monopole shall not exceed a total height of 85'6", nor shall it exceed a top elevation of 784.49 feet, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole; 2. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. Guy wires shall not be permitted; b. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; c. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan (on file) entitled "Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP, dated October 17, 2001; @ d. A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1)-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole; January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 26) e. Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the permittee shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation Above Sea Level (ASL); f. The pole shall be no taller than the height described in the attached plan (on file) entitled "Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP, dated October @ 17, 2001, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit; g. The diameter of the pole shall not exceed twenty six (26) inches at its base, and twelve (12) inches at the top; and h. The pole, antennas and ground equipment shall be painted a flat, dark brown color; 3. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached plan (on file) entitled "Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP," dated October 17, 2001; 4. Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. The number of antennas shall be limited to three (3), at the sizes shown on the attached plan (on file) entitled "Devon Mobile Telecommunications, LP," dated October 17, 2001; b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the outside edge of the antennas project out from the face of the pole more than twelve (12) inches. The antennas shall be painted to match the color of the monopole; 5. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installations associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the lease area, or the vehicular or utility access. The applicant shall obtain a tree conservation easement from the adjoining property owner, for that portion of the two hundred (200)-foot buffer that is within their property. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200)-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; 6. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney; 7. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider; 8. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; 9. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply; 10. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; 11. The permittee shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans; 12. The size of the proposed "grove trees", required by the Architectural Review Board, shall January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 27) be increased to a mixture of 2 1/2" and 3 1/2" caliper; 13. The information included in the submittal materials, shall be clarified as follows: a. Sheet SU-1 shows the proposed pole at a base elevation of between 700' and 701'. Given the 85'6" height of the pole, the top elevation would be between 785'6" and 786'6". Sheet A-5 identifies the top elevation of the pole as 784.49' which places the base elevation of the pole at 698.99'; and b. The grading shown appears to extend approximately fifteen (15) feet beyond the south side of the lease area. When comparing this to the tree survey, sheet SU-2, it appears that either the roots of tree six (6) will be severely damaged or the tree totally removed. Please note if the tree is to be removed, or if it will be protected, the manner in which they will protect it. Also, tree nine (9) is located on the adjacent property and cannot be included in our restrictions unless there is an agreement with that property owner; and 14. The applicant shall obtain an easement, acceptable to the County Attorney, prohibiting development on the part of the abutting lot sharing the common lot line that is within the wireless facility's fall zone. _______________ Agenda Item No. 23. SP-2001-036. Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements (Sign #63). Public hearing on a request to allow fill in the floodplain in accord w/Sec 30.3.5.2.2 (3) of the Zoning Ord. Znd R-1. The property is Darden Towe Park. TM 78, P 1. Property contains 12.1 acs & is loc on Elk Drive (Rt 1421). Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 23 and December 30, 2001.) __________ Agenda Item No. 24. SP-2001-044. Darden Towe Park Phase III Improvements (Signs #62 & 64). Public hearing on a request to allow for boat launch in accord w/Sec 30.3.5.2.1(2) of the Zoning Ord. The property is Darden Towe Park. TM 78, P 1. Znd R-1. Property contains 12.1 acs & is loc on Elk Drive (Rt 1421). Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 23 and December 30, 2001.) Mr. Cilimberg said there are requests for two permits. SP-2001-036 is for a canoe launch in the flood plain of the Rivanna River, and SP-2001-044 is for fill in the flood plain. He said the canoe launch will be handicapped accessible. The greenway plan in the Comprehensive Plan calls for a Class A standard trail in this location. The proposed pedestrian and bike trail will meet these standards and objectives. Fill is required to permit a smooth transition between Free Bridge Lane and the rest of the trail. He said the environmental impacts to the flood plain are minimal. A mitigation plan has not yet been approved for the impacts to the stream buffer, but that will need to be done with approval of the special permits. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of both special use permits, each with a single condition. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 11, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of both special use permits, SP-2001-036 subject to a condition reading: A stream buffer A mitigation plan must be approved and bonded with the Albemarle County Engineering Department prior to the beginning of any construction or grading. and SP-2001-044 subject to a condition reading: The fill in @A the flood plain shall be in general accord with the plan produced by Land Planning and Design Associates, Inc., entitled Darden Towe Park, Phase III Development (sheets L-1, L-2, L-2A and L-3), dated July 31, >= 2001, and last revised on November 8, 2001. @ With no questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Ms. Thomas said she wanted to be sure there is no Federal funding involved in what is being planned since there is still the possibility of a road going vaguely in this area if there is ever an Eastern Connector built. Mr. Cilimberg said part of this project is being funding from an enhancement grant approved by the State about four years ago for development of the trail. He is not absolutely sure, but he thinks the trail development is part of an ISTEA enhancement grant. Mr. Martin said he thinks that is correct. Ms. Thomas said that is not a basis for a land use decision, but she would ask that staff investigate that further and make sure it is not something that will be regretted later. She thinks this area may be one to have a connector road from Rio Road at some time in the future. Mr. Cilimberg brought everyones attention to an illustration posted on the wall showing where the projects will take place. = Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to preclude the last passageway through that property. This is a land use decision, and so is location of roads. He wondered if it would be appropriate to defer these petitions to give staff an opportunity to look at possible alignments and see if this will create a future impact on those alignments. January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 28) Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board made decisions a couple of years ago about the path that would include some ISTEA money. Ms. Thomas said when Darden Towe was first formed, those involved were very careful to not use any Federal Funds to purchase the part of the property closest to Route 250 East to make sure they could at some point hold it open for a transportation corridor. Mr. Tucker said staff can answer the question regarding Federal funding quickly. But, if the Board is looking for some type of schematic alignment, that would take longer. Mr. Cilimberg said the trail runs on the south half of the river front, which basically goes from Elk Drive northward to where the canoe launch would be in the flood plain, and then over into the Park. It is not in the northern half of the park property which is the more likely location for any road that would be going over to Route 20 from Rio Road. Staff can confirm that and bring a report to the Board if that is important. Mr. Martin suggested deferring these petitions, let the staff confirm that, and put these on a consent agenda later. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to defer both SP-2001-036 and SP-2001-044 so that staff can review the effect of this approval on the parkway system and on a future road alignment and put these applications on a consent agenda when that information is ready. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ________________ Agenda Item No. 25. ZMA-2001-013. C. F. Hall, Land Trust (Signs #75 & 76). Public hearing on a request to rezone .503 acs from R-2 to R-10 to allow the division of one Parcel into 3 individual Ps. The property currently contains 3 dwelling units. The property is currently in the name of a trust & the trustees are requesting to divide the property into three separate properties each with a dwelling. The current R-2 zoning does not allow the subdivision. TM 56A1-1 P 37. Loc on McComb St at intersec of McComb St & Blue Ridge Ave. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density, recommended for 3-6 du/ac in the Crozet Community.) White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 23 and December 30, 2001.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report. He said the request is to rezone a little over one-quarter of an acre of land in Crozet from R-2 to R-10. The parcel currently contains two houses. It cannot be subdivided under its existing zoning category. It is in an area of residential uses, primarily low-density. It is a nonconforming parcel at this time. There are three owners of the land involved in the trust, and they want to subdivide the property and dissolve the trust. They also have loans for improvements to the houses which are contingent on the houses being on separate parcels. The applicant has made this request, and also proffered that uses which would be allowed under R-10 would not be in excess of those uses allowed under the R-2 district they currently have. Staff has the signed proffers in hand. With no questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. Ms. Kathryn Bentley, the applicant, said she was present to answer questions. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker to approve ZMA-2001-012, subject to the proffers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. (Note: The proffers are set out in full below.) PROFFER FORM Date: 12-14-01 ZMA # 2001-013 Tax Map and Parcel Number: 56A1-1-0-37 .2777 Acres to be rezoned from R-2 to R-10 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 29) conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. The purpose of the rezoning of Tax Map 56A1 Parcel 01-37 is to allow existing development to be conforming to the Zoning Ordinance in effect on January 9, 2002. 1. By-right use of area zoned R-10 shall be limited to the uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 14.2.1 of Section 14.2, R-2 Residential zoning district, as those regulations exist on January, 9, 2002, a copy of which is attached (on file) hereto. 2. Special use of the area zoned R-10 shall be limited to uses permitted by special use permit pursuant to section 14.2.2, R-2 Residential zoning district, as those regulations exist on January 9, 2002, a copy of which is attached (on file) hereto. Forbes R. Reback, Trustee Forbes R. Reback 12-14-01 Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date George M. Coles, Jr. Trustee George M. Coles, Jr. 12-17-01 Signature of Attorney-In-Fact Printed Name Date _______________ Agenda Item No. 26. SP-2001-048. Regional Public Safety Radio Project (Peters Mtn) (Signs #77 & 78). Public hearing on a request to allow 110' tall lattice, self-supporting, emergency com tower w/antennas extending up to approx 125', ground equip & a 12'x32' equip shelter, on 2 acs. Znd RA. TM 50,P 1D. Loc on Peters Mountain Rd approx 4.5 mls from intersec w/Turkey Sag Rd (Rt 640). Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from December 12, 2002, and notice of this public hearing was readvertised in the Daily Progress on December 23 and December 30, 2002.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Board members are familiar with this request so he will not give an extensive staff report. He said the Planning Commission spent a lot of time discussing this project at a work session, a public meeting, and at a deferred meeting where they tried to address with the applicant and public the concerns regarding visibility in this particular location which is within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. The culmination of that effort was ultimately a recommendation for approval that included 11 conditions. Several of those were additional conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, in addition to those recommended by staff. In recommending approval by a 6:1 vote of the Commission, the applicant was asked to provide information to the staff prior to the Boards meeting tonight addressing certain issues = the Commission felt needed addressing. That request was included in the action letter sent to the applicant dated December 27. Mr. Cilimberg said he will not discuss the particulars of the conditions, or how the directives of the Commission were addressed by the applicant. There is a letter dated January 7 from Mr. Sandridge, which talks about the particulars of the Commissions action. Staff looked at the conditions recommended by the = Commission and now recommends alterations in a couple of those conditions. Also, there are requests from the applicant for changes in other conditions. He then handed to the Board members a copy of the conditions recommended by the Commission with some suggested changes in language to address the process without changing the intent of the Commissions action. = Mr. Cilimberg said in Condition No. 1, staff suggests that the words Advisory Council on Historic A Preservation be deleted from the first sentence so it would read: Findings by the Virginia Department of @A Historic Resources shall be submitted to the County before this special use permit is exercised. The @ Department of Historic Resources is undertaking a 106 review as part of this process. Staff thinks the best opportunity to make an analysis and seek methods of mitigating effects from the ECC will be when the findings from the Department of Historic Resources are received. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has requested removal of Condition No. 9 (The applicant shall A make all reasonable efforts to obtain approval from AT&T to implement strategies to reduce the visibility of the current AT&T site on Peters Mountain.) regarding the AT&T facility. He said the Board will need to @ consider their request tonight. Mr. Cilimberg said staff tried to further clarify what Condition No. 10 would require. Language was added so the recommended conditions reads: A tree planting plan containing native species, which could A include white pine, short leaf southern pine, and others, shall be developed within the 200-foot buffer adequate to provide screening of the ground equipment and base of tower and, through maturity of the plantings, ultimately provide screening of the tower. The planting plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the ACE Coordinator Director of Planning & Community Development. He said that at this time, the ACE Coordinator is only a part-time position. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant, in correspondence addressed to the Board under date of January 7, states that they are willing to lower the pole height if there is a corresponding increase in the height of the whip antennas. In Condition No. 3 the applicant said they are willing to allow the top of the pole to be lowered to 105 feet above ground level, or 1799 feet tall as measured Above Sea Level (ASL). In Condition No. 4, they want to have the whip antennae extend no more than 20 feet above the top of the pole. That gives a lowering of the monopoles bulk of height, but this would provide for longer whip antennas. At the top of the whip antennas, the height would be the same. He then offered to answer questions. With no questions for staff at this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. She explained to those present the Boards rules for conducting a hearing. She asked for a presentation of this request by = January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 30) Emergency Communications Center (ECC) staff. Mr. Wayne Campagna said he is the Projects Coordinator for the Emergency Communications Center. He said Mr. Jim Morgan with RCC Consultants, employed by the ECC as part of this project, is also present. He said they will modify their presentation somewhat. Regarding Condition No. 4 having the antenna extend 20 feet above the tower rather than 15 feet, the antenna is currently a 20-foot length antenna so it would not be lengthened, but would have been mounted at 105 feet anyway. With the tower height being lowered five feet, the antenna sticks 20 feet above the height of the tower instead of 15 feet. Mr. Campagana said the ECCs radio objectives are the replacement of the currently inadequate = communication system. They want to implement a new system that meets industry wide public safety radio standards and engineering practices. In this process, they have been considerate of local concerns. They want to maximize radio coverage, but do so by minimizing the number of tower locations, minimize tower heights, and minimize costs under the budget guidelines they have been given for the project. He said the system design was developed and it was presented to the Board last spring, and here again tonight. The sixth site is the Peters Mountain site which is the best site for the design. It provides the best overall coverage from a single location. It provides the best location for redundancy in the system overall. It provides the best signal emission to help mitigate potential interference from commercial mobile radio services. It also provides multiple signal projectories and range for improved in-building coverage. It also proves to be the least costly alternative for the last site, and it has been shown to be the best technical design alternative by not only the ECCs consultant, but by other consultants who reviewed this project, as = well as Motorola, the ECCs radio vendor. He asked Mr. Morgan to give some brief illustrations to explain = why the Peters Mountain site is so significant to the system. Mr. Morgan said he would show a new illustration that simplifies the importance of Peters Mountain. He said this is a simplified illustration (using an overhead projector) of the range and projectory of the signal being emitted from Peters Mountain. It does not represent a ubiquitous coverage area within that circle because there are holes in that circle. However, the circle was drawn from the coverage maps the Board has seen in the past on this site. It represents the primary signal strength and its reach from Peters Mountain. He noted an illustration of the light building coverage provided by Peters Mountain. That is the coverage provided to a residential type of structure, a home. That home definition covers a lot of buildings, but it is a very light structure. It is referenced as a 10dB level of signal. The southwestern projectory from that site extends far beyond the City of Charlottesville shown in the middle of the screen. Piney Mountain was the alternative, and the relative signal strength and projectory from that location did not have the same penetration in the City at that same level of signal. The additional Whitlock site, which was also part of the alternative, shows that it covers the hole in the northeast quadrant, but does nothing to cover the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Morgan said the illustration shows Peters Mountain at a higher intensity level signal providing coverage to heavier buildings like office buildings, high-rise buildings, apartments and certain portions of malls. The level of signal being illustrated extends into the City of Charlottesville, does not cover it entirely, but provides a significant level of coverage in the City. Due to time considerations, he will not show drawings the Board has seen before tonight. He will be glad to answer any questions about the new illustrations presented tonight. Mr. Campagna said having Peters Mountain as a single site versus the alternate of having the Piney Mountain/Whitlock site, is that the Piney Mountain/Whitlock site would add $1.5 million in additional costs to the project. He said the applicant was asked by the Planning Commission to go back and review a couple of issues. One was to look at a radio propagation analysis of five-foot increments to determine if the tower height could be reduced any lower than the 110 feet. Also, could the tower be reduced below 110 without creating any adverse effect on system coverage, and can the microwave antenna be lowered any more. He said that in trying to answer that question, trying to move forward with contract negotiations, and the ultimate responsibility being borne by the vendor, they have conducted a lot of analyses, but believe the answer had to come from Motorola. So they elected to forward these questions to them for an answer. Mr. Campagna said the result is that Motorola is willing to reduce the tower height to 105 feet, and maintain the performance guarantee that is so important to the ECC insuring that the current coverage, performance and reliability guarantee can be met. However, although the tower height can be reduced from 110 feet to 105 feet, the antenna heights would remain the same as far as their mounting locations on the monopole tower. Microwave dishes would still be at 85 and 95 feet. The 800 MHZ antenna would be at 75 feet and 105 feet on the tower. The other question that was posed to the ECC was whether the tower base diameter could be reduced from the 36 inches proposed. He said that Motorola reviewed that in consideration of all the specifications that are needed with such a tower. There is a need to insure that the tower can support the tower and its load of antennas, also support radio ice build-up, and be supportive in excessive winds. Motorola determined that the base of this tower cannot be reduced from the proposed diameter base of 36 inches. Mr. Campagna said he and Mr. Morgan are available to answer any questions. There are also representatives from Motorola present tonight. Mr. Tex Weaver from the Planning Department is present to answer any questions which might arise about the viewshed analysis done at the request of the Commission. Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney, is present to answer questions about the DHR106 review process that the ECC must still go through regarding this tower site. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe Flamini said he has spoken before the Board on these issues many times. He was in the communications business for 30 years and thinks his comments may have helped to form a small bit of Albemarles tower policy. He takes any tower application in Albemarle County very seriously. He also = January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 31) takes any and everything said about the issue, with a grain of salt. He said that the ECC system is necessary is not open to doubt. Making it acceptable to the taxpayers and voters is also necessary. He has no interest in the system one way or the other, so over the last few months he conducted his own study. He has come to the conclusion that there is no other way than the proposed tower. Anything else will only serve to take a well-engineered, vast system and turn it into a half-vast system. If there were any way to do this without the Peters Mountain location, he thinks he would have found it, and he did not. As a private citizen having the best interests of the County and taxpayers at heart, he encouraged the Board to approve this request. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Flamini to explain his methodology. Mr. Flamini said he took several maps, he placed a couple of transmitters at all three sites and took signal readings while driving in his truck for a period of a couple of weeks. Then he did a signal analysis just based on topo maps, the way it used to be done before there was sophisticated software available for this purpose. He came up with essentially the same conclusions that the sophisticated software and studies came to. He did it the way any radio amateur would have done it and came up with the same conclusions. Mr. Bowerman asked how Mr. Flamini simulated 115 feet. Mr. Flamini said you pick an azimuth and shoot a signal from ground level at a lower frequency that is not tree attenuated. It does not have the same water attenuation as 800 MHZ, and assumptions are made based on calculations. It is not a perfect method, but he basically came to the same conclusions. He assumed what the signal would do at 105 feet. He has limited resources since he is no longer in the communications business, but he still has most of his equipment. He thinks the Peters Mountain site will have to be approved eventually. He could not come up with another way. Mr. Richard Martin said he has been associated with public safety in the County for over 35 years, and been an Albemarle County employee for 31 and a half years. He was involved with the fire services radio upgrade which took place in 1976. He was involved with the Police Departments radio upgrade = which took place in 1985. In 1995, the study of the ECC upgrade was begun. The group associated with this study looked at the Boards policy regarding towers, the cost to the citizens of the County and the needs = of the public safety providers. He has been associated with that study as a user and a member of the committee, and he feels this is the best plan available. In 1985, Peters Mountain was identified as a site, but they were told by AT&T not to pursue that site. He said the public safety providers are depending on the Board which has done an excellent job in supporting those providers with equipment and supplies, personnel, and everything else needed. The missing link is the communications system. He asked that the Board approve this request. Mr. Hal Young said he lives off of Vineyard and Echo Valley Roads on Peters Mountain. He said they have the closest permanent private residence to this tower site, are the closest individual landowner, and live on the closest state highway to the site. He said he resents the way this request has been handled from the beginning. There has been no regard for the Virginia Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act. There has been no regard for Albemarle Countys own open space easement standards, no regard for individual = property rights when the property of Eric Frost was seized by paying $90,000 for an overvalued $26,000 clear-cut lot, then threatened condemnation if he did not sell. There has been no regard for the residents around Peters Mountain or for the long-term safety of the Marshall family which will have 800 MHZ glaring directly at their home only 1100 feet away. He resented being told a couple of years ago that the Goodloe/Peters Mountain area would not become a multi-tower site, only to have the County actively and secretly pursue this purchase in his backyard. It has been said that redundancy is the issue, but the Peters Mountain tower will inevitably go down. As Mr. Morgan said, all of them go down sometimes. This tower will be more likely to go down than any other tower in this new terrorist era. There will be no redundancy, nor minimal emergency coverage. This whole thing has been rotten from the beginning with dishonest, under-the-table behavior, justified in your own minds by the need for an emergency communications system that has been neglected for years. An acceptable system has all ready been applied for, but greed has made you covet, then take something you had no right to claim. He resents this. He thinks this is Albemarle County politics at a new low. Mr. Lanny Moore said he is Chief of the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department, and also Chairman of Albemarle Countys Fire and Rescue Advisory Board. A letter was sent to the Board today = explaining the need for this tower site. He said the site is needed due to the redundancy of all fire and rescue communications. He has been working with the fire department for over 26 years, and they are using the same system they had when he started work. It is a very old radio system. He asked that the Board approve this tower site. Mr. Preston Gentry said he is Chief of the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department and also a Captain for the Fire Department in the City of Charlottesville. He said that every day fire, police and rescue workers put their lives on the line. They ask for this radio tower because it is the best of the best. When they buy equipment for their firefighters, they buy the best technology available today. This new system will make communications in the field much safer. He asked that the Board approve this site because it is the best. Mr. Raymond James said he is Battalion Chief with the City of Charlottesvilles Fire Department. = One of his areas of responsibility is communications. In the communications room, they consistently receive complaints from all the fire service providers that they are not listening to them. After hearing those complaints, they did some random samples between December 3 and December 18, and they found over 50 recorded occurrences where there was radio traffic coming from the field into the communications center that they did not hear. This is a bad situation for the providers in the field in the way of safety, not only for the people in the field, but also for the customers they serve. The system has become so overloaded that they do not receive a lot of the transmissions. The Peters Mountain site would help to cover that difficulty. With the conception of the whole new radio system, they need the coverage and the January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 32) redundancy. Also, they want to think of the safety of the personnel in the field when they ask for additional resources, and also the customer they provide services to. They are very concerned with the safety issue, and hope the Board supports this tower site. Mr. Dan Blake said he is the State President of the Fraternal Order of Police. He lends his support to the new 800 MHZ regional radio communication system. This is a public safety issue, and many jurisdictions, large and small, are either going to this system, or will have this system in the near future. In this age of technology, why not support a communications system which will provide the necessary coverage to protect the Countys officers and firefighters? This communications system has been needed = for many years. It is necessary so the public safety officers can do their jobs more effectively knowing that they can rely on their radios regardless of where they may be in this region. The Board has put a lot of time, energy and money into public safety. Now is the time for the Board to take a stand and make the last missing link a reality by showing its support for this communications system. He thanked the Board and said the public safety sector thanks it also. He said the families of these officers thank the Board for making their jobs a little safer. He said public safety took a powerful hit just four months ago, and they were there for the citizens then and are there for them now. He said when the American law enforcement community is called on, it will respond and it will preserve the way of American life. Sheriff Ed Robb said he appreciates the Board and the Planning Commission taking such an interest in learning about this problem and this situation. He also thanks the Board for being courageous enough to make a decision which will not be popular with everybody. He also urges the Board to realize that this decision is a matter of life and death. In the area of public safety, only the very best will do. Mr. Paul Katz said he is a World War II veteran, a retired foreign service officer and is also a radio system engineer. He has over 50 years of experience in designing and supporting city, county, U.S. government and foreign government radio systems and operations. As a resident of Albemarle County, he has followed this project from its beginning. About six years ago, he started looking at this. He has been favorably impressed by the dedicated County, City and UVA public safety people who have been involved in this project. He hopes that tonight the Board will finally culminate this effort and approve the construction of the radio system, including the tower at Peters Mountain. This radio system is urgently needed by the County and City public safety entities to support operations affecting the entire population of the County. It should not be hostage to parochial interests. As a taxpayer of Albemarle County, he resents the attitude of the Piedmont Environmental Council and the handful of landowners who recommend that the County pursue other solutions which would not be optimum, but increase the cost of the system and eventually be reflected in his taxes. Even though the paid consultant acknowledged that the Peters Mountain design is the best design, he recommends the construction of two other sites instead of Peters, which would result in an additional cost to the County of more than $1.0 million. It is recognized by all concerned that any other two sites would not provide the same level of coverage and redundancy offered by Peters Mountain. Redundancy is especially required in public safety operations. He hopes the Board makes a positive decision tonight, and he recommends it wholeheartedly. Mr. Bill Pahuta said he is Director of Operations at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. He said that with the recent events of terrorism in this country, specifically related to the Nations aviation system, it = is essential that the Airport have the ability to effectively communicate with local emergency services. In an aviation disaster, a multi-emergency response is needed, and all parties need the ability to effectively communicate. The current system does not meet this requirement. The Airport has a requirement to exercise its emergency plans, and has done so. The number one discrepancy which comes up each and every time is the lack of effective communications between agencies. Their public safety officers communicate daily to emergency services. The current system requires that they carry three radios to do their job. The 800 MHZ system would allow them to communicate with all agencies using one radio. The radio system is vital to the area of emergency services, and he respectfully requests that the Board approve the Peters Mountain site so this system may proceed. Mr. Charles Werner said that on behalf of the people who live in the Peters Mountain area, they share a sincere concern about the effect and have tried to do everything possible to minimize the effect of this tower. However, based on study after study, they were charged by the ECC to make sure there is the best radio system possible, to be fiscally responsible to the members of the community, and the safety of the people who provide the coverage in the community, as well as the citizens. This is the best tower configuration at the best possible cost. He said this has been reinforced by a number of consultants, even a private citizen with expertise, as well as PECs own consultant. He said reliability, redundancy, coverage = and public safety are the issues. He then read a few headlines about fire services and deaths from other areas. He said that over the years, the one thing which has been a common thread in all of these fire fatalities, has been an issue of communications. He said the current radio system has come to a level of being dangerous to the people who provide protection to the citizens. They now respond to 10,000 calls per year working on two frequencies. That averages out to 27 calls per day or a little over one call per hour. Unfortunately, calls do not come that way. They usually come all at once. In September, 1996, Hurricane Fran came through and zapped the main radio system. Answering over 100 calls, they had to work off of Carters Mountain from a bus. The redundancy is critical. The radio system is critical. Peters = Mountain, as unfortunate as it is for all concerned, is the most desirable and needed location. He said the issue before the Board tonight is not just an issue of a tower, but is an issue of public safety. Mr. deForest Melon said he is Vice-President of Citizens for Albemarle. Citizens is in favor of upgrading emergency telecommunications systems in the communities. Among other reasons, Citizens believes this will promote shorter response times for police, fire and rescue personnel in locating and arriving at accident sites and other life-threatening situations. However, Citizens would like to voice its opposition to the proposed siting of an emergency transmitting tower on Peters Mountain. They believe that January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 33) while the choice of Peters Mountain may have been arrived at for practical reasons, there are more compelling reasons why the tower should not be placed there. First, Peters Mountain lies within the Southwest Mountains Historical District. The erection of a 100-foot plus transmitting tower will create an egregious, obtrusive unnatural visual contamination of the Southwest Mountains viewscape that is entirely out of keeping with the concept and purpose of the historical district. In addition, the height of the tower and its proximity to the AT&T helipad facility airspace most certainly will mandate that it be lighted at night, further adding to the visual contamination of the historic district. Second, there exists at least one viable alternative site for the emergency tower, that on Piney Mountain which does not lie within the historical district which all ready has two lighted electronic facility towers in place on its summit, thus mitigating the visual impact of any additional adjacent structure. Citizens argues that any additional installation costs attendant with erecting the emergency communication tower on the Piney Mountain site are offset by conservation of the visual character of the Southwest Mountains Historical District, the geologic and historic region that all can enjoy, and which, along with other features of the Albemarle landscape, continue to make this community and its unparalleled and encircling natural attractiveness a uniquely desirable place to live and to visit. It is important to note that this community has long taken pride in and derived revenue from being an important tourist attraction. Finally, the proposed site of the tower on Peters Mountain sits astride a predominantly north/south range of hills, the Southwest Mountains, at an elevation close to 2000 feet above sea level. Such geologic features are routinely used by migratory birds for navigation purposes. Even at night, an intruding man-made structure such as towers take a heavy toll through collisions with guy wires and the tower structures themselves. Thus, the Peters Mountain site is an especially critical one in terms of its potential impact on certain forms of wildlife. Ms. Judith Summer said she and her husband are newcomers to Albemarle County. They live in a corridor that parallels the east side of the Southwest Mountain Range. She marvels at the beauty of that vista many times each day. She has been following the progression of the ECC request for a special use permit to put up a 125-foot structure on top of Peters Mountain. Early on, she thought that no rational administration would let it happen because there were a variety of less destructive options to meet the needs of public safety. Therefore, she watched with dismay last month as the Planning Commission voted to pass this application on to the Board. But, Mr. Rooker explained that the Commissions charge is to set = conditions on land use, not to deny it. Putting a tower on Peters Mountain undercuts the Countys efforts to = preserve its historic heritage, undercuts efforts to protect the rural character of the countryside, undercuts efforts to conserve natural resources for future generations, and is contrary to the Countys Comprehensive = Plan. Use of other sites can accommodate both public safety and other County concerns despite the ECCs assertion that a viable public safety network cannot exist without a tower on Peters Mountain. The = Commission recommended the damage that would be done by a tower atop Peters Mountain, so in an effort to mitigate the damage, the Commission told the ECC to make the tower as invisible as possible. For example, to prohibit lights which would make it visible in the viewshed and also to air traffic. The air traffic she has seen over her house includes passenger planes as well as low-flying aircraft such as hot air balloons, ultra lights, and helicopters. She has never been near the AT&T facility atop Peters Mountain because access is prohibited, but she has been told the buildings are about 40-feet high. She can catch a glimpse of them in the winter after the leaves fall. The facility is marked by red and green lights visible through the trees. She guesses those color-coded lights serve a safety purpose. She said a 125-foot tower is about the height of a 12-story building. Can you image anyone putting a building of that size on top of a mountain without lights to warn approaching air traffic? The proposed tower would extend 70 to 80 feet above the tree line on the highest mountain in the northeast quadrant, a site within a few minutes flying time of at least three airports. How can putting a dark, man-made obstacle at that height enhance public safety in the skies? She has never seen such a tall tower on a mountaintop without any lights. Now, image a tower on Peters Mountain, not invisible, but in fact highly visible with a few red lights and perhaps a flashing strobe light. She asked if this is how the natural amenities that make this county so desirable are enhanced. She said the lone dissenting member of the Commission said there has to be some balance in the goals society seeks to accomplish and there has to be a better way to build this system than the one being pushed by the ECC. He is right. If visibility is an issue, Peters Mountain is the wrong place. If public safety is an issue, Peters Mountain is not the only good site. Ask the ECC to build its alternative system design on Piney/Whitlock, a design which would provide comprehensive public safety without sacrificing all other public values. She said the Commission passed the decision to the Board of Supervisors. Now the challenge of balancing the diverse needs of the County is the Boards. = Mr. Jeff Werner said he was present to represent the Piedmont Environmental Council. He handed to the Board copies of some newspaper articles from around the country about the 800 MHZ radio system. They appreciate the proposal to lower the tower, and now only have 105 feet to go. He said this has been a healthy process of asking questions and finding out answers, not only about the wisdom of putting a tower in a historic district, but also about the 800 MHZ system. He said many questions and concerns remain unanswered. PEC has urged that the impact on the historic district be properly considered. In a November work session, staff stated that they are in consultation with the Department of Historic Resources (DHR). On Monday, he spoke with the director of the DHR and there has been no consultation. PEC asked if the tower will be lighted. They asked for the FAA to be contacted since they believe the lighting of this tower could be a critical issue in evaluating the towers visibility. They do not have an answer. PEC suggested = that since AT&T twice rejected a tower on their property the County should confirm with them that a tower at their gate and on their private road is acceptable. They do not have an answer. PEC urged the further exploration of the 800 MHZ system interference issue and the possibility of FCC action. They shared with the County information from the FCC, the industry, and other jurisdictions that clearly indicates a problem. They directed to the County a joint letter to the FCC from a number of public safety groups which states that existing public safety radio systems in the 800 MHZ band are increasingly facing interference from commercial radio systems. PEC does not think these concerns have been adequately addressed. Mr. Werner said the PEC has brought to the Countys attention the trend for 800 MHZ systems to = January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 34) be initially under-engineered. Yesterday, he spoke with someone in Fulton County, Georgia, in their communications department. He confirmed that this is a reality with 800 MHZ systems. It was interesting to hear how often extra costs are involved with Motorola systems. The Virginia State Police opted to use 150 MHZ for their statewide radio. In a report to the Governor, they referenced the difficulties and spiraling expense that Florida is having with their proposed 800 MHZ system. More specifically, they state Problems A with the Florida project can be linked to the decision to go to 800 MHZ. How much more money will it @ ultimately cost to make this system work as intended? Fairfax started with eight towers, it now has 14. Prince William County has eight. Chesterfield County started with three, and they now have nine. Hamilton County, Ohio, needed 15 towers. Each of these counties are about one-half the size of Albemarle. Could Albemarle ultimately need more towers? If Motorola and the consultant say there is a need for more towers, how many more will be proposed in the historic district or on other mountain ridges in the County? Who will pay for them? No one need feel bad about asking these questions at this time, as much of the information is recently available. The information on the FCC website was posted only in late November. There is no doubt that something needs to be done, so all PEC asks is that the Board take the time to get these and other lingering questions answered before taking a final step in a projected $18.0 million project. Mr. Paul Norris said he is Chief of Police for the University of Virginia. He is relatively new to the community, having been here only since August. In his brief time in this position, he has witnessed many of the inadequacies of the current radio system, particularly dealing with portable radios inside buildings. One of his biggest concerns is the number of fire calls received at the University Hospital. The Hospital provides service for everyone in the County and some outside of the County. One thing they do with their officers is to meet the fire department when they arrive at the Hospital. Typically they have to go floor-by-floor to determine if there is actually a fire. While doing this, they have to send an officer with each member of the fire department who goes into the building because they cannot communicate with the fire department using their current radio system. One of the positives of this system is the fact that they will be able to communicate, not only with the fire department, but with the rescue squads and with other police agencies. The safety of his personnel is the main reason he is present tonight. Also, the safety of the community is important to him as a new resident. He urged the Board to support the Peters Mountain site. With no one else from the public rising to speak, Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Ms. Thomas said she would like to ask Mr. Dennis Rooker (since he was a member of the Planning Commission when it came up with the series of questions for Motorola), if the Commissions questions were = answered satisfactorily. Mr. Rooker said one of the questions the Planning Commission asked was whether the tower height could be reduced and the antenna moved up on the tower in order to compensate for that change in height. The answer was positive. They indicated the tower could down to 105 feet from 110 feet and the antenna would be adjusted so the antenna height would be the same. That leaves the large tower at a lower visibility. The Commission asked for a propagation analysis to demonstrate what would happen to the signal, both the 800 MHZ signal and the microwave signal if the tower was reduced in height by five-foot increments. He said they did not address the question in the way it was asked by the Commission. However, the answer was that to reduce the tower below the 105 feet and the antenna height below the proposed antenna height would mean the system would not operate to the level of the specifications that had been designed by the ECC. He said the questions have been answered well enough that he is comfortable with proceeding with the request tonight as a member of the Board. Mr. Rooker said while he is talking he will address a couple of other issues. He said everyone has agreed that a new system is needed. The current system is archaic, it is not safe. It was recognized that the proposed tower is in an historic district, on a mountain, and in that regard there are Comprehensive Plan provisions which seek to protect those areas. There are competing interests here. There is public safety on the one hand, mountaintop protection, historic district protection and agricultural/forestal district protection on the other hand. This is a six-tower system, and five towers were approved quickly after one work session and one public hearing. He said that the request to use a site on Peters Mountain came to the Planning Commission in December. The consultants had difficulty in locating a site on Peters Mountain. The Commission discussed how to rectify the two competing interests. The Commission spent about 20 hours in work sessions and public hearings and ultimately reached a 5:1 decision based upon the conclusion that Mr. Flamini stated well. That is, at the end of the day they could not adequately satisfy the public safety concern with a tower some where other than on Peters Mountain. The illustrations shown tonight were oversimplified. The Commission looked at about 75 propagation slides during their work sessions to see how the signal is affected in different areas by moving the towers. If a tower is not put on Peters Mountain, the signal in the City is not nearly as powerful, does not have the same penetration into buildings in the City, and principally does not have good redundancy characteristics. Mr. Rooker said the Planning Commission started its process by saying they did not want a tower on Peters Mountain, and would like to find a way to avoid doing that. At the end of their work, they came to the conclusion that they needed to approve this tower. He said the PEC provided them with a lot of information that was very helpful. There are problems with other 800 MHZ systems primarily caused by interference from the Nextel cellular systems which operate on adjacent frequencies. The Commission talked with Mr. Morgan, the ECC consultant, about whether this system might have those problems. Most of the interference problems seem to be in systems which are quite a bit older, and most of the interference problems exist in areas which are more urban. He said Mr. Morgan was persuasive that the system will be designed to minimize all possible interference. January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 35) Mr. Rooker said once the Planning Commission had decided that this tower was needed, it focused on minimizing the visibility of the tower. It looked at a number of simulations of potential towers and settled on a monopole to be painted brown. The Commission attached a number of conditions to its approval, and most of those are reflected in the conditions tonight. There is one condition they recommended, Condition No. 9, that has to do with the AT&T site. The AT&T site is highly visible, but it was built long before the current process for tower approvals. A lot of the facilities there are painted white. The Commission felt that if the visibility of that site could be significantly reduced and the Peters Mountain tower for the ECC could be reduced in visibility to the minimum necessary to perform its function, the County might end up with a situation where the combined visibility of the two sites is less than the visibility of the AT&T site by itself today. He recognizes that condition is not appropriate because it applies to property which is not before the County with respect to this application. However, he hopes the County, City and University will join together in trying to find a way to persuade AT&T to look at ways to reduce the visibility of their site. Perhaps, at the appropriate time, the County might allocate some funds to accomplish that, if necessary. Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Rooker for his remarks. She said the Board does not usually get direct reports from the Planning Commission, and she finds it valuable. Mr. Bowerman said there is a recommended condition which specifically prohibits lighting of the tower. In order to make Condition No. 6 clearer, he would suggest adding another sentence stating: In the A event that any agency requires that the tower must be lighted for any reason, then this special permit shall be resubmitted to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for reapplication and modification as required by the Zoning Ordinance. He said the language is redundant in the sense that it would have to be @ done anyway, but he thinks it clearly clarifies the fact that it is the Boards intent that the tower as approved = would not be lit under any circumstance that can be envisioned that would be acceptable to the Board. Mr. Bowerman said he also looked at Condition 10. He said that in order to have a more specific intent accomplished, and subject to the agreement of the other Board members, he suggests adding the following words: The purpose of these plantings shall be to abate the visibility of the tower by surrounding A it with screening vegetation. It is expected that these plantings will accomplish the screening effect as soon as possible by selection of rapid growing species consistent with their also being a native species, and shall also be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. He said that makes the intent clearer than simply @ requiring a tree planting plan, and then listing the species to be developed within the 200-foot buffer. Mr. Bowerman said he had received a comment through an E-mail which led him to suggest a Condition No. 1a. which basically would require the applicant to work with a committee composed of a member of the Department of Historic Resources, a design planner, and a member of the neighborhood. The committee would work with staff to try and find ways to mitigate the towers visual impact. He is not = sure how appropriate that suggestion is since the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has been removed from Condition No. 1. He was particularly concerned with the comments about lighting because a strobe light on top of Peters Mountain would be a bad thing. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is still appropriate. However, before getting into the wording of what everyone assumes the Board will do, she has some questions for staff. She would like to have an explanation of the process the County will go through for historic preservation, what was referred to as the 106 process. It requires the County to do a number of things including a process of consultation, which A@ has a very specific meaning in the 106. What will happen from here on? She does not want anyone among the applicants to think that this process is over. She wants the public to know what has been done so far. Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney, said he has been directly involved in some of the Section 106 review issues which have surrounded this particular project, and specifically this tower application. Section 106 is part of the Federal or National Historic Preservation Act. This is a law which requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties, and which gives another Federal agency, the Advisory County on Historic Preservation, an opportunity to comment. The way Section 106 works in Virginia is: Consultation with the Department of Historic Resources, which is considered the State Historic Preservation Office, is the key to most projects that are going to be reviewed. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC), from whom a license will be necessary in order to operate the proposed tower on Peters Mountain, has passed to them the responsibility for carrying out most of the steps of Section 106 for applicants such as the ECC, as well as cellular carriers that apply for licenses to operate their towers and other communication facilities. Mr. Trank said the goal of Section 106 is to identify historic properties that may be potentially affected by a project, assess the affects on those properties and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate those adverse affects on the historic properties that have been identified. The State Department of Historic Resources has been delegated the role of reviewing this proposed application as it relates to historic properties that may be affected. Since Peters Mountain is located within the Southwest Mountains Historic District that automatically triggers the Section 106 review process. The applicant, the ECC, will be submitting a project review application to the DHR as soon as the public hearing and other local land use review processes have been completed. The ECC has the opportunity to present all information, including public comments and input presented as part of this hearing, as well as the previous hearings conducted. Ms. Thomas asked if that means that everyone who has given the County and the Board members a petition or a letter can be assured that the information will be end up with the DHR. Mr. Trank said the ECCs goal is to pass on all information relating to public comment and input to DHR. The public comment = and input part of the Section 106 process is considered very important. It figures prominently in the regulations. He said that any organizations or individuals who may wish to comment further, or pass on January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 36) their views directly to DHR, may do so. He understands that DHR will consider any and all information they receive as part of the publics comment and review. Under the regulations, DHR has 30 days from the = submittal of a completed project review application, to provide comment. DHRs role is advisory, and = consultative. It will review this project and hopefully stick to that 30-day time frame, at the end of which it will provide findings to the applicant. Mr. Trank said part of the Section 106 process is the consultation process Ms. Thomas alluded to. That process affords not only DHR, but the applicant, Albemarle County as the local government, and other interested parties who have contacted DHR and indicated that they wish to participate, an opportunity to meet and consult in the event that any adverse effect, or impacts, are identified by DHR as a result of the proposed tower. That consultation process is required by Federal law and gives not only representatives of local government, the applicant, the state agency, and other interested parties, an opportunity to assess and discuss any adverse impacts that have been identified. They can then be addressed or minimized if possible. The process is designed to reach some consensus at the end of it. It does not always end up that way, but it is an important part of the 106 process. The applicant is committed to going forward and cooperating to the fullest extent. Mr. Trank said he would like to clarify one remark made by a speaker earlier as far as the communications which have been made with DHR so far. The applicant has not yet filed its application for review. Therefore, DHRs official role in reviewing this project has not been triggered yet. That will occur as = soon as the ECC files its application. He anticipates that a considerable amount of information and data will accompany that application. There are specific guidelines from DHR which have been received in writing as to what it expects the applicant to provide. As part of this review, he believes there will be on-going communication and discussions with DHR as they fulfill their obligations and assess the impacts of this proposed tower. Mr. Rooker said he had a question about that process. The Federal action is ultimately the issuance of a license by the FCC. Mr. Trank said that is correct. Mr. Rooker said the FCC ultimately will receive the information from the DHR. Mr. Trank said yes. The way the process works, DHR, as the A@ State agency, will pass its comments to the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. He understands that the Advisory Council will not do anything until there is a license application pending before the FCC. The Advisory Councils role is to report to and consult with the FCC once there is an application = before it. Eventually, the information developed at the State level will go to the Federal level, and the Federal agency will have another opportunity to review the potential impacts of this project and then report to the FCC and to the applicant. Mr. Rooker asked if the FCC can grant or deny the application based on impacts on the historic district. Mr. Trank said the FCC will consider those impacts in making the determination as to whether to grant the license. How that factors into its analysis and decision, he cannot say. Mr. Rooker asked if the FCC could order mitigation on its own. Mr. Trank said as part of the 106 process that is an option of the FCC. If a determination is made that there is a particular impact the FCC feels can be addressed further, as the issuing Federal agency it would have that authority. Mr. Rooker said he wanted to ask these questions to point out that there is another process of decision-making beyond what is taking place here tonight. The issues of the historic district will be raised at that level, and may have an impact on the ultimate decision. Ms. Thomas said that was her interest in asking her questions. She asked what time constraint the Board is working under. Over the months and years, the Board has been given a variety of answers as to how fast the Board had to make a decision. She asked what the situation is now. Mr. Jim Morgan said the question has been asked a number of times by the Board and the Planning Commission. He pointed to a schedule posted on the wall, and said it is the schedule which was presented to the FCC on behalf of the ECC and the County that would allow the ECC to proceed on a new schedule for developing the radio system. As of today, the current schedule the FCC has put the ECC under requires that the system be implemented by September, 2004. That schedule is the official schedule at this moment. It has been submitted to the FCC as a new implementation plan. He said they suggested that negotiations will wrap up and a contract be awarded to a vendor as of June, 2002, and the system will be on the air by August, 2004. In order to proceed with contract negotiations and all the other necessary things they are trying to achieve by the June, 2002 date, which would allow implementation of the system to begin at that point, and take approximately 19 to 20 months to complete and have a system on the air by August of 2004. He said assuming the FCC grants the County permission to pursue this matter, they will require annual updates of the plan to make sure it is proceeding in the fashion which has been outlined. In this case, the FCC has taken particular interest because of the extensions that have all ready been granted on this license. Ms. Thomas asked if instead of setting a deadline, the FCC requires that the County submit a schedule and keep to it. Mr. Morgan said that is part of it. Any slow-growth application requires an implementation plan. In this case, they had to state a case to the FCC because they are missing the original plan. They wanted to go back and state a new plan. They are missing the plan for a number of reasons, one of which is the trials and tribulations of the site. Because of that, the FCC has stated that they will be watching very closely the implementation plan which was recently submitted. He said one thing Mr. Campagna has highlighted for him is that the current application plan and the implementation plan January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 37) submitted with it does not currently include the Peters Mountain site. Once the 106 process is completed, that application will be amended to include the Peters Mountain location. The FCC is aware of that. They are aware of the plan as part of the schedule. They realize that the ECC is going through local land use prior to submitting an amendment to the application that they currently have, that they are reviewing today. Mr. Rooker asked if for some reason the Peters Mountain site is not approved by the FCC, what is the alternative? Five sites have been approved, so at that point, what is the alternative? Mr. Morgan said if the FCC does not grant the application based on Peters Mountain, the schedule would have to be reconsidered because they denied the application. With regard to what the alternatives would be, the consultant would have to go back to the design board. If there is no way a site can be put on Peters Mountain, there would have to be some performance considerations or concessions on the part of the ECC. Mr. Rooker said there are five sites which have been approved, and they are included in the current application. He asked if Piney Mountain is part of the application. Mr. Morgan said Piney Mountain/Whitlock is part of the application. Mr. Rooker said based on all of the technical information, if for some reason Peters Mountain is not approved by the FCC, what is the best alternative? Mr. Morgan said probably Piney/Whitlock and another site in the City. Mr. Bowerman said he thought Walnut Mountain served basically the same requirements as Peters. Mr. Morgan said Walnut Mountain is certainly a very viable alternative providing almost identical performance as Peters Mountain. They did not believe, through the process of analyzing that site from the historical perspective that it was an acceptable site, but from a technical perspective, it is. Mr. Bowerman said a Whitlock/Piney configuration would not meet the performance requirements that the system requires. Mr. Morgan said that is correct. The only alternatives to changing the performance of Piney and Whitlock would be to increase those tower heights. The only way to increase the performance was to raise Piney to 600 feet, and Whitlock to 400 feet. Mr. Bowerman asked if they are viable alternatives. Mr. Morgan said from a local land use perspective, he does not believe they are. Actually, from a technical perspective, he does not believe the FAA would approve a tower of that height at Piney because of its proximity to the Airport. Mr. Rooker said at this point the application includes Piney and Whitlock. He asked the tower heights included in that application. Mr. Morgan said the current heights are 145 feet at Whitlock and 95 feet for an antenna height at Piney Mountain. Bear in mind that the reasoning behind that application was to essentially protect the RF contour of the frequencies that you currently have. Simply by putting those sites in (if this process is drawn out), prevents any other applicant in the Commonwealth or nearby, from applying for those same frequencies. It protects that contour that ultimately they hope to achieve over the County. Ms. Thomas said the issue has come up that many localities started with a certain number of towers, but then had to add more. That is more of a taxpayers issue, than a Peters Mountain issue. The difficulty getting on Peters Mountain should let the applicant know how difficult it will be to get another tower in Albemarle County. She asked the likelihood of another tower request coming to the Board after this has been underway for a year, and a little better service is wanted. Mr. Morgan said the performance requirements of radio systems always evolve. The users demand more performance over time. That not only pertains to public safety, but to the public. Ten years ago, the level of performance of cell phones was different than what the public wants today. The public wants them to work everywhere. Public safety is even more critical in that regard. From that perspective, the performances demanded by public safety will change and become more stringent over the years. No matter what system is put in, no matter what frequency band is picked, that performance criteria will always become more significant and demanding. Ultimately, in most cases, that requires more towers. How far into this process that would happen is difficult, if not impossible, to predict. He then explained what had happened in Fairfax County regarding this type of project. He said the bottom line is that the performance demands of users always advances over time. In most cases, that requires additional improvements in the radio system. Mr. Martin said it is time for this Board to make a decision. The Board has had months and months and years of information, including Planning Commission meetings which gave the Board flushed-out ideas, concepts, thoughts and comments. He said it boils down to just making a decision. To him, the decision is whether the Board wants the best public safety system it can have at this time knowing that with changing technology, you get the best today, but it may be obsolete in the future. It is better than starting with second best today, and being obsolete tomorrow. He thinks the Board is weighting that kind of lead with the historic nature of where the tower is going. Peters Mountain is one of those places which for the last ten years he has done everything in his power to protect. He does not think the Southwest Mountain people have ever asked him for anything that he has not done, except for one particular situation. This is one of those situations where, if you have to make a tough decision, you have to make that tough decision in favor of having the tower there and public safety. Mr. Martin said he recommends approval of SP-2001-048 with the ten new conditions as proposed by the staff tonight including Condition No. 3 which changes the pole height to 105 feet. Condition No. 4 ups the attachments to 20 feet. Also, take into consideration the changes Mr. Bowerman was considering in Condition No. 6 regarding the lighting, and he assumes that there is a way of getting that across, as well as dropping original Condition No. 9 and Mr. Bowermans comments concerning Condition No. 10. = Mr. Dorrier gave second to the motion. January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 38) Mr. Bowerman said since original Condition No. 9 is dropped, his comments about the tree planting plan, etc. would become new Condition No. 9. There would be ten conditions of approval in the motion. On reflection, he had recommended a Condition No. 1a and he thinks that Condition No. 1 covers it, so he suggests that that language not be added. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Bowerman is not then suggesting a committee. Mr. Bowerman said that is correct. He thinks the process through the DHR is that process. Ms. Thomas said she thinks one of the useful things done in these meetings is to scotch rumors. A@ She has a couple of more questions of staff. She asked about the issue raised as to whether the County actually has permission to use the road beside this site. Mr. Davis said the answer is yes. Acquisition of A@ the site is in conjunction with acquisition of a right-of-way, so there is an absolute right to access the site from that road. Ms. Thomas said she has looked into the interference issues. She thinks this is being done at the best possible time because the interference issue has all ready been raised nationwide. Anyone designing a system will know about it, whereas some five or ten years ago that was not an issue most people knew anything about. She thinks the charge that hurts the worst is that the Board is being hypocritical. Most people sat through the earlier part of this meeting when the Board agonized over an 85-foot treetop tower. She is glad that both applications were on the same agenda because it reminded the Board about how much it has agonized over the cell phone system. This is not a cell phone tower. This is a public safety tower and it is not hypocritical as far as the Boards policy is concerned. This situation was taken into = account when the policy was written. There is nothing contradictory, but it feels contradictory because of the way the Board has approached protecting the Countys mountains. The Board went all the way to the = Federal Court of Appeals to protect a mountain, and it was not even in a formal rural historic district. She thinks that is what has hurt her the most, and she thinks the people who are asking the Board to be careful are not the usual NIMBYs, but are people who have put their money where their mouths are, far more = impressively than any other group in terms of putting their land in conservation easements. She has agonized over this decision, but she thinks that the 20 hours the Planning Commission put in, and the Boards public meetings, and some extra meetings, that with a great deal of input and appreciation of all the = information given to the Board, particularly by PEC, she is sorry it has come to this, but she cannot see another way to meet the Countys public safety needs other than this tower. Then comes all the questions = about appearance. She said most people agree that if there has to be a tower, a monopole is the slenderest of profiles, so is preferable. Getting the height of the tower down to 105 feet is also better, since it started out at 220 feet. She thanked the Board members for putting up with the extra questions tonight, but she felt it was important to get that information to the public. Mr. Rooker said it is important that the public understand that the County is not the applicant. The A@ ECC which is comprised of the City, the County and the University of Virginia, is the applicant. When the Planning Commission discussed all the various alternatives for the signals, it is the Citys signal which is the = most impacted by not having Peters Mountain in the system, particularly with respect to redundancy issues. Ms. Thomas said Condition No. 9 (dealing with the visual impact of the current AT&T site) was withdrawn, so the Board will write a letter and she hopes the other ECC partners will join in this letter, along with possibly the Tourism Council, Chamber of Commerce, and the PEC, trying to get a white monster on A@ the mountain dulled down. Mr. Bowerman said that includes trying to have conversations with AT&T, not just letters. Mr. Dorrier said he appreciates the concerns of the persons who are in favor of preserving the area, particularly historic preservation. He believes very much in that. In this instance, the public safety needs are something that cannot be compromised. He believes Mr. Robb summed it up when he said why not A the best. He thinks the Board is seeking the best, and that is why he is supporting the request. @ Mr. Bowerman said that in his ten years of service on the Planning Commission, and now into his thirteenth year as a member of this Board, no topic that came before the Commission or the Board during that time has been studied with the depth, thoroughness and the input that this special permit has received. With no further comments from Board members, Ms. Thomas asked for a call of the roll. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Findings by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources shall be submitted to the County before this special use permit is exercised. Should the facility be determined to have adverse effects on historic properties, based on findings of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources' (DHR) cell pole review, the Emergency Communications Center shall seek methods of mitigating those effects, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development. When making this determination the Planning Director may consult with the DHR for further assistance in achieving acceptable means of January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 39) mitigation; 2. Antennas, dishes and all equipment installed at this facility shall be limited to those that are necessary for establishing the public service radio system. This facility shall not be used for the provision of personal wireless communications services; 3. The top of the pole shall never exceed one hundred five (105) feet above the ground level, or one thousand, seven hundred ninety-nine (1,799) feet tall as measured Above Sea Level (ASL); 4. Only the two (2) proposed whip antennas and required grounding rods shall be allowed to extend above the top of the pole. In no cases shall those attachments extend more than twenty (20) feet above the top of the pole; 5. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The pole, antennas, microwave dishes and all other equipment attached to it shall be painted a non-reflective, dull brown color that reduces its contrast with the sky; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. All ground equipment, utility building, concrete pads, and pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan Peter's Mountain Site Plan and Elevation (on file); and d. The mounting structure shall be a monopole of the minimum diameter necessary to perform it's function and no greater than thirty-six (36) inches at the base and eighteen (18) inches at the top; 6. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided herein: a. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only; b. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire; and c. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. In the event that any agency requires that the tower must be lighted for any reason, then this special use permit shall be resubmitted to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for reapplication or modification as required by the Zoning Ordinance; 7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; 8. The applicant shall submit a revised set of site drawings to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the facility, the Director of Planning with assistance from Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed in the final revisions of the construction plans; 9. A tree planting plan containing native species, which could include white pine, short leaf southern pine, and others, shall be developed within the two hundred (200) foot buffer. The purpose of these plantings shall be to abate the visibility of the tower by surrounding it with screening vegetation. It is expected that these plantings will accomplish the screening effect as soon as possible by selection of rapid growth species consistent with their also being a native species, and shall also be subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development; and 10. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 40) guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. _______________ Agenda Item No. 27. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code 3-226, Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District, for the proposed addition of five parcels totaling 132.251 ' acs to the district. The proposed addition is loc on Rt 614, approx 0.25 mls from its intersec with Rt. 674. The existing district contains 4,793.488 acs. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 23 and December 30, 2001.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Sugar Hollow District was created on September 6, 1989. The District was last reviewed on October 6, 1999. The District contains 4793.288 acres in 51 parcels. The proposed addition contains 132.251 acres in four parcels. The land in the proposed addition is forested, with two dwellings. The District and the proposed addition are located within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development Area to this proposed addition is the Crozet community, which is approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the property. The largest parcel in the addition, Parcel 26-13, is in land-use taxation. Staff recommends approval of the addition to the Sugar Hollow District as proposed. Mr. Cilimberg said the A/F District Advisory Committee, at its meeting on November 11, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of the addition to the Sugar Hollow District as proposed. Likewise, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 4, 2001, recommended approval of the addition to the Sugar Hollow District as proposed. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 3-226, Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District, by the addition of 132.251 acres. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 02-3(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By amending: Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 25, parcels 11C, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 21, 21A, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; tax map 26, parcels 5A, 9, 10, 10B, 10D, 10F, 11C, 11D, 12A, 13, 19, 40B, 40C, 41A, 52, 52D; tax map 27, parcels 8, 8E (part), 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 14, 15, 25, 25A; tax map 40, parcel 1, 9, 9C, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 22, 22A, 27A, 49. This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on October 6, 1999, shall next be reviewed prior to September 6, 2009. (11-17-93; Code 1988, 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 02-3(1), ' 1-9-02) _______________ January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 41) Agenda Item No. 28. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code 3-222, Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District, for the proposed withdrawal of 43.577 acs from the ' district. Loc on Rt 601, approx .75 mls from its intersec with Rt 676. Jack Jouett Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 23 and December 30, 2001.) Mr. Cilimberg said the current owners of Parcels 43-33D and 43-34 inherited the land in 1995. They were not aware that the land was in an Agricultural/Forestal District until they recently decided to sell the land. Therefore, they did not apply for the available by-right withdrawal within two years of the death of the previous owner. They now feel that they are unable to afford to keep the land and wish to withdraw it from the District so that the land may be sold for subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg said Section 302-5 of the County Code requires that withdrawal from a district be approved only if it meets four criteria (those are outlined in the staffs report). He said the request only = meets one of those criteria, i.e., The proposed land use was not anticipated by the owner at the time the A land was placed in the district, and there has been a change in circumstances since that time. He said @ there are no records to indicate the intent of the owner who placed this land in the District, but there has been a change in circumstances in that the land was divided by three heirs who cannot afford to keep it. Mr. Cilimberg said the land may be withdrawn by right in three years (during the review scheduled for 12/17/2004). The land does have value within the District, so for that reason staff did not recommend allowing the withdrawal. At the meeting of the Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee on November 27, 2001, the committee voted to deny the request for withdrawal. The Planning Commission did likewise by a 3:2 vote at its meeting on December 4, 2001. With no questions for staff, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. Mr. Robert Harris said they were unaware the land was in the A/F District. He calls it a belated withdrawal from the district. After this meeting, they will probably write the letter and send it by registered mail so that when it comes up in 2004 it is not forgotten. It would be nice to have the land withdrawn because it is property that is more valuable with subdivision rights. They would like to sell it as one piece, but they can't give up the division rights until 2004, so it is a decision of this Board. Mr. Tim Radsky said he is an adjoining property owner. He said the Advisory Committee recommended against this proposal. The Planning Commission also recommended against it. It did not meet any of the criteria for by-right withdrawal. It did not meet three of the four criteria for petitioned withdrawal. No member of the public has spoken in favor of the proposal except the owners. He sees no compelling reason for approval. Ms. Katie Sears said she lives on Free Union Road. She has some comments to make on behalf of Rob Nelson who is a Realtor. He sent a letter to this Board. He says that selling this property while it is still in the Agricultural/ Forestal District should not create any financial hardship on the family because land values for farms of this nature are not dependent on division rights. The farm has just as much value marketed as a horse farm, or small estate, as it does as a divisible track. A conservation buyer will pay the same kind of premium as the developer and the temporary loss of division rights will not work any devaluation on the property. Secondly, Rolling Hills has not been on the market but barely three months. The sign has been out in front of the property for less time than that. The property owners were negotiating with the developer before the property even went on the market, and had concluded their negotiations before the sign went up. To allow them out of the district prematurely so that they may take advantage of the first offer that came across the table is problematic for many reasons; it shows little in the way of testing the market, patience and reality and is grossly unfair to all the other farmers who have committed to the Ag/Forest program. Considering what little time Rolling Hills has been on the market, the applicant can hardly prove hardship as it relates to our specific real estate market. Hes really shooting himself in the foot = as I see it. As the County Assessor will attest, the propertys location, not its potential division rights, is what = will make it appreciate in value over the remainder of the applicants Ag/Forest commitment, regardless of the condition of improvements. Although properties are, to use the Assessors words, more valuable split =A up, that additional value is realized not by the property owners, but by the developer. In summary, denying @ the property owners request will not create any financial hardship. The property is as valuable in this = market with the Ag/Forest District restrictions as it is without them. Ms. Krysia Nelson said she is a County resident on Free Union Road and a neighbor to the property in question. She had also addressed a letter to the Board members. She said the owners of Rolling Hills are requesting early withdrawal from the Agricultural/Forestal District because a developer wants to purchase and develop the property. Their initial claim of financial hardship was rejected by the Ag/Forestal Committee on November 27, 2001. At the December 4, 2001, Planning Commission meeting, one of the owners, Mr. Harris, offered no other support for his request except to say that it would be nice if the property could be prematurely withdrawn from the District so that he and his sisters could sell the land. There could hardly be a less compelling case for premature withdrawal. Where there is no financial hardship, and no compelling reason to grant the property owners request, nice is not one of the exceptions permitting A= premature withdrawal from the district. The problem she has with the situation is that if the Board permits premature withdrawal of this property from the district, the message to developers and property owners and the residents of the County will be clear; land use restrictions in the County are meaningless and the Ag/Forest District is meaningless. Admittedly, the Board is not bound by its own precedent as decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. However, granting this request would lower the bar and encourage January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 42) developers to send property owners forward to seek premature withdrawals from the District without regard to their prior commitment. It would be nice for the Harris' and the developers if the Board would let them develop this property now, but it might also be nice for the University to be able to develop all the Kluge properties now instead of waiting nine years when Mr. Kluges commitment expires. She asked that the = Board secure the integrity of the Ag/Forest District and the land use restrictions of this County and refuse the premature withdrawal of this property from the District. It is not the Boards job to be nice. = With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Dorrier said the comments made about precedent and the fact that this could diminish the effect of the Ag/Forestal District are comments which deserve respect. He then offered motion to support the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and deny this request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item 21. Appointments. Mr. Rooker made the following nominations: Appoint Mr. William Edgerton as the Jack Jouett representative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission, with term to run from January 9, 2002, to December 31, 2005. Reappoint Ms. Elizabeth McIvor as the Jack Jouett representative on the Board of Social Services, with term to expire December 31, 2005. Appoint Mr. Scott Goodman as the Jack Jouett representative on the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority, to complete the unexpired term of Mr. James K. Skove, term to expire on January 19, 2003. Reappoint Mr. George Larie as the Jack Jouett representative on the Equalization Board, with term to expire December 31, 2002. Recommended the appointment of Ms. Diane LaSauce to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee as the joint City/County representative, to fill out the unexpired term of Mr. Jeff Bialy, term to expire on December 31, 2003. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. __________ Ms. Thomas said there are appointments of Board members which also need to be made: Mr. Dennis Rooker is to the appointed to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with term to expire December 31, 2003. Mr. Walter Perkins is to be reappointed to the Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Committee. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier and Mr. Walter Perkins are to be reappointed to the Building Committee. Ms. Sally Thomas to be reappointed and Mr. Dennis Rooker to be appointed as members of the Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Planning & Coordination Council (PACC). Mr. Charles Martin is to be reappointed to the Consortium of Chief Local Elected Officials for The Workforce Investment Act. Mr. David Bowerman and Mr. Charles Martin are to be reappointed to the Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee. Mr. David Bowerman is to be appointed to the Hazardous Materials Local Emergency Planning Committee. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier is to be appointed to the Historic Preservation Committee. Mr. Charles Martin is be appointed as a member of the Jail Authority, with term to expire on December 31, 2003. Mr. Sally Thomas is to be reappointed and Mr. Dennis Rooker appointed as members of the January 9, 2002 (Regular Meeting) (Page 43) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy Committee. Mr. Walter Perkins and Ms. Sally Thomas are to be reappointed to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC). Mr. Charles Martin is to be reappointed to the Compensation Committee. Motion to make these appointments was made by Mr. Bowerman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 29. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas said she forgot to point out that for Item 11.8 on the consent agenda, the Heritage Tourism Project is asking for input from the individual Board members. If any Board member has a comment, please pass that comment to the Committee. __________ Ms. Thomas said Item 11.6 on the consent agenda concerns a VPDES permit for Charlottesville Oil Company discharge. She alerted people at the Boar's Head Inn about this proposed permit, and they have requested a public hearing. __________ Ms. Thomas said the Board has received a request to look at a piece of legislation that will probably come out of a legislative task force on deregulation that would remove the State Corporation Commission from being able to have input into community impact of power plants. She requested that the Countys = legislative liaison look into what legislation has been proposed and then bring it back to the Board for discussion. __________ Ms. Thomas said Mr. Southard, who is the Commissioner for Environment, Transportation Planning, and Regulatory Affairs of VDOT, will make a presentation at the February 6, 2002, Board meeting on the Draft SEIS for the Route 29 Bypass. The County is to send him some questions ahead of time. Mr. Rooker asked if staff will draft questions. He thinks it would be helpful if staff could think about what might be appropriate to ask for at that time, and draft some suggested questions. The Board members could add to that list. Mr. Tucker said staff will do that. He said there may be some people in the community who also have some ideas. Mr. Rooker said the public will not be able to ask questions at that meeting, so maybe some people will submit questions from groups that have an interest in this. Ms. Thomas said there will be a public hearing in March, but the date has not yet been set. _______________ Agenda Item No. 30. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 03/20/2002 Initials: EWC