HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-11 ACTI~ONS
Board of Supervisors Me~ting of August 1t, 2004
August23,2004
5,1
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
Call to Order.
· Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Dottier. All BOS members were
present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry
Davis, Wayne Cilimber~g and Sharon Taylor.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
· Eddie Giles, a resident of 1550 Garden Court,
asked the Board to revoke the permit for the
Planned Parenthood Clinic.
· Melissa Meeks, representing Charlottesville
NOW, asked the Board to adopt a proclamation
declaring August 26, 2004 as Women's Equality
Day. (The Board discussed this matter under
Other Matters at the end of the agenda.)
· Tobey Bouch, a County resident and member of
the Central Virginia Forum, expressed
opposition to the Planning Parenthood Clinic.
· Robert McCready, Executive Pastor of
Covenant Church, expressed opposition to the
Planned Parenthood Clinic,
· Mike Sharman, an attorney working with the
Central Virginia Family Forum, asked the Board
to revoke the permit for the Planned Parenthood
Clinic.
SP-2003-70. Gre,qory R. Galllihu.qh-Nextel
Partners (Si.qn #59).
· ACCEPTED the applicant requests for
withdrawal.
5.2 ZMA-2003-05. The Meadows Expansion
Amendment (Si,qn #57).
· REMOVED from agenda-petition was deferred
by Planning Commission.
5.3 Ordinance regarding real estate property taxation
exemption - Amending Chapter 15, to set public
hearing for September 1, 2004.
· SET public hearing for September 1,2004.
5.4 Set public hearing for September 1,2004 to include
W A Wells property (Loc on Polo Grounds Road) in
the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdic-
tional areas.
· SET public hearing for September 1,2004.
5,5 Update on Red HJJ[ Water Supply for contaminated
wells.
· AUTHORIZED staff to proceed with Phase 2 of
the study using Option 2 (as set out in the
executive summary). This study would include
detailed hydrogeo[ogic and engineering
analysis, as well as cost estimates for both
construction and Ion~g-term operations,
i 6. SP-2004-00018. Leroy and Helen Moyer-
ALLTEL/Nix Way (Si.qn #64).
· APPROVED SP-2004-00018, by a vote of 6:0,
1
ASSIGNMENT
Clerk: Advertise public hearing.
Clerk: Advertise public hearing.
Mark Graham/David Hirschman: Proceed as
directed.
Clerk: Set out conditions of approval
(Attachment 2).
subject to the 22 conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission, with modification to
condition #4.
7, CPA-2003-007 - Crozet Master Plan. Clerk: Schedule on October agenda.
· DEFERRED CPAo2003-007, bya vote of 6:0,
until either September or October to allow staff
to separate the implementation plan from the
CPA, and then bring back to the Board the
actual comp plan for adoption.
From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
· ADOPTED resolution recognizing August 26,
2004 as Women's Equality Day.
,, CONSENSUS that the Chairman send a letter
congratulating Western AIbemarle's 1984 class
reunion,
9. Adjourned.
· The meeting_ was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
/ewc
Attachment 1 - Proclamation - Women's Equality Day
Attachment 2 - Conditions of Approval
2
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby proclaims
August 26, 2004
as
WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY
in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop a more equitable community,
a community that acknowledges both the real similarities and the important differences between women
and men.
3
ATTACHMENT2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SP-2004-00018. LetoV and Helen Moyer - ALLTEL/Nix Way (Sign #64). Public hearing on a
request t~ a~w censtructi~n ~f pers~na~ Wire~ess fac w/ m~n~p~je~ ~ppr~x 8~ ~ in t~ta~ height & 10fl
above the height of the tallest tree w/in 25 ft. The proposed fac includes flush-mounted panel antennas &
ground equipment, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2~6 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for microwave & radio-wave
transmission & relay towers in the RA. TM 92, P 56B3, contains 8.98 acs. Znd RA & EC Overlay Dist.
Loc on Rt 53 (Thomas Jefferson Pkway), approx 1.3 mis E of intersect of Thomas Jefferson Pkway & Rt
795 (James Monroe Pkway). Scettsville Dist.
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the
conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and
any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan entitled, "Alflel - Nix
Way Site", dated March 24, 2004 and provided in this staff report with Attachment A (copy on
file);
The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole
above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation;
The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed ten (10)
feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet. In no case shall the pole exceed
eighty (80) feet in total height at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to
this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit;
The monopole shall be made of wood and painted a dark brown natural color or be made of metal
and painted a dark matte brown natural wood color;
The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole
shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the
application plans;
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 distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than
twelve (12)inches;
No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole;
No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one (1)-inch in
diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole;
No guy wires shall be permitted;
No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor
righting 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 censisflng 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;
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease
area shall not be permitted;
Size specifications and other details, including schematic elevations of the equipment cabinets
shall be included in the construction plan package;
Site grading and all construction around the facility shall be minimized to only provide the amount
of space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment cabinets.
Graveling of the total lease area shall not be permitted; and
Revise the shape and layout of the lease area and grading to avoid negative impacts to the trees
identified as numbers 'f09,118, 244, 246, 254 and 268.
Prior to the issuance of a buildin,q permit, the followinq requirements shall be met:
15. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used
4
16.
17.
to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator;
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or
utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection
methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside
and outside the access easement and lease area. 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; and
With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for
construction of the facility. During the review of the application, Planning staff shall review the
revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been
addressed.
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to
any facility operation, the following shall be met:
18. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above
ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum
identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator;
19. Certification confirming that the grounding rod's: a) height does not exceed two (2) feet above the
monopole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one (1)-inch, shall be provided to the
Zoning Administrator; and
20. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1
unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County
Engineer are employed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the followin~l requirements shall be met:
21. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service
provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the tower
and the ground, are associated with each provider; and
22. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be
disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is
discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety
(90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the 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.
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
FROM THE PUBLIC -AUGUST 11, 2004
The'followih(,] (~ju.idelines will bb used:
-15 MINUTESARE AI;L'OTED,FOR. TPII'S'.,P~RTION OF..THE AGENDA '
--EACI4 ~PEAKE~R IS'ALLOTTED'.5..MINUTI~. PtC~WEVER.'fF',MORE T~IAN..~3.
SPEAKERS SIG'N ' ¢ " " ' '"' "-' .
UP. ND ~ DUALS WI,i..LDIVIDE.]-HE,~b MIN,UTES' :...
A'CCORDII~GLY" ..... ' . . '
--PLEASE GIVE A~¥ ~,~RI~:TEN STATi=MENTS T~),T.HE CLERK. :
NAME { Please print clearly)
6
7
8
9
10
PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)
RECEIVE~ AT BOS MEETING
D-re:
Agenda Item #: '
REMARKS BY J. MICHAEL SHARMAN TO THE ALBEMARLE ~'Ou~ 1 Y"Bl3rA-l~l~
OF SUPERVISORS, August 11, 2004
Good evening. My name is Mike Sharman and I am an attorney working with the Central
Virginia Family Forum to help them find a regulatory, legislative or judicial remedy to the use of
Planned Parenthood's Hydraulic Road property as a regional abortion hospital or medical center.
We recognize that the Board and we may be co-advanturers together on a long road whose end
we cannot yet see, and we want to offer our help along the way.
The opinion given to the Board by County Attorney Larry W. Davis at the July 14th. 2004
Board of Supervisors meeting was that Planned Parenthood's current use could only have been
challenged years ago when the existing special use permit was approved for a different purpose
by a different applicant.
The County Attorney's opinion perfectly frames a classic "Catch 22" problem for both
the Board and the public:
· The only permissible time in which the Board of Supervisors or the public may challenge
a proposed use is when the application for a special use permit is pending before the
Board for approval.
· But the applicant for the special use permit can sell the property, without having ever
used it for the requested purpose, and still keep the special use permit intact.
· The new owner may, under that previously granted special use permit, use the property
for a quantitatively and qualitatively different purpose which was never considered by the
Board or opened up for public debate.
· Since the Board of Supervisors and the public had not opposed the special use permit
when it was applied for by the prior owner for the original requested purpose they may
not now challenge the new owner's new and entirely different use.
We do not believe this is a viable or effective approach to land use planning.
Another one of the opinions given to the Board of Supervisors by County Attorney Larry
W. Davis was that Planned Parenthood's current use of 2964 Hydraulic Road for medical
purposes came within the definition of the "professional office" use granted for a prior applicant
years ago when the original special use permit was granted.
The Spring 2004 issue of the newsletter for Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge stated
that Planned Parenthood needed to "hire an architect to ensure that we could construct a hospital
in the space provided" at 2964 Hydraulic Road.
Taking Planned Parenthood at its word, it intends m use 2964 Hydraulic Road as a
HOSPITAL.
Albemarle County Code Chapter 18, section 3.1 defines a Hospital as being "A building
or group of buildings designed, used or intended to be used~ for the care of the sick, aged or
infirmed, including the care of mental, drug-addiction or alcoholic cases. This terminology shall
include, but not be limited to, sanitariun~s, nursing homes and convalescent homes."
Perhaps this Board may choose not to take literally Planned Parenthood's words that they
are using 2964 Hydraulic Road as a hospital. In that case, Albemarle County Code Chapter 18,
section 3.1 defines a Medical Center as being an "Establishment wherein medical care is
provided on an outpatient basis as distinguished from a hospital or a professional office."
(Underlining added.)
What Planned Parenthood is doing is either a Hospital, as they said it is, or it is a Medical
Center. Wlf~t the'n, facility certainly is not is a Professional Office. Albemarle County Code
Chapter 18, section 3.1 defines Office as "A room or group of rooms used for conducting the
affairs of a business, profession, service industry, or government. The uses identified in this
chapter as 'administrative office' and 'professional office' are offices."
In accordance with the Albemarle County Code Chapter 18, Section 17.2.2, in order to
operate a hospital on property that is zoned R-10 one must seek a special use permit, which
Planned Parenthood did not do. Planned Parenthood could not have sought a special use permit
for a medical center because a medical center is not a permitted use within R-10 zoning. Medical
centers are only permitted as a matter of right on property zoned C-1. Albemarle County Code
Chapter 18, Section 22.2.1.b.21 deals with property that is zoned C-1. In no other zoned district
are Medical Centers allowed to be located even by special use permit.
The critical issue is whether the special use permit granting permission to use the
property for professional offices under Section 17.2.2(11 ) would automatically permit -- withou!
any further review or approval authority by the Board of Supervisors -- use of the property as a
HOSPITAL or MEDICAL CENTER under Section 17.2.2(10).
The answer to this question has serious ramifications not just for Planned Parenthood's
proposed use for 2964 Hydraulic Road, but for the Board's future ability to regulate property use
and developmen[ If approval for professional offices under Section 17.2.2(11) automatically
grants approval for a hospital under Section 17.2.2(10), then il would logically follow that
approval for a day care facility under Section 17.2.2(7) would automatically grant approval for a
mobile home subdivision under Section 17.2.2(8). Such a result would, of course, create a
planning chaos and completely unravel any hope for orderly development of the county.
Planned Parenthood's stated intention to use the property as a HOSPITAL or a
MEDICAL CENTER is willful noncompliance with the Special Use Permit chapter and with the
conditions of the special use permit such that this Board could revoke the existing special use
permit for 2964 Hydmttlic Road under Section 31.2.4.4. At a minimum, it certainly should have
been grounds to instruct the Zoning Administrator to not grant Planned Parenthood an occupancy
permit for 2964 Hydraulic Road until this problem was resolved by the Board.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
2
ECEIVE BOS MEE.Ne
Charlottesville NOW :
P.O. Box 5082 ~e~ ~em ~:
Charlo~esville, VA 22905 ~ In~ ~ ~
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS. many decades of effort by workers for women's rights were required to obtain
passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving women the right to vote;
and WHEREAS, after great effort there is still no reliable protection in the Constitution for
women against sex discrimination in general, even though the need was recognized and proclaimed one-
hundred-fifty-six years ago in Seneca Falls, New York;
and WHEREAS, in past years laws and policies in the Commonwealth of Virginia have unjustly
discriminated against girls and women, or against particular classes of women, especially in matters
of: reproductive rights, sexual assault and han3ssment and marital property; and although some laws
and policies have been somewhat eased, progress can be, has been and is being reversed;
and WHEREAS, some policies, whether discriminatory or neutral, in public, voluntary, and
private institutions, such as those dealing with insurance, pensions, family medical leave, job
promotions, occupational choices, recreational opportunities, access to medical cc~e (including
reproductive/abortion services), still exist end effectively limit women's roles end activities:
and WHEREAS, girls and women must contend with unwanted touching, verbal and sexual
assault including rape~ being looked upon by men as objects and suffering the effects of unjust
assumptions
and WHEREAS, most of the care of the young and the elderly is given primarily by women,
many of whom through economic necessity must also work at other jobs inside and/or outside the
house;
and WHEREAS, the tasks of providing equal opportunities to women ~ld men and the tasks
of removing burdens which fall unjustly on women as compared to men remain uncompleted,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE Lrr RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Commonwealth of Virginia, does hereby proclaim August 26, 2004, as WOl~Ehr5
C--G~AL1TY DAY, in remembrance of all of those women and men who have worked to develop a more
equitable community, a community that acknowledges both the real similarities and the important
differences between women and men, with liberty and justice for all;
and BE ZT FURTHER RESOLVEb, that the Board of Supervisors urges all citizens on August
26 and thereafter:
(I) to be aware of all distinctions and classifications according to gender ta be sure they are justified
by an equitable and compelling interest of the community, the institution or the individuals affected;
(g) to require that the burden of ~ustification for any distinction according to gender be borne by
those who wish to discriminate against women as compared with men;
(3) to examine all so-celled neutral criteria such as: physical stature requirements, occupational
qualifications, child care assistance opportunities, home maintenance responsibilities, elder care
benefits and disability benefits, to determine whether they have discriminatory impact on women;
(4) to promote affirmative action in the public, voluntary and private sectors in order to overcome
the effects of past discrimination and stereotyping which have limited the life chances of women and
girls as compared with men and bays, and
(5) to eliminate all u~just discrimination and prejudice against women and ensure equality of rights,
privileges and responsibilities under equitable principles and practices for all women and men.
Linclsay ;.Dorrier, ,Tr.
Chair
Mess~e P~elofl
Ella Carey
From: Long, Valede W. [vleng@mcguirewoods.cem]
Sent:. Wednesday, July 21,2004 11:1(3 AM
To: ecarey~albema rle.o rg; swaller~albemarle.org
Cc: bill.daley~nextelpa rtners.com
Subject: SP-03-70 Gregory Gallihugh-Nextel Partners
Ella and Stephen:
On behalf of our client Nextel Partners, Inc., please accept this request to withdraw the application known as SP
03-70 Gregory Gallihugh/Nextel Partners. Should you require anything further to effectuate this request, please
let me know.
Thanks to both of you for your patience over the past 6 months while we worked to have the other site approved.
Best regards,
Valerie
Valede W. Long
Associate
McGU]?,EWooDs
Court Square Building
310 4th Street NE. Suite 300
Post Office Box 1288
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
434.977.2545 (Direct Une)
434.980.2265 (Direct FAX)
vlong@mcg uirewoods.com
This e.mail may contain confidential or privileged information, ff you are not the intended recipient, please advise
by return e-mail and delete immediately without reading or fon~arding to others.
7/21/2004
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Tax Exemption Ordinance
SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQiJEST:
Authorizing nublJc hearing to consider ordinance
amending Chapter 15, Taxation, Article X, Real
Estate. to grant certain property [ax exemptions.
STAFF CONTACT~):
AGENDA DATE:
August 11 2004
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
Tucker, White, Davis, Hemick, Wiggans, WoodzelJ ~
LEGAL REVIEW: YES REVIEWED BY: ~
BACKGROUND:
In a November 2002 referendum Virginia voters approved an amendment to the Virginia Constitution that shifted the
responsibility for granting most property tax exemptions from the General Assembly to me localities. Since then. me
General Assembly has enacted Virginia Code § 58.1-3651 to outline the circumstances and proceeures under which
localities may grant property tax exemptions. Though Virginia Code § 58.1-3651 effecfively grandfathers property tax
exemptions existing as of January 1,2003 (when the Constitutional amendment took effect), it does not address properties
seeking exemption after that date. Unless a property is Constitutionally exempt (such as government, religious, cemetery,
or educational property), any and all post - January I 2003 exemptions must be granted at the Ioca~ level, either by
designation (specifically naming the organization and property) or by classification (exempting the general class or use of
property).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
4.2: Fund County Services in a fair. efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure.
DISCUSSION:
In responding to this shift in tax-exempting authority, the Board has at least three options. The first option within the
Board's discretion is to do nothing. Localities are not required to adopt new tax exemption ordinances. The state
Constitution would continue to exempt some, but not all, of the same types of properties currently enjoying exempuon. For
example, the state Constitution would contin ue to exempt church or religious proper6' used "for religious worshia or for the
residences of their ministers." However. without a local ordinance other types of new church-owned property (such as new
church vans), and other new property not named in the state Constitution would be taxea.
A second option is to adopt a local ordinance to address how properties desiring tax-exempt status may cecome exempt.
The attached draft ordinance would adopt the classification standards of the Virg/nia Code that applied prior to January 1,
2003, and extend those same exemptions to new post-2003 properties. Without such a local ordinance, umess
Constitutionally exempt, all properties that were not exempt as of December 31,2002 would automatically be taxed. For
example, fraternal lodges exempt as of December 31,2002 would remain exempt; but without a classification ordinanc6,
any new lodges would be taxed, simply because theywere no[ exempt at the time that the General Assembly's exemations
were grandfathered, and the County has not yet established that all fraternal lodges, by classification, will be exempt.
A third option would be to adopt some but not all of the pre-existing classifications. This would eliminate tax-exempt status
for properties in the eliminated classes lacking exemption on January 1,2003 unless the Board granted tax exempt status
by designation.
Staff recommends the second option: the adoption of an ordinance to exempt all classifications of property that previously
existed on the state level. This approach maintains a continuity of how properties are treated for tax-exempt purposes, and
allows new property obtained by owners who would have qualified for tax-exempt status in 2002 by classification to eualify
AGENDA TITLE:
Tax Exemption Ordinance
August 11, 2004
Page 2
for mx-exempt status for the new~y-acouired property.
Following the General Assembly's own enabling legislation, the suggested local ordinance has an effective date of January
1, 2003. This effective date is designed [o address the tax-exempt status of properbes during tax years 2003 and 2004
from the time the state Constitutional amendment became effective Without a 2003 effective date. taxes for the years
2003 and 2004 would technically be due on those properties that the Board chose to exempt by classification after January
1,2003. The 2003 effective date would close any gap for properties that were not exempt prior to January ~ 2003, but
would be tax-exempt if the attached ordinance were adopted,
The proposed ordinance would not affect the Board's current policy of declining special requests for exemption by
designation for property that does not otherwise qualify by classification. While properties meeting the ordinance's
objective criteria to qualify by classification would qualify for exemption, the ordinance does not designate any new entity
(not otherwise meeting the classification criteria) as exempt. The ordinance, however, does outline the procedures
required by state law for considering any future special designation requests. Such requests could be approved or denied
by the Board al its discretion.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board set the attached ordinance for public hearing on September 1,2004.
04.120
Attachment A
Draft: July 27, 2004
ORDINANCE NO. 04-15(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE X, REAL ESTATE - IN
GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virg/nia, that Chapter 15,
Taxation, Article X, Real Estate - In General, is hereby mended and reordained as follows:
ByAdding:
Sec. 15-1004
Sec. 15-1005
Property exempt from taxafion by classification.
Property exempt from taxation by designation.
CItAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE X. REAL ESTATE - IN GENERAL
Sec. 15-1004 Pronertv exemnI.from taxation by classification.
A. ~Eursuant to_the authority k, ranted in~Br!:Lde X,g~JLon 6 (al (6) of the Constitution of Virginia to
~X~l!pt nro~_oertv frop~ tax~~~eal and_~ersonal nkonerk¢
shall be exemo~t fro~
Pron~~~xa!_v b~_the Commonwealth o, mr~nv ~olitic~I sul~division
khcreof.
2. _Buildin~ ac~all~mcc_upv, anxLthe fumiture and fi_tmishin~_s therein owned bv_
cJlm'c~/__~/ous bodies and exclusivelga~el~,gLo~u worshi~mor forLh¢
re=si&nee of the ~~ a~d~ a~ag~ent land
reasonably necessarv for thmcommuie~£ amy~u~hbtf~
Nonprofit ~riva e bi/ u 5t d or ce_meteries.
4~_ Pro~ertz_owned bv~~_f local ba~s when the same are
~la_ble for use by a state court or col!~or Lhe~tudgg~d==g=es2here_o~m~dgcd/~
li~x~rLes of local medical_associations when the same are used~r~lable f r~rmse_ sb2Lsta~
~at~e d~o 1 l~gc3~r ~o~s o f le~rnitlgp~Lco~e e o~t_.
~_is ~am_m'a~ sha/1 an lmp2y~o lmmy~~r/marily_u~tktk~scie~tific or
educ~~l o~ in, lustful sch~
~~o~o he~~
5 ~o~md acBla~xchisivel_v occupied and used b_v the Yotmg Men's_
_Christian Asses an~us associations, including religious mission board~
audms~c~n o t lu e om~ormato~tal s~n dmunne!5_e q-~ ~nducted
not for 9rofit b~ ehex!lhisivel¥ as charities (which shall include hosgitals onerated by nonsteck
comorat/ons not orggali~d or c~duCed for profit but which may charge per~s~u~ble~Lo~o a2z
in_whole or in aart for th(ir care and treatm~
· 6. P~rk~_orM0Jagm'oun~eld bTg2a!ske~ for t~he neroetual use o£the general oubkic.
7~ _ Buildings with the land they actually occup=g,, and ~e a~d f/mmishk~s_zherein
belonvAI~g~_to any ben~Uor~ organization and used b_¥~Uexcl~sive2~ for
~os_es or meetine ~ w/th suc~al ad~e_nt lan~d as_may be~
necessar~z for t_he convenient~use of the buildin~_~_s for such p ~u~moses.
8. Prope~gzof ~=gn_onnrofit como_ration_ organized to estabhsh ancl nminto;m a museum.
B, ~l~e real an~j~so~verty o_f an oreanization classified in Vireinia Code~58.1-_3610 t~roueh
58A-3622 and used bv su~~ ihihihihihihihihih/~oricaL bcmevolel~t
c~ultural, or_publicA~ark and pJaverou~uro_ nsc as set forth in Article X.~ Section 6 (aX6) ~f the
C~mfi~ of V~g~ia~a the par0~_ar Rur~ose for which such o~aniz_ation is c!assifi~ein~g
s2gecificall~v set forth_ within each section, shall be exemnt from marion, so lonz_as such organization
is onerated not for pro~t and the n~xemm is used in accordance with the puroose for which_
~fion is classified.
Provertv which was exempt from taxatio~m~ ceD~c, mnker 31 ~0Z.~hall co~fi~fin~he exemnt from
~t~a~er the mle_s of statutory construction anplicable to exempt nrov. per~v at the time such
~ecm~/tled to~mOlk~
1~ ~xempz~n~of~/ar~e~r~q fl'_om taxation~_~anted under th/s section on or after Janua~ 1
s~'/c~strued in accordance with Article X. Section 6 (~fl of the Constitution of Vi~imm
Sec, 15-1005 Property exempt from t ' ~'- ~,=.
P~~ J 20 an be~-e~x~l~4at st~tlxls ~
de_si_cLnation onlv bv the ad_option of an ordin carm_eALv~e boardd of supervisors.gra~lBklg_the exemption. The_
doa~~~e shall b_~_nt to tke_pro~s~cle 4A ~C_ha~ter 36~5 .80~of the
Code of Vir~nia ~oplicable to th~~b2/d i~s/gua~o_n.
Statelaw r.~J~erenc~ ;~i : ~' ~ ~ ~ ' oJztedO~z
1 coc 1 overnine bod_v on or after January 1. 2003. Va, CL~I~-~ Va. C~ode~5tk 1-3~[0~
Pursuant to Enactment Clause 2 of Chapter 557 of the 2004 Acts of Assembly, this ordinance
shall be effective as of January 1, 2003.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify, that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virg/nia, by a vote of__ to , as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
My. B owerlman
Mr~ Rooker
Mr. Wyant
Mr. Boyd
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Super~sors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Request to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority Jurisdictional Area for water service [o Tax
MaD 46. Parcels 23D and 23D1
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
To consider holding a public hearing [o amena the
ACSA Jurisdictional Area boundary [o provide water
service.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, CilJmberg, Benish, Ragsdale
LEGAL REVIEW:
AGENDA DATE:
August11,2004
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes ~
This is a proposal to amend the ACSA Jurisdiction Area to provide water service to two parcels which are 2.3 acres and 2.2
acres in size, ocated on the south side of Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road). The properties are adjacent to the Rivanna
River and are located across from the entrance to the Montgomery Ridge subdivision (under construction). The properties
are zoned P.~.. Rural Areas and are designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The properties' current water
source is a spring located across Polo Grounds on Tax Map 46, Parcel 23B. The applicant is requesting water service due
to potential threats to the spring's viability as a wa[er source. The immediately adjacent properties to the east and the west
are not located in the ACSAJA, All properties located on the north side of Polo Grounds Road are within the ACSAJA for
water and sewer service. (Attachment A) Water lines will be constructed within the Mon[gomery Ridge subdivision and the
ACSA estimates that once water lines are complete, they will be within approximately 800+ feet of the applicant's property.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1: Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character.
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer to the Rural Areas:
· Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jun'sdictional Areas (p. t25).
· Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Ares in delineating the JurisdictionalAreas (p. 125).
· Only allow changes in the JurisdictionalAreas outside of the designated Development Areas/n cases where the
property is: I) adjacent to existing lines; 2) public health and/or safety are in danger (p125).
This request has been made because the condition of the spring servrng the properties is being compromised due to
surrounding development, There are very limited opportunities to locate a new well on the properties, due to the location of
drainfields and because portions of the properties are located in the floodplain. The applicant has submitted preliminary
information which indicates attempts to locate wells on [ne properly have not been successful due to dangerously high
contaminates in the water. Staff has requested the applicant provide more information from the hydrologist and also the
Health Department. it is anticipated that this information will be available in sufficient time for the staff to review prior to
gublic hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The request appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy for the provision of public water service to the
Rural Area subject to further information to be provided and reviewed regarding on-site options for providing adequate
service to the sites In order to allow for a timely review of this request given the applicant's current situation staff
recommends the Board set a public hearing for its Septem bet 1 meeting to consider providing water service to the existing
structures on Tax map 46, parcels 23D and 23D1.
ATTACHMENTS: A-Plat of property; B-Jurisdictional Area Map
04.116
ATTACHMENT A
ROUTE
6 43 ... {50')
...TAg
LOT A
2.$05§ AC.
?0 I PI. AT]'-:
LOT B '~'
2.277i Ac.
LOTS A and B , BEING A DIVISION
TAX MAP 46 PARCEL 23D
RIVANNA DISTRICT
P, LB£MARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE = I"- I00' JULY 25,1985
S. V. ".KIRK" NUGNES~ C.L.S.
LAND SURVEYOR ~, PLANNER
KESWICK ~ VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Red Hill Water Supply for Contaminated Wells
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Uedate on the Red Hill study and proposal for a
replacement water supply
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker. Foley, Graham, Hirschman
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
August 11. 2004
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
County staff has been working with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ.I on a stuay to find a replacement water
supply in the Red Hill area. The study is needed due to a major groundwater contamination incident originating at the
Trading Post on Route 29. So far, 11 wells have had 2etroleum products detected, and 7 have had carbon filtration units
(cfu's) installed, some for many years, DE(: has already expended significant funds on investigations anc pump and treat
systems, and the plume is far from contained. DEQ is very concerned that a permanent: reliable water supply can be
provided for the impacted properties and those at risk for contamination. For this reason DEQ approached the County
early in 2003 to seek help in studying and setting up me replacement water supply.
The recent history of this project is summarized below:
· At its March 5, 2003 meeting, the Board authorized County staff to work with DEQ to facilitate a long-term water supply
solution.
· On December 10, 2003, [he Board authorized the County Executive to sign an interagencyagreement with DEQ. The
agreement allows the County to erocure consultant services to study and recom mend a realacement water supply, with
all study costs [o be reimbursed by DEQ.
· DEQ and the County held a public meeting at Red Hill School on Aari122 2003 to inform the public about the situation
and seek input on whether a replacement water supply would be supported,
· A Request for Proposals was developed, and after a competitive process. Golder Associates was chosen to conduct
the stuey.
The study involves evaluating [ne feasibility of various water supply configurations: individual replacement wells, shared
wells, or a community water supply. The work is divided into two phases. Phase 4 is a preliminary groundwater
investigation, and Phase 2 involves more detailed geologic and engineering work to analyze particular water supply
options Golder nas completed the Phase 1 report and is readyto proceed with phase 2 when given the notice to proceed,
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3.1: Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live work
aha play
DISCUSSION:
In Phase 1,Golder studied geology, water quality issues, land uses, existing wells, and bedrock fractures in the Red Hill
vicinity. Phase 1 identified three potential water supply options and 15 potential well sites for replacement water supply.
Replacement of individual wells :)n each impacted lot Ior shared between two or more lots) were not found to be a feasible
option due to water quality and quantity ~ssues. That left only a community wa[er system or extending public water to this
area as options. GolderoutlinedthefollowingthreeoptionsforacommunitywatersysteminthePhase 1 repom
AGENDA TITLE:
Red Hill Water Supply for Contaminated Wells
August 11 2003
Page 2
(1) A small community water supply to serve the 11 impacted properties. Staff has sedous concerns with the long-term
viability of such a system. Past experience has shown that fixed operating costs for a system this small make it cost
prohibitive except where one of the property owners assumes the management responsibility. Even where some
property owner assumes the initial management responsibility, experience has shown [nero is eventuallysome gao in
management that results in supply problems and those problems create a demand for the County [o assume
responsibility of the system. If the public (County) were m manage this system, the fixed operating costs of the system
would make ii prohibitively expensive for the properties without significant public subsidies. As such, staff believes this
option should only be considered as a last resort and it does not warrant further study at this point.
(2) A medium size community water supply to serve the 11 impacted properties plus additional properties immediately
surrounding and/or downgradient from the contaminated plume that may be impacted in the future. This system
configuration would include any property with a potential for future contamination, including Red Hill School and
possibly the Southern Hills Subdivision Staff believes this system is the smallest size that has any chance of long-
term viability while remaining cost effective. Staff believes the Phase 2 study can determine Jf this oetJon Js a viable.
cost-effective solution.
(3) A larger community water supply to serve ;~roperties along Route 29 between the Trading Post and Crossroads
(Route 692 and Route 710). This system would effectively create a water system capable of supporting a village slzea
community. Gotder considered this option because larger community systems tend to be the most reliable and this
area is known for poor groundwater yields. While staff agrees this system offers the best chance of long-term viability,
it also creates policy issues with regard to rural land use. As such, staff believes this option should only be considered
[f option 2 proves impracticable and the Board of Superwsors ~s reaay to consider the rural land use issues associated
with it.
Golder is ready to proceed with Phase 2 of this study. Phase 2 would include hydrogeologic and engineering work on a
smaller number of sites to assess the feasibility of a water supply system, including cost estimates for both the initial
construction and long-term operations of the system. Staff believes this work needs to be completed before the Board
could consider approval of a community water system or extending public water to this location. As stated above, staff
believes option 2 is the most prudent from a water supply and County policy perspective, Staffwould ~ike Golder and DEQ
to proceed with Phase 2 at the eadiest time possible. Subsequent to that work, staff would propose to come before me
Board to review the findings and see if other options shoutd be investigated further.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Authorize staff to proceed with Phase 2 of the study using option 2. This study would include detailed hydrogeologic and
engineedn§ analysis, as well as cost estimates for both construction and long-term operations
04.105
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
AT RICHMOND, ~ULY 20, 2004
';!' tONTROL
~kPPLICATION OF
VERIZON VIRGINIA INC.
and
VERIZON SOUTH INC.
For Approval of a Plan for
Alternative Regulation
Yi'-2G-O4A~ 2:22 RCVD
CASE NO. PUC~2004-00092
ORDEK FOR NOTICE AND COMMENT
On July 9, 2004, Vmizon Vir~Mnia Inc, and Verizon South Iuc. (collectively, "V~xizon" or
"Applicant") filed an appligation with the State Corporation Commission ["CommJssiom") for
approval of a n~vly proposed altexnative regulatory plan ("Plau") pm'suant to Va. Code § 56-
235.5 B. The application requests that the Commission approve the Plan to become effective
October 1, 2004. The appIication also includes a Motion for Protective Order together with a
Pzoposed Protective Order.
Vexizon maintains that sweeping industry changes have erca~cd an urge~t need to replace
its exirSag alternative xegulatory plans to allow it to better respond to thc increasingly
competitive tclec, ommunications mar!~t. Vezizon states that the Plan caabtcs it to raise thc
prices of its basic services closer to cost but ensures that basic services remain affordable even if
prices are increased. The Applicant further says that the Plan w~ll c=.hanc¢its famncis] capacity
to maJztai~ good service. Verlzon represents that its Plan satisfies all applicable statutory.
rcqui,~-,,',ents and is in thc public iatercst.
NOW UPON CONSIDEP, ATION oft;ne application, thc Co~rnissior: is of the opinion
mad finds tha~ Vefizon's application should be docketed; that the Applicant should give notice to
the public of its application; that interested p~rsorm should have an opportunity to comment
request a heating on Verizon's apphcation; and that the Commission Staff should conduct an
investigation into the reasonableness of the application and present its findings in a Staff Report.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(I) This case is docketed and assigned Case No. PUC-2004-00092.
(2) On or before July 28, 2004, Verizon shall complete publication of the following
notice to be pubhshed on one Il) occasion as display advertising in newspapers having general
circulation t~oughont its service territories within the Commonwealth:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION BY
VERIZON VIRGINIA 1NC. AND VERIZON SOUTH 1NC.
FOR APPROVAL OF A NEWLY PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
REGULATORY PLAN
CASE NO. PUC-2004-00092
On July 9, 2004, Verizon Virginia Inc. and Verizon South
Inc. (collectively "Verizon") filed an application with the State
Corporation Commission ("Commission") for approval of a new
proposed alternative regulatory plan ("Plan") pursuant to Va. Code
§ 56-235.5 B.
Verizon malmains that sweeping industry changes have
created an urgent need to replace its existing alternative regulatory
plans to allow it to better respond to the increasingly competitive
telecommunications market. Verizon states that the Plan enables it
to raise the prices of its basic services closer to cost but ensures
that basic services remain affordable even if prices are increased.
The Applicant further says that the Plan will enhance its financial
capacity to maintain good service. Verizon represents that its Plan
satisfies all applicable statutory requirements and is in the public
interest.
Copies of the application are available for public inspection
between the hours of 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, in the Commission's Document Control Center located on
the first floor of the Tyler Bulld'mg, 1300 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia. Copies may als0 be downloaded from the
Commission's website: http://www.state.va.us/scc/caseinfo.htm, or
maybe ordered from Verizon's counsel, Lydia R. Pulley, Vice
President, General Counsel, and Secretary, Verizon Virginia Inc.,
2
600 East Main Street, Suite 1100, Richmond, Virginia 23219-
2441.
On or before August 20, 2004, any person desiring to
comment on Verizon's Plan may do so by directing such comments
in writing to the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth
below. A copy of such written comments shall be simultaneously
served upon Verizon's counsel at the address set forth above.
Interested persons desiring to submit comments electronically may
do so by following the instructions found on the Commissioffs
website: http ://www.state.va.us/scc/caseinfo.htm.
Any person may request a hearing on Verizon's application
by filing an original and fifteen (15) copies of its request for hearing
on or before August 20, 2004. Any person desiring to be a party m
this proceed'mg under the terms of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 5 VAC 5-20-80, shall file a notice of
paracipation on or before August 20, 2004. Such requests for
hearing, notices of participation, or combination of the two shall be
filed with the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth
below. Requests for hearing must include: (i) a precise statement of
the interest of the filing party; (ii) a statement of the specific action
sought to the extent then known; (iii) a statement of the factual and
legal basis for such action; and (iv) a precise statement why a
hearing should be conducted inthe matter. Notices of participation
shall include: (i) a precise statement of the interest of the fil'mg
party; (ii) a statement of the specific action sought to the extent
then known; and (iii) a statement of the factual and legal basis for
such action. Persons filing a request for hearing, a notice of
participation, or a combirmtion of the two shall serve a copy upon
Verizon's counsel at the address set forth above.
All written communications to the Commission concerning
Verizoffs Plan shall be directed to Joel H. Peck, Clerk of the State
Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box
2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, and shall refer to Case No.
PUC~2004-00092.
VERIZON VIRGINIA INC. AND VERIZON SOUTH INC.
(3) On or before July 28, 2004, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the notice
contained in Ordering Paragraph (2) to each local exchange telephone carder certificated in
Virginia and each interexchange cartier certificated in Virginia by personal delivery or first-class
3
mail, postage prepaid, to the customary place ofbus~ness. Lists of all current local exchange and
interexchange carders in Virginia are attached to this Order as Appendices A and B,
respectively.
(4) On or before July 28, 2004, Verizon shall mail a copy of its application and a copy of
this Order by personal delivery or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the chairman of the
board of supervisors and county attorney of each county and upon the mayor or manager of
every city and town (or upon equivalent officials in counties, towns, and cities having alternate
forms of government) in which Verizon provides service. Service shall be made by first-class
mail to the customary place of business or residence of the person served.
(5) Any person desiring to comment on Verizon's Plan may do so by directing such
comments in writing on or before August 20, 2004, to Joel H. Peck, Clerk of the State
Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia
23218. A copy of any such written comments shall be simultaneously served upon Verizon's
counsel, Lydia R. Pulley, Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary, Verizon Virginia Inc.,
600 East Main Street, Suite 1100, Richmond, Virginia 23219-2441. Interested persons desiring
to submit comments electronically may do so by following the instructions found on the
Commission's website: http://www.state.va.us/scc/caseinfo.htm.
(6) On or before August 20, 2004, any person wishing to request a hearing on Verizon's
Plan. to be a party in this proceeding, or to do both shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of
its request for heating, notice of participation, or combination of the two in writing with the
Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth above. Written requests for hearing shall refer
to Case No. PUC-2004-00092 and shall include: (i) a precise statement of the interest of the
filing party; (ii) a statement of the specific action sought to the extent then known; (iii) a
4
statement of the factual and legal basis for such action; and (iv) a precise statement why a
hearing should be conducted in the matter. Notices of participation shall include: (i) a precise
statement of the interest of the filing party; (ii) a statement of the specific action sought to the
extent then known; and (iii) a statement of the factual and legal basis for such action. A copy
shall also simultaneously be served on Verizon's counsel at the address set forth above.
(7) On or before August 9, 2004, the Applicant shall file with the Commission proof of
notice and proof of service as ordered above.
(8) The Commission Staff shall analyze Verizon's Plan, together with the comments
received, and present its findings in a Staff Report to be filed on or before September 13, 2004.
(9) On or before September 27, 2004, Verizon may file with the Clerk of the
Commission an ortginal and fifteen (15) copies of any response to the Staff Report or to the
comments and requests for hearing filed with the Commission. A copy of the response shall be
delivered by overnight delivery to the Staff and any other persons who filed comments or
requests for hearing.
(10) Pursuant to § 12.1-31 of the Code of Virginia and 5 VAC 5-20-120 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Proeedure, 5 VAC 5-20-10 et seq., the Commission assigns
a Hearing Examiner to consider Verizon's Motion for Protective Order and to role on any
discovery matter that may arise in this proceeding.
(11) Verizon shall respond to written interrogatories or data requests within seven (7)
days after the receipt of the same. Persons who file requests for hearing shall provide to
Verizon, the Comm/ssion Staff, and any other persons who file requests for hearing any
workpapers or documents used in preparation of their requests for hearing, promptly upon
5
request. Except as so modified, discovery shall be in accordance with Part IV of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
(12) Verizon shall respond promptly to requests from interested persons for copies of the
Plan and shall provide one copy free of charge. Copies are also available for public inspection
between the hours of 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday througk Friday, in the Commission's
Document Control Center located on the first floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia, or may be downloaded from the Commission's website:
http://www, state.va.us/sco/caseinfo.htm.
(13) This matter is continued generally.
AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to:
Lydia R. Pulley, Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary, Verizon Virginia Inc., 600 East
Main Street, Suite 1100, Richmond, Virginia 23219-2441; C. Meade Browder, Jr., Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, Office of Attorney General,
900 East Main Street, 2nd Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219; and the Commission's Office of
General Counsel and Divisions of Communications, Public Utility Accounting, and Economics
and Finance.
6
BEFORE THE )7-29-0d~72:22 ~CVD
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
OF VIRGINIA
APPLICATION OF )
)
VERIZON VIRGINLA INC, and )
)
VERIZON SOUTH INC. )
)
For Approval of a Plan for )
Alternative Regulation )
Case No. PUC-2004~
APPLICATION
Verizon Vir~nia Inc. ("Verizon VA") and Verizon South Inc. ("Verizon South")
(collectively, "Verizon") hereby apply pursuant to Vm Code § 56.235.5 (B) to adopt a
proposed alternative regulatory plan, which replaces these companies' existing plans in
response to the sweeping in&stry changes that have Occurred since they were adopted.'~
This Application is supported bythe affidavits of Verizon Virginia President Robea't W.
Woltz, Jr. andDr. William E. Taylor, Pt~D. Acopyoftheproposedplan (the"Verizon
Plan" or "Plan") is attached as Exhibit A. Verizon respectfully requests that the
' Commission approve the Plan so that it becomes effective October 1, 2004.
By Order issued on October 18, 1994 in Case No. PUC-1993-00036 (the "1994 Order"), the Commission
adopted separate alternative regulatory plans for then-Bell Atlantic Virginia (now Verizon VA) and then-
GTE (now Verizon South). By Order issued on December 21, 2000 in Case No. PUC000265. the
Commission adopted a new plan for Verizon South, which is currently in effect and winch is ~ slightly
modified version of thc Ven4zon VA plan adopted in 1994. The modifications did not pertain to the
pricing rules included in that Verizon VA plar~ By Order issued on May 15, 2001 i~ Case No. PUC-
2001-00003 the Commigqioll modified the Verizon VA plan so that the current Verizen VA plan and the
current Verizon South Plan are virtually identical. Those plans are collectively referred to herein as the
"existing plan" or the "current plan."
~.. INTRODUCTION
When it first adopted alternative regulatory plans for local exchange eomparfies in
1994, the Commission acknowledged "the rapid changes occurring in the
telecommunications industry" and reco~i~ed "how important it is for regulatory
mechardsms to keep pace with and encourage those changes that have positive impacts
on consumers and telecomm~mications companies.'~ Intha decade since, competitive
and technological developments have transformed the telecommunications industry such
that, consistent with the Commission's initial observations, modifications to the current
plan are required '~o keep pace with" these industry changes and to enable Verizon to
remain competitive. Mr. Woltz describes these developments in substantial detail in his
supporting affidavit.
As. described by Mr. Woltz, numerous competitive local exchange careers
("CLECs"), including inter-exchange carriers AT&T and MCI, are currently serving
residence andbusiness customers in virtually every Verizon wire center in Vir~n~a. In
fact, CLEC penetration of the Virginia local exchange market increased dramatically in
the past year. inmaoor population centers of Ver~.' Oh'S service area, where almost 75%
of Verizon and CLEC access lines are located, CLEC penetration now exceeds 30%, and
approaches 45% in areas containing over a quarter of those urban access lines. In areas
where CLECs have been actively pursuing residential customers, their share has reached
between 3040% and that same type of penetration can'be expected elsewhere as they
begin to follow through on announced plans to expand into new areas of the state. In
order to at,act and retain customers, CLECs and other providers of telecommunications
1994 Order at 3 (citing Final Order in Case No. PUC920029).
services, including the cable Companies, all offer competitively priced bundles of
services, consisting of local, toll and long distance services as well as other services. In
fact, over 40% of customers in the Verizon service territory no longer purchase their
services at the traditional tariffed rates set by rids Commission - instead they buy bundles
of services either from CLECs or Verizon.
As also described by Mr. Woltz, wireless and broadband services exert an
enormous mount of competitive pressure on Verizon's traditional local exchange service
as well. With the proliferation of wireless '%uckets" of any distance, anytime minutes of
use, growing numbers ~f wireline customers are using wireless phones inlieu of any
wireline connectiom Similarly, as broadband availability has increased, customers are
communicating through DSL and cable modem services and, in the process, are
eliminating second telephone lines and dramatically reducing usage on their remainin g
w/reline phone.
Cable companies currently provide broadband service to more Vir~ula customers
than are served by other broadband providers and they are akeady offering competitive
voice serrates using both circuit-switched and Voice over hternet Protocol ("VolP")
technology. Indeed, VolP services pose a serious competitive threat to wireline voice
telephony. Companies such as Vonage, AT&T, Cox, Cavalier and Comcast, to name just
a few, are rapidly rolling out VolP services (including optional calling features such as
Caller ID and three way calling) in Virginia, sometimes bypassing the wireline local
exchange network entirely where the calls are from one VolP caller to another on the
same service.
3
These developments present an urgent need to replace Verizon's current plan to
better ackieve the key policy objective articulated by the Commission in its 1994 Order
adopting the original Verizon VA plan - that is, to "provide [Verizon] the flexibility [it]
need[s] to respond to the increasingly competitive telecommunications market in a
manner similar to [its] unencumbered competitors.''3 The Commission's determination
then that "LECS faced with competitive pressures must be able to respond quickly and be
innovative''4 is more compelling today when competitive pressures are greater than ever
before and continue to increase. Just as the 1994 plan "facilitate[ct] [Verizon's]
adaptation to the merging competitive markets,''s the Verizon Plan will facilitate
Verizon's adaptation to the fully competitive markets thaf exist today.
The Verizon Plan satisfies the public interest requirements of both Va. Code § 56-
235.5 (B), and the recently enacted Local Competition Policy.6 AS discussed below and
in greater detail inthe supporting affidavits, the Plan enables Verizon to raise the prices
of its basic services closer to cost but ensures that basic services remain affordable even
if prices are increased. By enabling Verizon to reduco subsidies, the Plan will stimulate.
competition in areas where basic services are currently priced below cost, Further, by
reduding the regulatory burdens on Verizon, the Plan veil/enhance VcnSzon's financial
capacity to maintain good service. The Verizon Plan is in the public interest and should
be approved.
1994 Order at 1I.
~ Id. at 5.
5Jd,
Va Code § 56-235.5:1 (''Local Competition Policy").
4
B. TERMS OF TIlE VERIT. ON PLAN
In support of th/s Application, Verizon states the following:
The Verizon Plan has the following major provisions:
Prices for each Verizon company's basic local exchange telephone
services ('~BLETS") can be increased up to a price ceiling
consisting of the highest prices charged by either Verizon company
for the same services.
Price increases up to the ceiling are limited to 10% during the fist
twelve months following the effective date of the Plan, and are
thereafter limited to an equivalent of 10% per twelve month
perio&
The price ce~liug will be increased annually by the rate of inflation,
as measured by the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, be~uuiu g
oll the J~fst ~nuiversary of the effective date of the Plan.
Price increases for other local exchange telephone services
("OLETS") are limited to an equivalent of 10% per twelve-month
period (as in the current plan).
Tariffed Bundled Services can be offered upon notification to the
Commission.
Revenue-neutral price changes, which can include BLETS,
OLETS and switched access s~-ices, can be made by Verizon
upon a Commia~on finding that they are in the public interest.
Price decreases for retail services are allowed, subject to a price
floor.
2. The Verizon Plan is substantially similar to the currellt plan that the
Commission previously approved as in the public interest. Indeed, the only significant
changes t~om the em-rent plan would allow incremental increases m BLETS prices up to a
reasonable ceiling, enable Verizon to propose revenue-neutral price changes that can
include switched access services, and establish a link between the rules applying to
CLECs and those applying to Vetizon (while preserving the Commission's discretion to
apply different rules if necessary). These new features enhance Verizon's ability m
provide good service at competitive prices and thus strengthen VmSzon's showing that
the Yefizon Plan complies with Va. Code § 56-235.5 (B). Given the breadth of
competition in the state today, these new features represent modest but essential steps ha
the fight d/reetion of providing Verizon the increased pricing flexibility it needs to
respond to industry developments.
3. The affidavits filed by Mr. Woltz and Dr. Taylor in support of this
Application explain in detail how the Verizon ?lan meets the four statutory requirements
of Va. Code § 56-235.5 (B). As more fully demonstrated in those affidavits, the Plan
ensures~
a. Affordability. The Verizon Plan '~protects the affordability of basic
local exchange semce, as such service is defined by the Commission."' Va. Code § 56-
235.5 (B)(i). When the Commission adopted the pricing rules in the current plan, it
found that BLETS prices were "affordable" then and that the pricing rules would ensure
that those prices remain affordable while the plan was in effect.7 As Dr. Taylor discusses
in his affidavit, BLETS prices are actually more affordable now than they were when the
Commission approved those rules. Dr. Taylor also explains that BLETS prices will
remain affordable under the Verizon Pla~
b. Service Quality. The Verizon Plan '¥easonsbly assures the
continuation of quality local exchange service." Va. Code § 56-235.5 (B)(ii). While the
Plan is in place, Veriz0n will adhere to the same service quality roles to which all other
local exchange companies in Vir~nia will adhere (Verizon Plan, Section M). In addition,
? 1994 Order at 6-7 (although. as noted, the Verizan VA plan approved in tl~ order was adopted in
modified form for Verizon South in 2000 and modified for Verizan VA in 2001, the pricing rules in the
original Verizon VA. plan were not materially modified and were retained vkrtually unchanged in the
current plan The Comm~s$inI1 found that th~ current plan, as modified, was in the publie interest).
the Commission will retain regulatory oversighl of Verizon's service quahty and, with
assistance from Staff, w/il be able to monitor service results reported by Verizon pursuant
to Commission roles. The Commission has found that the combination of its rules and its
continued monitoring of performance under those rules adequately assures continued
sermce quality as required by the statute.8 Market forces generated by competition
provide additional assurance in that regard..Simply stated, Verizon will be forced to
maintain good service to avoid losing customers to competitors or enforcement action by
the Commission Staff.
c. No Unreasonable Prejudice or Disadvantage to Customers or
Competitors. The Verizon Plan does '~not unreasonably prejudice or disadvantage any
class of telephone company customers or other providers of competitive services."
Va. Code § 56-235.5 (B)(Ki). In additionto a comprehensive set of pricing ruleS, the
Plan includes a pnce floor and a eros?subsidy test that will prevent anti-competitive
behavior (which, as a ma~er of simple economics, is improbable in any event). As Dr.
Taylor explsin~ in his affidavit, the price floor comports with basic economic principles
for protecting against predatory pricing and vertical price squeezes. The same holds true
for the cross-subsidy test, which will effectively prohibit Verizon from subsidiz/ng
Competitive Services with revenues from services that remain subject to regulation under
the Verizon Plan. Standing alone, these competitive safeguards are sufficient to satisfy
the requirements of Va. Code § 56-235.5 (B)(iii). When coupled with market forces
(which, as Dr. Taylor explains, already prevent the type of anti-competitive behavior that
the Plan's competitive safeguards are intended to prevent), those safeguards provide more
R Id. at 10.
7
than adequate assurance that customers.and competitors will not be unreasonably
disadvantaged or prejudiced under the Plan.
d. The Verizon Plan Is In The Public Interest. The Commission has
formd that compliauce with the first three statutory requirements - affordab'ffity,.service
quality, and no unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage to customers or competitors - is
sufficient reason to conclude that an alternative regulatory plan is in the public interest.9
As outlined above and demonstrated in the supporting affidavits, the Verizon Plan
satisfies these requirements and should, therefore, be approved as in the public interest.
The Commission has also found that an alternative regulatory pltm "benefits the public
interesf' where, as here, it "provid[es] ... the flexibility ... need[ed] to respond to the
increasingly competitive telecommurdcations market in a manner similar to th~tt of...
unencumbered competitors.'d°
The Plan also satisfies the requirements of the Local Competition Policy and thus,
by/replication, serves the public interest. That law provides that the Commission shall
consider it in the pabl/c interest to adopt regulations that fuffiter three pro-competition
policies. First, that law provides that the Commission "shall ... to the greatest extent
possible, apply the same rules to all providers of local exchange telephone servicos.''n
Second, the law requ/res the Cornmlssion to adopt rules that '~promote competitive
offerings investments innovations and from all providers of local exchange telephone
services in all areas of the Commonwealth.''~2 Finally, the li(w requires the Commission
Old. at 11.
~O ld'
Va. Code § 56-235.5:1(i).
Va. Code § 56-235.5:1(/5).
m "reduce or eliminate any requirement to price retail and wholesale products and
sm'vices at levels that do nor permit providers oflocai exchange telephone services to
recover their costs of those products and services.''~3 The Plan satisfies these three
requirements. It puts Verizon on a more equal footing with its competitors and enables it
to minlroJze subsidies in a way that will stimulate competition and promote innovative
competitive offerings. By adopting the Verizon Plan, the Commission will be adopting
precisely the kind of roles that are requ/red by the Local Competition Policy to serve the
public interest.
WHEREFORE Verizon Virginia Inc. and Verizon South Inc. respectfully assert
that the alternative regulation plan attached to th~s Application complies with Va. Code
§ 56-235.5 (B) and thereby request that the Commission approve the Verizon Plan so that
it becomes effective October 1, 2004.
Of Counsel:
Robert P. Slevin
Respectfully submitted,
Attorney for
Verizon Virginia Inc. and
Verizon South Inc.
600 East Main Street, Suite 1100
Richmond, 'VA 23219
Dated: July 9, 2004
Va. Code § 56-235.5:1(//i).
EXHIBIT A
VERIZON VIRGINIA INC. AND VEI~IZON SOUTH II~C.
PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE REGULATION
Co
Applicability of Plan.
1. Upon election, this Plan will apply to Verizon
Virginia Inc. ("Verizon Virginia'"or ~Company") and Verlzon
South Inc. (~Verizon South" or ~Company") 'and will go into
.effect on October 1, 2004.
2. Nothing in this Plan shall be deemed to affect the
ability or authority of any entity other than. Verizon
Virginia and Verizon South to offer any telecommunications
service.
Changes to Plan.
1. Any change to this Pls!q may occur only after an
appropriate proceeding is initiated and held under the
provisions of § 56-235.5D of the Code of Virginia.
2. Any such change approved by the Commission shall have
prospective effect only.
Classification of Services.
1. Telecommunications services of Verizon Virginia and
Verizon South will be classified into four categories
called Basic Local Exchange Telephone Services, Other Local
Exchange Telephone Services, Competitive Services, and
Bundled Services, as defined below. Verizon Virginia's and
Verizon South's existing services are distributed among
these four categories in accordance with Appendix A and
Appendix B hereto, respectively.
2. Service classifications are defined as follows:
a. "Competitive Services" are determined pursuant to §
56-235.5F of the Code of Virginia.
b. "Basic Local Exchange Telephone Services,, ("BLETS")
are dial tone line and any included local calling
allowance (flat rate, message rate or measured rate) sold
to residence and business customers, and that do not meet
the definition of Competitive Services. BLETS may also
include other services that the Commission determines are
essential, non-optional telecommunications services that
do not meet the definition of Competitive Services.
c. "Other Local Exchange Telephone Services" (~OLETS")
are individual telecommunications services that do not
conform to the definition of Competitive Services or the
definition of BLETS.
d. ~Bundled Services" are packages of services that
include services from one or more of the categories
defined in C.2.a, C.2.h and C.2.c above and are offered
at an aggregate price.
D. Classification of New Services and Reclassification of
Existing Services.
1. Tariffs for new BLETS, OLETS, and Bundled Services
shall be'filed with notice to the Commission consistent
with the requirements for competitive local exchange
carriers as provided in 20 VAC 5-417-50[H) unless otherwise
ordered by the Commission. The notice shall include
justification for the classification.
2. Upon offering a new Competitive Service, the Company
.will simultaneously file an application, including
justification for the competitive classification, with the
Commission in accordance with ~ 56~235.5E of the Code of
Virginia. The filing of such application shall not result
in the postponement of any new Competitive Service offering
unless the COmmission, for good cause shown, orders
otherwise.
3. Any interested party shall be afforded an opportunity,
by timely petition to the Commission, to propose that a new
service be classified in a different category; however, the
filing of such petition shall not result in the
postponement of any new service offering unless the
Commission, for good cause shown, orders otherwise.
4. Any interested party may petition for the
reclassification of a Verizon Virginia or Verizon South
service. Any such proceeding must be completed within 90
days, unless the Commission should extend these time
periods for good cause shown.
2
5. Verlzon ¥irginia and Verizon South will provide the
Commission with a list of services and geographic areas
where services are deemed Competitive because they are the
functional equivalents of services offered by counties,
cities or towns pursuant to § 56.265.4:4 of the Code of
Virginia.
E. Tariff Requirements.
Tariffs shall continue to be filed for all BLETS, OLETS and
Bundled Services. Tariffs, which may or may not contain prices,
may be filed for any Competitive Service at the option of the
Company, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. The prices
of Competitive Services and Bundled Services shall not be
regulated by the Commission, except as provided for in Sections
I (Bundled Services) and K (Competitive Safegllards), of this
Plan.
Price Changes for BLETS and OLETS.
1. Price changes for BLETS and OLETS shall be governed by
20 VAC 5-~17-50(D), (E) ~nd (G) unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission, except the price ceiling shall be as set
forth in Section (F) (2), (F) (3), and F(4) below.
2. The price ceiling for BLETS shall be the highest
tariffed price in effect for those services in either
company on the effective date Of this plan. Thereafter, the
price ceiling for BLETS will increase annually on the
anniversary of the effective date of the plan by an ~moun~
equal in percentage terms to the increase in the Gross
Domestic Product Price Index (GDPPI) during the past twelve
months.
3. The Gross Domestic Product Price Index used to
determine limits on price ceiling increases shall be the
final estimate of the Chain-Weighted Gross Domestic Product
Price Index as prepared by the U.S. Department of
Commerce and published in the Survey of Current Business,
or its successor.
4. During the first 12 months following the effective
date of this plan, price increases for BLETS and OLETS may
not exceed 10%. Thereafter, the increase may not exceed
percentage amount calculated by multiplying .0083 times the
number of mouths (equates to 10% per twelve-month period)
since the most recent increase. Prices for BLETS and OLETS
may only be increased if the service has not experienced an
increase in the previous twelve mouths. In no event may any
siugle increase exceed 25% nor result in the price for a
BLETS that exceeds the ceiling in Section (F)(2) above.
5. Rate Regrouping of Exchanges.
Nothing in this Plan shall be construed to prohibit rate
regrouping of exchanges due to growuh in access lines or
expanded local calling.
6. Exteuded Local Service (ELS) Calling Adder Rates.
Nothing in this Plan shall be construed to prohibit
establishment of ELS Adder rates pursuant ~o Code Section
56-484.2 of the Virginia Code, nor to permit increases in
any tariffed ELS Adder rates.
Revenue-Neutral Price Changes.
1. Nothing in this Plan shall be construed to prohibit
the Companies from proposing changes in the price of any
BLETS, OLETS or switched access services that do not result
in a net increase inoperating revenues for the Companies.
The notification provisions of Code ~ 56-237.1 of the Code
of Virginia will be applied to such proposals, and if a
protest or objection to the revenue neutral restructuring
is filed by the lesser of 150 or 15% of the affected
customers, or by an affected carrier, the ~Commission shall,
upon reasonable notice, conduct a public hearing concerning
the lawfulness of the restructuring, pursuant to § 56-235.5
of the Code of Virginia. The Commission shall approve such
rate changes if it finds that they are in the public
interest, or the Commission may refuse to approve the
filing if it is not in the public interest or otherwise
fails to comply with this Plan. Any price approved under
this section that exceeds the then current price ceiling
(established under Section-(F)(2)) for a BLETS service will
become the new price ceiling for that servzce and will
thereafter increase in accordance with Section (F) (2).
2. The Commission may require the Companies to show
within the first two years following the implementation of
the price changes that the changes are, in fact, revenue
4
neutral. If they are not, the Commission may require a
prospective adjustment_in the affected prices to ensure
revenue neutrality.
H. Individual-Case-Basis Pricing.
Individual-Case-Basis (.ICB) or custom-service-package contract
pricing is allowed for BLETS s_nd OLETS when a competitive
alternative exists for an individual customer, but where the
service does not otherwise satisfy the requirements of
subsection (C) (2) (a) of this Plan. The conditions of Section
(K)(2) (Price Floors) must be met. The Company must file
quarterly with the Staff documentation listing the names of
customers with whom new ICB contracts have been executed and the
BLETS and OLETS sold under each new contract. Upon written
request by another party, Ehe Company will disclose to that
party the number of customers included in the quarterly report.
I. Pricing for Bundled Services.
Changes to prices for Bundled Services shall be governed by 20
VAC 5-417-50(D) and (G) unless otherwise ordered by the
Commission, except the price ceiling shall not apply. The
conditions of Section (K) (2) (Price Floors) must be met.
J. Reporting.
Verizon Virginia and Verlzon South shall comply with the
reporting requirements of 20 VAC 5-417-60 unless otherwise
ordered by the Commission, and upon request by Commission Staff,
provide publicly available documents.
K~ Competitive Safeguards.
1. There will be no increases in the prices for BLETS or
OLETS other than as outlined in this Plan.
2. Price Floor:
a. For purposes of Section (K) (2), ~Retail Service"
shall be defined as Bundled Services, Competitive
Services, IntraLATA Long Distance Message
Telecommunications Service and Individual-Case-Basis
arrangements, and ~Service Components" shall be
5
defined as Company unbundled network elements,
switched access services, BLETS, and OLETS.
The price of a Retail Service shall equal or exceed
the sum of (i) the lowest-priced combination of any
Service Componenus that can be used to provide the
service, plus (ii) any direct incremental costs of
other components of the Retail Service, except that
where'other carriers can either self-provision
Service Components or obtain them from other
commercial suppliers, the price floor calculation
need only reflect the Company's direct incremental
cost for such Service Components. Service Component
prices shall be the prices Verizon charges other
carriers for those components.
Within 30 days of being notified by the Commission
in writing of a complaint that a Retail Service does
not meet the price floor, the Company will provide
under proprietary protection data demonstrating that
the price floor is met for that Retail Service.
3. Cross S%fosidy:
Pursuant to § 56-235.5(H) of the Code of Virginia, revenues
from Competitive Services in the aggregate must cover their
direct incremental costs, and Verizon Virginia md Verizon
South shall file data annually to demonstrate this
separately for each Company.
Switched Access Servmces.
Pricing for switched access services, except as noted in
Section (G)(1) above, will be considered separately by the
Commission. For all other purposes, access services will be
included in the categories as shown on Appendices A and B.
Service Quality.
verizon virginia and Verizon South shall comply with the
retail service quality rules at 20 VAC 5-400-80 or other
generally applicable retail service quality rules
subsequently adopted by the Commission.
6
VERIZON VIRGINIA INC. AND VERIZON SOUTH INC.
PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE REGULATION
APPENDIX A
CLASSIFICATIONS OF VERIT~ON VIRGINIA INC.
SERVICES
VERIZON VIRGINIA INC. AND VERIZON SOUTH INC.
PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE REGULATION
APPENDIX B
CLASSIFICATIONS OF VERIZON SOUTH INC;
SERVICES
Phone (434) 296-5832
August 11. 2004
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 MclntJre Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902,4596
08-13-04POg:2g RCYD
Fax (434) 972-4126
Peter Caramanis
Trembly & Smith, LLP
PO Box 1585
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: SP 2004-000'18 Leroy and Helen Moyer -ALLTEL/Nix Way (Sign #64)
De~ ' Mr. Caramanis:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission. at its meeting on July 27, 2004. by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
The facility shall be desiqned, constructed and maintained as follows:
With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions
listed herein the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas
shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan entitled. "Alltel - Nix Way Site". dated
March 24, 2004 and provided in this staff report with Attachment A.
The calculation of pole height shall include any base. foundation or grading that raises the pole above
the pre-existing, natural ground elevation.
The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Leve, (AMSL), shall never exceed ten (10) feet
above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five feet. In no case shall the pole exceed 80 feet in total
height at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit or
personal wireless facility permit.
The monopole shall be made of wood and be a dark brown natural wood color.
The ground equ~oment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall
be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application
plans.
Only flush-mounted antennas shall be oermJtted No antennas that project out from the pole beyond
the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However. m no case shall the
distance between the face of the po~e and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches.
No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole.
No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch in diameter
and twelve (12) inches in height shall be located above the top of the pole.
No guy wires shall be permitted.
No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein orovided. Outdoor lighting
shall be limited to pedods of maintenance only. Each outdoor ]uminaire shall be fully shielded such
that all light emit[ed is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield
orshieldingpartoftheluminaire. Forthe purposes ofthis condition, aluminaireisa compietelighting
11.
12
13.
unit consisting of a lamp or lames Together with the carts designed to distribute the light, to position
and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply.
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area
shall not be permitted.
Size specifications and other details, including schematic elevations of the eouJpment cabinets shall
be included in the construction plan package,
Site grading and all construction around the facility shall be minimized to only provide the amount of
space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment cabinets. Graveling of the
total lease area shall not be permitted.
Revise the shape and layout of the lease area and grading to avoid negative impacts to the trees
identified as numbers 109.118. 244. 246 254 and 268
Pdor to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
15.
16.
17.
Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to
justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator,
Prior to begin ning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility
access an amended tree conservation plan. develoced by a certified arborist shall be submitted to the
Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and croceduras,
and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside and outside the access
easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated ~V~th the pole and equipment pad,
including necessary access for cons[ruction or installation snail 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-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for
construcfion of the facility. During the reviewofthe application, Planningstaffshallreviewtherevised
,2lans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed.
After the completion of the pole installation ano pdor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any
facility operation the following shall be met:
18.
19.
20.
Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole. measured both in feet above
ground level cna in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum
identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator.
Certification confirming that the grounding rod's: a', height does not exceed two feet above the
monopote: and. b; width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be .~rovided to the Zoning
Administrator.
No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless
retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are
employed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
21.
22.
The applicant, or any subsequent owners of tl~e facility, shall submit a report To the Zoning
Administrator by July 1 of each year The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider
that uses ti~e facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, en both the tower and the
ground, are associated with each provider.
Al; equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless serwce provider shall be
disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) oays of the date its use is discontinued.
The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date
its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administtator 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 suretysatisfactory to
the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory fo the County, ~n an amount sufficient for, and conditioned
upon, the removal of the facility. The tTpe of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Beard of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on August 11 2004. Any new or additional information regarding your
application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
scheduled hearing ua[e.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
contact me (434) 296-5823.
Sincerely,
Stephen Waller
Senior Planner
SW/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIIshouse
Leroy and Helen Moyer
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
STEPHEN B. WALLER, AICP
JULY 27, 2004
SEPTEMBER 8, 2004
SP 04-018 MOYER~ LEROY AND HELEN (ALLTEL)
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant proposes the installation of a personal wireless service facility, which would
include a metal monopole, approximately 80 feet in total height, with a top height of
approximately 524 feet Above Mean Sea Level (Attachment A). This would result in a
monopole that is 10 feet taller in height than a nearby 72-foot tall tree identified on the
applicant's construction plans. The monopole would be eqmpped w/th one array of three 7.9-
foot long by 8.1-inch wide, flush-mounted panel antennas at its top. Supporting ground
equipment would be contained within two 5.5-foot tall and 4.5-foot wide cabinets on a 96 square
foot concrete pad and a smaller cabinet on a 5 square foot pad. The lease area for the proposed
facility is located on property described as Tax Map 92 Parcel 56B(3), containing 8.98 acres
zoned RA Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay D/strict (Attachment B). The
proposal is located on Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53), approximately 1.3 miles east of the
intersection of Thomas Jefferson Parkway and James Monroe Parkway (Route 795), in
Scottsville Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas
in Rural Area 4 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Petition:
The applicant, Alltel Communications, is in the process of expanding its services with in the area
including Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. This request is for a special use
pemfit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service facility in accordance with Section
10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers and
their appurtenances by special use permit in the Rural Areas.
Planning and Zoning History:
SP 0044 Triton PCS (CVR 361A) - At it's meeting on January 10, 2001, the Board of
Supervisors unanimously approved a request to allow the installation of a personal wireless
service facility on the subject parcel (Attachment C). A 78-foot tall wood monopole serves as
the mounting structure for this facility.
SP 03-37 Mover, Lero¥ and Helen (Triton PCS) ~ At it's meeting on August 13, 2003, the
Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a request to amend the existing special use permit
by allowing the installation of additional ground equipmem and the replacement of antennas
supporting new digital tectmology and E-911 services.
Character of the Area:
The proposed site of the monopole for this facility is located in a wooded area approximately 78
feet south of State Route 53. The site is accessed by way of an existing gravel access road within
an easement for the overhead utility lines that run parallel with the state right-of-way. Another
line of trees runs between the easement and Route 53 providing additional camouflaging and
screening of the existing facility. The area where the treeline starts is situated on an bank that is
approximately 10 feet above the road at its highest point.
The two adjacent properties at the eastern and western and southern boundary lines with this site
share common ownership with the subject parcel and are also zoned Rural Areas (P_A). There is
a single family dwelling on the parcel to the west and the nearest offsite dwelYmg is located
approximately more than 204 feet to the north on property identified as Tax Map 92 - Parcel 36E.
The 72-foot tall reference tree that is being used as the basis for the requested monopole height
is located approximately 19 feet east ofthe monopole site and has a surveyed top elevation of
513.6 feet AMSL. The 78-foot monopole serving the existing Triton facility is 21 feet West of
the proposed monopole site at the 448-foot contour interval. This means that the proposed 80-
foot tall monopole, situated at 444 feet would be approximately 2 feet lower in total height
AMS[,.
During a field visit staffobserved that neither the existing monopole or the test balloon was
visible above the treeline from the Route 53 right-of-way (Attachment D). Staff observed that
the monopole was only visible from Route 53 through the ~xees while standing directly in front of
the site. However, the tallest portion of that monopole was visible, appearing as a minor
extension of the tops of the trees, while traveling south on Gobblers Ridge Road toward the
intersection with Route 53. This was due to a combination of the topography adjacent to the road
and vegetation immediately surrounding the site.
COMPREItENSIVE PLAN:
Because the proposed facility would be accessed by extending an existing road within a utility
easement, staff does not anticipate that a substantial amount of earth disturbance will be
necessary. Therefore, this request is being reviewed for compliance with the recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan that mainly focus on the visual impacts that could result from the
presence of the facility's monopole and equipment building.
The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy is the component of the Comprehensive Plan thai
provides specific guidelines for the siting and review of wireless facilities. Both the Open Space
Plan and Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets,
provide staff with guidance for managing the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and
for the preservation and conservation of those resources in order to protect the environment for
future use.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy:
The guidelines set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy are focused largely on
reducing the visual impacts of wireless facilities from surrounding properties and roadways. The
wireless policy recommends the implementation of a three4iered approval system to address
criteria related to the siring and design of new facilities. The first tier sets a preference for the
development of "stealth" facilities that can either be completely concealed within existing
structures, or attached to existing conforming structures. Tier Two calls for sites that can be
designed to ble~nd in well with the natural surroundings in a manner that assists in mitigating their
visual impacts. This proposal qualifies as a Tier Two facility. The standard conditions of
approval for Tier Two wireless facilities require the use of brown, treetop monopoles that extend
no more than 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, and related ground equipment that is
also painted brown.
Open Space Plan and Chapter 2:
Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets.
provides guidance for protect'rog the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, mad sets the
goals for preservation and management of those resources and the environment for future use.
The Open Space Plan Concept Map provides an inventory that identifies the areas where the
critical resources are present throughout the County. Some of the resources that have been
identified as potentially being impacted by this request are historic sites and the entrance corridor
overlay district for Route 53, and forests.
Although there are no surveyed historic sites identified on this parcel, staff recogrfizes that this
site is located within the proposed Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. Because State
Route 53 is the main road connecting several of the nearby surveyed historic properties within
the district, the Historic Preservation Planner has reviewed this proposal. The historic resources
analys~s concludes that the existing facility does not impose any significant negative impacts
upon the district, but also includes general recommendations for assistance in lessening the
possible impacts of the second facility at this site (Attachment E).
The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is, in pan,
"to implement the Comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and
historic, architectural and cultural resources, including preservation of natural and scenic
resources as the same may serve this purpose," and, "to protect the County's attractiveness to
tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the County
fi.om tourism." The Architectural Review Board addresses the aesthetic impact of all
development within the Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts. The ARB has reviewed this
proposal and recommends approval with conditions that are consistent with the design guidelines
that are applied to all development within the entrance corridors (Attachment F). Based on this
recommendation combined with fact that the test balloon could not be seen at its proposed height
while traveling in either direction on Route 53, it is staff's opimun that the proposed facility
would not impose any negative visual impacts upon the entrance corridor.
The forests surrounding the proposed site of this facility are another resource that is recognized
by the Open Space Plan as being present on the subject parcel. The Open Space Plan identifies
forests within Rural Areas as large areas that are contiguous with other forests or farmlands, have
the best soils for hard woods, and are not in subdivisions. When existing structures are not
available, the recommendations set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy favor
the practice of locating new facilities in forested areas where monopoles and ground equipment
can be designed to blend in with the natural surroundings. This includes the preference for using
brown structures that are no taller than the natural tree canopy so that they are not "skylighted"
against the horizon or alter the continuity ofridgelines. Because of the limited amount of
disturbance for the installation of this facility, and its distance fi.om property lines, it is staff's
opinion that approval of tiffs proposal would not greatly impact the naturally forested state of the
subject parcel, or any of the neighboring properties within the area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zorfing Ordinance and recommends approval with the standard conditions of approval and some
additional conditions that would be specifically applied to this proposal.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will ad&ess the issues of this request in four sections:
1. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and,
2. Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)0I) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adiacem properw,
Staffnotes that a concern for the proliferation of multiple wireless facilities within close
proximity has been brought forth in the review of past proposals for horizontal co-location of
more than one Tier II wireless facilities on a single property. The site of the proposed facility is
in a wooded area surrounded by large trees that would assist in screening and camouflagmg
views from adjacent properties. The monopole serving this facility would be located only 21 feet
from the existing Triton monopole. The previously approved facility is well-screened and the
test balloon observation for the proposed facility indicates that the proposed facility would share
some of the qualifies that are favorable to it. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that if designed and
situated under conditions that are consistent with those for the existing facility, the proposed
facility would not be an intrusive feature upon its natural surroundings or impose any substantial
detriment to adjacem properties. This includes the installation ora wood monopole, as opposed
a metal one.
that the character of the districl will not be changed thereby,
The preservation of the agricultural and forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the
natural, scenic and historic resources are listed among the stated purposes for the Rural Areas
zomng district. Uses allowed by right in the in the Rural Areas are residential, and those related
to agriculture and forestal activities, while uses allowed by special use permit are most often
those that provide services in support of the by-right activities. However, support for locating
facilities that comply with the recommendations of the Personal Wireless Service Facilities
Policy has not been uncommon in the Rural Areas zoning district. The key purpose of the
wireless policy is to site these facilities in locations where there is miulmal potential for intrusion
upon the naturally exisfmg conditions in surrounding areas. It appears that the proposed facility
in this particular case would blend well into the natural surroundings as a result of the tall trees
surrounding the site.
4
Once the facility has been constructed and is fully operational, staff does not expect that the
schedule of site visits would create a significant increase in activity or traffic within the area. As
with past applications for personal wireless service facilities this would be an unmanned site and
the applicant's request indicates that service personnel would only have to travel to the site once
a month for routine maintenance visits. It is also anticipated that some unscheduled visits will be
necessary on occasions when electrical power for the site has been interrupted by unexpected
occurrences such as adverse weather conditions. However, it is staffs opinion that this schedule
of infrequent site visits does not significantly mcrease traffic within the area.
Whenever requests to allow horizontal co-locations are being reviewed, staff attempts to ensure
that the tree conservation plan for the existing facility is not altered to a point where the treeline
and canopy providing camouflaging of the mounting structure and ground equipment is not
compromised. The tree survey provided in the applicant's construction plan packet proposes the
removal of five trees (identified as numbers 270, 272,275, 277 and 279) ranging in between 22.7
and 40.5 feet in height, but none of these trees are tall enough or have a considerable amount of
canopy 1o provide camouflaging of the existing or proposed facilities.
Based on the factors cited above, it is staff's opinion that the character of the district would not
be changed by the approval of the proposed facility.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, and with further reference to Section 1.5.
Section 1.4.3 states, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community," as an intent of the Ordinance. As evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in
their use. mobile telephones clearlyprovide a public service. The establishment of personal
wireless service facilities expands the availability of commtmications opportanities and
convenience for users of wireless phone technology. In the event of emergencies, access to the
increased communication the opportunities provide wireless facilities can be consistent with the
accepted principles of public health, safety and general welfare. Although wireless facilities are
not often credited for enhancing the visual appearance of surrounding areas, the guidelines of the
Wireless Policy are intended to ensure that the facilities are not responsible for intruding upon
the important scenic resources that promote the attractiveness of the enmmunity.
Section 1.5 (Relation to Environment) states in part that the "ordinance is designed to treat lands
which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in a like manner with reasonable
consideration for the existing use, and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the
suitability of property for various use...; and preservation of flood pla'ms, the preservation of
agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the
encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the County." When they are
designed and sited properly, personal wireless service facilities have not proven to be
incompatible with any of the other agricultural and forestal objectives that are set forth for the
Rural Areas.
The introduction of the second wireless facility within the immediate area through the approval
this request would clearly increase the level of services that are available in the Rural Areas.
However, because of the limited visibility of this site it is also staffs opinion that if it is
approved with the recommended conditions this request could be approved in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by fight in the district,
Aside from restrictions on tree cutting within a certain distance of the facility, approval of this
proposal would not act to restrict any of the established uses on the subject parcel, or the by-fight
uses allowed on other properties within the Rural Areas district.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public
health, safeW and general welfare.
Section 5.1.12a of the Zoning Ordinance contains regulations for locating public utility structures
in a manner which "will not endanger the health and safety of workers and/or residents in the
community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the
development of the same." The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations set
forth in the Telecommunications act address the most significant concerns for public health and
safety regarding personal wireless services. Staff has anempted to address the concerns for
possible impacts upon neighboring properties in the area throughout this staff report and in the
recommended conditions.
Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance contains sets requirements for the submittal, revmw and
approval of applications for personal wireless service facilities. When these regulations are
combined with the recommendations of the Wireless Policy and standard conditions of approval,
it is staff's opinion that this special use permit could be issued in compliance with the provisions
that state the concern for the public health, safety and general welfare.
2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(I1D of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless
facilities by any state or local government or instnnnentalit¥ thereof shall not prohibit or
have the effect of prohibifmg the proviston of personal wireless services.
The Telecornmunications Act addresses concerns for enviromnental effects with the following
language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement
construction, and modification ofpersonal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate the proposed
facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emisstons.
These requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety.
Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal
wireless services. However, both do implement policies and regulations for the siting and design
of personal wireless facilities. The applicant has not provided any information to demonstrate
the availability, or lack thereof, of any alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered
by the proposed facility at this site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion thru the denial of this
application would not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
communication services.
SUMMARY:
Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
A test balloon floated at the proposed height of the monopole was only visible through
the trees and below treetop level from Route 53;
The proposed monopole for this facility would be approximately 2 feet in total height
AMSL than the existing Triton facility; and,
This site would be accessed from the gravel road serving the existing Triton facility.
The following factors are relevant to this consideration:
The top of the existing monopole is visible at treetop level from Gobblers Ridge Road;
This site is located within a proposed historic area; and,
There are existing and reasonable by-right uses that could be established on the subject
property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with additional to the standard conditions, as
applicable to this request.
('In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment:
In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus
direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff
to return to the Board with a written decision for thc Board's consideration and action.)
Recommended conditions of approval:
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with
the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment
building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan
entitled, "Allte! - Nix Way Site", dated March 24, 2004 and provided in this staff report
with Attachment A.
The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the
pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation.
The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed ten
(10) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twemy-five feet. In no case shall the pole
exceed 80 feet in total height at the time of installation without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit.
The monopole shall be made of wood and be a dark brown natural wood color.
7
11.
12.
13.
14.
The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment.attached to the
pole shall be the Same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set
font in the application plans.
Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the m'mimum requked by the support structure, shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be
more than 12 inches.
No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole.
No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch
ha diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole.
No guy wires shall be permitted.
No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be linfited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire
shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane
rtmmng though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the
purposes of this condition, a lum'maire 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.
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zon'mg Ordinance. Fencing of the
lease area shall not be permitted.
Size specifications and other details, including schematic elevations of the eqmpment
cabinets shall be included in the construction plan package.
Site grading and all construction around the facility shall be min'nnized to only provide
the amount of space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment
cabinets. Graveling of the total lease area shall not be permitted.
Revise the shape and layout of the lease area and grading to avoid negative impacts to the
trees identified as numbers 109,118,244, 246, 254 and 268.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
15.
16.
17.
Certification by a regmtered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been
used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator.
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or
vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified
arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall
specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be
removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. 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-foot
buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of
site plans for construction of the facility. During the review of the application, Planning
staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special
use permit have been addressed.
8
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or to any facility operation, the following shall be met:
18.
19.
20.
Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet
above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or
reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator.
Certification confirming that the grounding rod's: a) height does not exceed two feet
above the monopole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be
provided to the Zoning Administrator.
No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than
2:1 unless retaining walls, revemaents, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the
County Engineer are employed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
21.
22.
The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facilky, shall submit a report to the
Zoning Administrator by July I of each year. The report shall identify each personal
wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which
equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider.
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless, service provider shall
be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use ~s
discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued.
Il'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, thc
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
B-
C-
D-
E-
F-
Special Use Penuit Application and Conceptual Construction Plans
Parcel and Location Maps
Approval letter for existing Triton facility, dated July 16, 2004
Balloon Test Photos
Historic Resources Analysis, dated May 14, 2004
ARB Recommendation, dated June 25, 2004
9
ATTACHMENT A
Application for Special Use Permit
Please See the List at the bottom of page 4 for the Appropriate Fee
(staff will assist you with this item)
Project Namc (how should we refer to this application?): A~L~T'~I_ ] Nt~A ~Qta~t
*Existing Use: '~wxxoe~\a.'~ .[ ~-~g~"X3~'a.\ Proposed Use: ~)¢~ow~ m~v¢~..~g ~t~C.~g
* ~ning District: ~ ~ Zoning Ordinance Section number requested: ~. ~' % ~
(*staffwill a~ist you with this item)
Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit (if a portion it must be delineated on a plat):
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit?
Are yon submitting a preliminary site plan with this application?
[] YES [~NO
~s [] No
Contact Person ?Nho should we nil/write concerning this project?):
Address po
Daytime Phone ~3~)
Owner of Record
Daytime Phone ( ) ~-q g- S~q-3 Fax# E-maR
Applicant (Whoisthe¢oatactpersonrepresearthg? Who is requ*stia, eaerezoning~): ]~l.J['~L
Address CI~ (.~_ae.lr ~¢g.o~ ~loo~e City
Daytime Phone ( .) _ Fax # E-mail
Tax map and parcel: ~'~'- ~{~{~9° I ~
State .Zip
Physical Street Addr ess (if assigned): I,~ Io~ 'l'~o~ ~
Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other):
Does the owner o f this property own (or have any ownars~up interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers
OFFICE USF~Q~I N. ' ' --
/ History:
[~ Special Use Permits: O~D~ ~)B ~
Concu~nt review of Site Deveto-mear Plan9
Coun~ of Albemarle Depar[men[ of Building Code & Zoning
401 Mclntire Road Cbarlo~esville. VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax:
/o
ATTACHMENT A
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby
reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for
uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a ffmding by the board of supervisors that such use
will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be
changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with
the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this
ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare."
The items that follow will be reviewed by the staffin their analysis of your request. Please complete this
form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of you request. If you
need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district(s) surrounding the property7
How is the use in harmony with th.e purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinm[ce?
How is the use in harmony with the us.es permitted by right in the district?
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?
%ec-hg~ ~. I. ~40
How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?
1~1/02 Page 2 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the number of persons involved in
the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use:
ATTACHMlgNTS REQUIRED - provide two (2) copies of each
1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning, if there is no
recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book
and page number or Plat Book and page number.
Note: If you are requesting a rezoning for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or
delineation on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing.
2. Ownership information- If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or
organization including, but not limited to, the name ora corporation, partnership or association, or in
the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted
certifying that the person signing below has the authority to do so.
[ftbe applicant is a contrac! purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted
containing the owner's written consent to the application.
if the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that
is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
El' 3. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any.
~ 4. Additional information, if any.
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application.
I also certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true, and correct to
the best of my knowledge.
Signatu~~Purchaser, Agent
Print Name
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
12/1/02 Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
FEES
[] Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original 1980 deveIopment rights bave been exhausted under
"family division" as defined under section 14-106 (15) of the subdivision ordinance = $220
[] Rural area divisions = $1,240
~' Coramereial use = $980
[] [ndastrial use = ~1.020
[] Private club/recreational facility = $1,020
Mobile home park or subdivision -- $980
[] Public utilitias = $1,020
[] Grade/fill in the flood plain = $870
[] Min~r amendment t~ valid specia~ us~ permit ~r a special use permit t~ a~~~w min~r expansi~n ~f a n~n~c~nf~rming ~se = $ ~ ~ ~
Extending special use permits = $70
r-i Home Occupation-Class B = $440
[] For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children = $490
[] For day care cenmrs - ten el0) or more children = 8980
[] All other uses except signs = $980
I2/1/02 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACIUTY
ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS OF VIRGINIA, INC.
NIX WAY SITE
(ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA)
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
ALLTEL Communications of ViraJnia, Inc., d/b/a ALLTEL desires to construct an 80' monopole
"treetop tower", painted brown, within a grove of trees on the parcel known as Tax Map 92, parcel
56B3, owned by Leroy and Helen Moyer.
Attached [o this application are the following:
1. An 11" x 17" copy of the site plan for the proposed site, which includes a location map,
site plan, erosion control plan, tree survey and tower elevation.
2. A Certification from the property owners indicating their consent to the filing of this
application by ALLTEL
3. A plat of the subject parcel, recorded in the Circuit Court Clerk's Office of Albemarle
County at Deed Book 535, pa~e 266.
ALLTEUs network currently suffers a gap in coverage in the area ofthe proposed facility. After an
exhaustive search of the necessary covera~[e area, ALLTEL determined there were no existing structures
on which to co-locate and carefully selected a site where its facility would blend with its natural
surroundings for a minimal visual impact. In accordance with the Albemarle County Personal Wireless
Service Facilities Policy, ALLTEL proposes Iocatinl~ its tower in a wooded area where the tower would be
screened by the existin8 trees. The Tower Policy expresses a preference for towers no more than
taller than the tallest tree within 25' of the proposed location. The tallest tree within 25' of the
proposed tower measures 72', with a height above sea level of 514'. ALLTEL proposes a tower heist of
80'. with a height above sea level of 524'. The tower would have flush-mounted antennas painted
brown to match the tower and to blend with the surrounding trees. The facility also includes two
equipment cabinets consistent with those recently approved by the County for other ALLTEL sites. These
cabinets will be painted brown to blend with the surroundings. There is an existing read to access the
proposed facility. There is also another existin[ wireless services facility on the parcel which has proven
the location to be a good one due to its inability to be seen. While ALLTEL reco~[nizes the County's
concern about multiple towers on one parcel, this site has shown that towers can be located with no
visibility. Therefore, an additional tower which also cannot be seen wou{d not have any increased v~sual
impact on the area
ATTACHMENT A
More specifically, the proposed site is consistent with the Albemarle County Personal Wireless
Service Facilities Policy as follows. The bulleted points are taken from the summaryof the Policy which
is included in the policy itself. The narrative following each bullet indicates how this site complies with
the stated goal.
· Facilities with limited visibility are encouraged.
The proposed facility complies with the limitations on heiF~lt in the policy and through its siting,
design and color is only minimally visible, if at all. The facility is specifically designed to blend within the
natural setting and the existing woods will screen the tower from view of adjacent roads and parcels.
· Personal wireless service facilities should not be located on ridgeteps or along the
ridgeline and they should be provided with an adequate backdrop so they are not skylined.
The proposed facility is not located on a ridge and is not skyliE~ted. Given the line of site from
adjacent roads and properties, the existing trees surroundingthe tower provide frontal screeningas well
as a backdrop for the tower.
Personal wireless service facilities should not adversely impact resources identified in
the Open Space plan or designated as Avoidance Areas.
The proposed facility has no adverse impact on Open Space msoumes or designated Avoidance
Areas,
· Personal wireless service facilities should utilize existing structures where possible.
As is ALLTEL's standard practice, the initial stage of site selection involved an extensive seamh
for existing structures within the necessan/coverage area to accommodate its antennas, but no such
structures existed.
· Personal wireless service facilities, if appropriately sited and designed, may be
appropriate in any zoning district.
The proposed site has been sited and designed so the entire facility will blend with the natural
surroundings thereby minimizing is visual impact.
· Ground based equipment should be limited in size and be designed in keeping with the
character of the area.
The equipment for the proposed site is all screened from view by existing natural vegetation and
woodland.
Antennas should be mounted close to the supporting structure and be designed to
minimize visibility.
The proposed antennas will be flush mounted and painted brown so they will blend not only with
the suppor~ structure, but more importantly with the surrounding woods.
ATTACHMENT A
R~r 12 04 01: lSp Larp~ H. Bickin~s 804-520-~714
SITES UNLIMITED, INC.
ACQUISITION CONSIFLTANTS ~ RE~kL ESTATE SD~LES
2004
COLONI~-L HEIGHTS, VII~GINIA 23834
804-520-8796
PEP~4I SS ION LETTER
for
ALLTET. Comunications Co, any of Virginia
d/b/a ALLTEL CO~U~IC~kTIONS
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The undersigned, owners of property in Albemarle County,
Virginia, designated as Tax Map 92 Parcel 56B3, and more
particularly located at 1863 Thomas Jefferson Parkway "Ducky
on Rt. 53, do hereby consent to the proposal by ALLTEL
Conu~unications of Virginia (d/b/a ALLTEL) to perform radio
frequency studies, survey field work, soil borings, environmental
audit, and resistivity testing to install and operate
telecommunications facility consisting of a tower, antennas,
equipment building and other necessary improvements and authorizes
ALLTEL Communications of Virginia, Inc., and its representatives to
seek all necessary approvals from all governmental agencies or
bodies to permit the construction and operation of the foregoing.
Da~e
HELEN I. MOYER~3 (
W~LLIAM S. ~OUDA~USH. JR.
ATTACHMENT A
~-Z
8~: ~<
~ E
~ ', ~" ~1~'~I~'
I
i
~o =~o =~o =oo
z
m ~ ~ o
o z ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z
~ c~,. A.~ I~ I ~ I~ ~ I m I~
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
0
~ ~ x ~ ~ '"-. '-~ "~ ~ , ~ ',
".. '.. ,~ ~ ',& '., ~ ~, ~'~. I ~ ......... . ~ ~ ~
~ ~ "... ".. ,~ ~ ~ 'E ~ ~ -. ",2 ~:~
~ ~ '.. ~ --~ / / '-... ~ ~-. / ',,,~
i ~ x :~ '"... ,(, / / ~ ',,, ~ ~ ",,, / X/ :<
~ ~ ~ 5-~5 fi-..~ L I / ,~',~ ',,,' ~ .- ',, /
~ ~ t ~ ~-~ iz ',/ ~ / ,~ ~ '1, ~ ~ ~ .' ', ,--
· .. x ~1 / ~ / ~ ~ . ,, ~r ~ ~ ,- ,
.,.. x. ~:. ~ / , , / -,. ~-~"~ /
'. N -~.~ / ~ ~ , '-. - / ·
"'.. ~ x '"::~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, / ~ "". ~. .' ,"~
: ".. ~'~ . ',,-~. , >, ~e .. {o~ I~.~
.~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ , ....... .... ,' ~,:~ ~ ~"% ..~::~:~2,-..
~ ~ ..... ~ ~ . . ...... v.~ ' ~ · ~ ......... ~ ...... ~ ·
. ~ ., ~ , ........ ~l,y~,~.~ '~'~ ,, ~: , ~ -,
~ ~m ,. .... ,~ :,~,., ,~..~.,I :~ .,, ~:,. ~~:: ,
~ '~ '~ / '~ * /'/ ,v~'~~ / e...
' ~ ", ~ ~ - ~
~ ~ ~ . x ':.~ ~ b TM ...... ,', ~ ~G~lk I ",.
~ :~ ~ ~ ',, ~ ~ ',, : {~~ ~~',.
~ ~ ~ ~ ., ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~. -~ : ',,
~ ~ ~ ! ! ~ ~ "-., / ",,, /
~ ~ , ,~ '~, ',.. ¥~ / ',,, I
/
m
I.-
Z
LU
I.-
F-
/.,'//
Z
""1
ATTACHN~ENT ~
077
Tax
Albe.mario Coun~
890 1,780 2.670
105
Scale '1:5627
ATTACHMENT
C tyView~
County of Alberi~ · ii,
ATTACHMENT B
County Parcels
Fri Jul 16, 15:43:54, 2004
~:p: County Parcels
Scale 1:5627
Le.qend:
SP 04-018 MOYFr~ ~ =~,.., : / ,
· %%. .... ~ ~'~LLTE/
/
9~~S6D
CityViewTu
County of Albemarle
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ATTACHMENTC
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804'1 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
July I6 2001
Valerie W. Long
McGuire. Woods LLP
P O Box 1288
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE:
SP-2000-44 (Triton PCS CVR361A); Tax Map 92, Parcel 56B3
LETTER OF CORRECTION (Cori'ected Parcel Number)
Dear Ms. Long:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on January 10 2001, unanimously
approved the above-noted request. Please note that this approval is suoject to the following
conditions:
The toe of the pole. as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7)
feet above the top of the tallest tree. as measured ASL. within twenty-five (25) feet of the
ooze. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod. shall be
located above the top of the pole.
The pole shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The aole shall be a wooden pole, dark brown in color:
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. No lighting shall be permitted on the Site or on the pole. except as provided oy
condition number nine (9) herein:
The ground equipment cabinets, antenna and all equipment attacl~ed to the pole
shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications as
snown on the attached plan entitled "Moyer PropertyNVentworth Farm:"
e. A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2'~ feet above the top of the oole. and with a
width not to exceed one (1)-inch diameter at the base andtapenng to a point,
may be installed at the too of the Dole;
f. Prior tc ~ssuance of a building permit, the applicant shall orovide a statement to
the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the heigm of the tallest
tree as identified in condition number one (1);
ATTACHMENTC i
Page 2
July 16, 2001
Within one ~1) month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall pi'ovide
a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole,
measured both in feet above ground and also measured ASL:
The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described
in condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without pdor
approval of an amendment to this special use permit;
The pole shall be located in accordance with the plan submitted by the applicants, dated
November 7, 2000. The facility and the new access road shall be located according to
the plan submitted by the applicant, entitled "Meyer Property/VVentworth Farm." dated
November 7. 2000:
Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows:
a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled "Meyer
Proper[y/Wentworth Farm:"
b. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the pole;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall De permitted. No antennas that project out
from the po~e beyond the mm~mum reouired by the support structure shall be
permitted. However, in no case shall the antennas project out from the Dole more
than twelve (12) inches:
Prior to beginmng construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or
installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation elan. 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 eole and
equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation shall be
in accordance with this tree conservation p~an. 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 ~quiDment
building. 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;
The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year. no
later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify
that the height of the pole is in compliance with condition number one (1);
No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses snail be created
that are steeper than 2:1 umess retaining walls, revetments or other stabilization
measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed:
Page 3
July 16, 2001
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor tuminare
shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane
runmng through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminare. For
purposes of this condition, a luminare is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or
lamps together with the oarts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the
lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply;
10¸
The oermittee shall compty with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the
lease area shall not be permitted; and
11.
The applicant shall enlarge the access driveway entrance on the right side (exiting) to
provide a safe access for vehicles turning right onto State Route 53. The finished overall
width of the driveway entrance shall be a minimum of fourteen (14) feet and include
extensions of drainage, as appropriate. Prior to issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall obtain approval of the driveway improvement plans from the Virginia
Department of Trans 3ortation.
In the event that the use. structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not
Be commenced within eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit. ~ne same shall be
deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For
purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the
commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within two
(2) years from the date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1)
year.
Before beginning this use. you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department.
Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in
this letter. For further information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5875.
if you should have any questions or comments regarding the abovemoted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, . , . -
Director of Planning & Commu~pment
VWC/jcf
Cc: Amelia McCutley
Jack Kelsey
Tex Weaver
Steve Allshouse
Bob Ball VDOT
ATTACHMENT U
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACH~IENT D
ATTACHMENT E
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823 Ext.3336
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Stephen Waller
~'u!i~'e Mahun
May I4, 2004
SP 2004-0i 8 Leroy and Helen Moyer/Alltel/Nix Way Munopole - Historic Resources Review
The above referenced submittal has been reviewed for possible impact to known historic architectural resources and known or
potentiai archaeological resources with the following results:
The Virginia Deparanent of Historic Resources' (DHR) Historic Resource Data Sharing System (DSS)has ao
surveyed historic architectural or archaeological sites identified on TMP 92-56B3. (Please note that the absence of
historic resources inDHR records does not necessarily mean that no historic resources are present. It is possible that
the area in question has not been systematically surveyed for resources.)
The subject parcel is located w/thin the boundary of the proposed Southern Albemarle RuralHistoric District '002-
5045) which includes such notable properties as Monticello, Ash Lawn-Highland. Tallwood, Hatton Grange, Jefferson
Mi/l, and many others, and meets all four criteria for significance (A - Patterns of History; B - Significant Person; C -
Architecture; and D - Archaeological Potential) under the Secrelury of the Interior's Stand,ds for the Treatment of
H/storic Properties.
Surrounding the subject parcel are the following resources considered to be historic according to DSS:
002-0885 - Wentworth (Bullock Place) c. 1770 a 1 ½ story dormered dwelling with an exteritr end chimney of
three-course American bond brick and no basement, located to the west;
b. 002-0886 - Barnett Cemetery c. 1800, located to the northwest;
c. 002-0887 - Moeller Cemetery c. 1800, located to the northeast.
A windshield survey of the site of the proposed monopole was conducted on May 13, 2004 at which time the existing
Triton monopole (78' in height) was identified as visible fi:om the right-of-my along Route 53, but did not appear m
pose a negative impact on the character of the by-way or historic resources in the immediate area of the site.
While the ex/sting monopole does not appear to pose a negative/mpacr on the character of the by-way or historic resources in
the immediate area of the site, more than one monopole could create a noticeable intrusion upon the landscape, Therefore,
retaining as many existing trees as possible is important m maintaining adequate screening ffomRoute 53. This can be
accomplished through the following:
Reduce the area of disturbance;
2. Reduce the number of existing trees to be removed; or
Replace removed trees in alternate locations in and around the lease area to adequately screen the structures from
view.
Phone (434) 296-5832
June 25.2004
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 Mclnfire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
ATTACHMENT F
Fax (434) 972-4126
Peter J. Caramanis
Trembiay & Smith, LLP
PO Box 1585
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB-2004-60 Meyer (AIItel,.Tax Map 092, Parcels 56B3
Dear Mr,. Ceramanis:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on June 21,2004, completed an advisory
review cfa special use permit and a preliminary review cfa building permit.
Regarding the Special Use Permit. the Board by a vote of 5:0, forwarded the following recommendation to
the Planning Commission:
The ARB expresses ne objection to the special use permit, subject to the following conditions:
1. Revise the shape/layout of the tease area and rewse grading to avoid negative impacts to trees
#109, 118, 244, 246, 254, and 266.
Regarding the Building Permit, the Board by a vote of 5:0. approved the final Certificate of Appropriateness as
presented, with the following conditions to be administratively approved by staff.
1. Include on the plan a note indicating that lighting is proposeQ cay for temporary short-term
maintenance use.
2. Revise the shape/layout of the lease area and revise grading kc avoid negative impacts to trees #109,
118, 244, 246, 254. and 268.
3. Revise sheets C5 and C9 to make legible ail trees, tree identification numbers, and elevation
~numhers.
4. Indicate on the plan that the equipment and tower shall be painte-d~-a~[~'brewn.
5. Remove the word "wood" from the monopols notes on Sheets C-4 and C-8.
Please provide 2 copies of the revised drawings or other information addressing each of these conditions at
your earliest convenience. Include a memo indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other
than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. When staff's review of this
information indicates that all conditions of approval have-been met. a Certificate of Appropriateness may be
issued.
If you have any questions co,,nceming any of the above, please feel free tc call me.
'Margaret Maliszewski
DeSign Planner
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CPA 2003-07 Crozet Master Plan Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to receive comments on amending
the Land Use Plan section of the ~bemarJe County
Comprehensive Plan by replacing the existing profile
of the Crozet Community with new land use policies,
guidelines, recommendations, goals and strategies
for future development within the Crezet
development area.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, Thomas,
EehoJs
AGENDA DATE:
August 11. 2004
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisom has held two work sessions on the Crozet Master Plan Con' prehensive Plan Amendment (CPA)
recommended by the Planning Commission. The May 5 work session focused on the role of the Master Plan within the
context of existing growth management policy as well as the organization and key features of the document. The Jane 2
session was a discussion of the critical elements and implementation measures recommended by the Plan. A citizen's
informational meeting was also held May 18 at Henley Middle School, to provide the community with an additional
opportunity to review the proposed CPA and ask questions of staff and Board members. The Beard then decided to
schedule a public hearing to receive comments on the CPA, before completing its review and acting upon the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
2.1 Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character; and, 3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the
County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County
DISCUSSION:
The Augus~ 11 public hearing will be the first opportunity for citizens to provide comments to the full Board during its review
of the Crezet Master Plan Comprehensive Plan. Based on comments received at this hearing, the Board will need to
decide whether it wants to schedule any additional work sessions or Js ready to take action on the CPA.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Unless the Board feels that additional review is necessary, staff recommends approval of the CPA, incorporating [he critical
elements of the Crozet Master Plan, with the exception of the implementation plan. Anatysis of the proposed timing,
funding strategies and policy issues proposed in this section of the plan are currently under review by the Urbanization
Committee estabished threugh the strategic planning precess. Jn addition, the items in the implementation plan will need
to be considered in the CIP review process this Fall. Analysis and consideration during the CIP process is necessary to
determine how the plan could be funded and what policies may result from its implementation.
04.121
Ella Care~/
Sent:
To:
Subject:
David Wayland [dwayland~earthlink. net]
Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:35 PM
ecarey@albemarle.org
Crozet Master Plan
To: Board of Supervisors
From: David F. Wayland, Crozet
I will be ou5 of uown when ~he BOS meets to discuss and pass the Crozet Master Plan. I
urge you ~o support the work done by hundreds of us who met
for many months formulating this plan for our community. The planning
process was extremely well thought out and highly attended by many residents of the Crozet
area. We are ready to take the next step.
The essential ingredient for the success of the Master Plan is to plan and fund
adequate infrastructure ro support the coming growth spur~.
Some of us feel that Crozeu is about to get out of control with the building that has
started here. The sidewalks that we have desperately needed for years need to be built
and the utility lines buried. The library needs larger quarters and a new location with
adequate parking. New streets need to be carefully planned and located so that businesses
and residents are both served. Jarman's Gap Road improvements need ~o move ahead before
the golf course development kicks in with greater traffic flow. Something more needs to
be done ~o improve the traffi~ mess at the underpass. Eastern Avenue over uo 250 needs to
be located and funded.
In other words, I urge the Board to give priority attention to developing the
infrastrucsure that will be needed as we quadruple our population and traffic. A great
deal of work has been done by County staff and consultants working with us in Crozes, and
we appreciate that effort.
Going ahead without laying the proper infrastructure with adequate funding would undermine
all this careful work and planning, We can do much better than that.
David F Wayland
6474 Apple Green Lane
Crozet
Ella Carey
From: Heather Penny [heatherpenny~adelphia.net]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 8:09 AM
To: bos~albemarle.org
Cc: jump~vJrginia.edu
Subject: funding for Crozet Master Plan
August 6, 2004
Dear David Wyant and members of the Board of Supervisors,
I am the owner of Fabulous Foods, a business in downtown Crozet. It is important to me that the downtown of
Crozet be revitalized in a way that is effe~ve, well organized, and creative.
Just as the county did a remarkable job in getting input from the residents of Crozet for the Master Plan, we need
to use wise creative planning for the downtown area that draws on the community, business, and gavt. This type
of interfacing will create a greater sense of identity, ownership, and pdde in our downtown.
/ fully support the employment of a community specialist who can bring together different sectors of the
community to create a sound dyaamic plan to revitalize downtown Crozet. For Crezet to thrive as a community
our downtown center must be strong and vital; otherwise it becomes just a bedroom community.
Iris important to to prioritize funding for the infrastructure of Crozet. Without adequate funding, ali the past two
years planning will mean nothing. With continued proper planning for the infrastructure, a host of problems will
wisely be avoided.
We all want the community of Crozet to thrive, with it's own umque identity and quality of life. I urge you to
carefully consider the ways in which the proper funding can be procurred to make Crozet a growing model
community that enhances the not only the well being of Crozst but our entire Albemarle County.
Thank you for your dedicated service to our county.
Sincerely,
Heather Penny
heather~erm y~.ade_~pi hia .net
8/6/2004
Page 1 of 1
Ella Carey
From:
Sent:
.To:
Cc:
LGGRIFFIS@aol.COm
Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:18 PM
bos@albemade.org
mrice2006@mindspring,com
Subject: SUPPORT FOR CROZET
Dear Board of Supervisors:
During the two years my wife and I have lived in the White Oaks community of Cmzet, we have spent a significant amount
of time participating in the development of the Master Plan We did so knowing that development will come. with the
difference being that the plan will contain features that offer some controls on and the locations of growth. We believe
that we and our fellow citizens have done our part to participate in the orocess and now ask that Albemarle County oo its
par[.
What we exoect of the county ~s to participate actively in the planning and funding of infrastructure projects that will
accommodate the neees of the existing and me expanding population of our community. At the minimum, mey include:
· The early construction of the so-called Eastern Avenue.
· The widening to four lanes of Jarman's Gap Road from Crozet Avenue to Yancey Mills.
· The provision of sidewalks for "downtown" Crozet.
· The provision of additional 9olice
Thank you for your immediate attention to these pressing issues for our community,
Gfl & Jane Ann Griffis
8/11/2004
Page 1 of I
Ella Carey
From: Dudley Robertson [dudley.robertaon@worldnet.att.net;
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 1:00 PM
To: bos@albemarle.org
Cc: mrice2006@mindspring.com; Diane Robertson
Subject: Cmzet Growth Plan
David Wyant
I have attended many of the meetings for the Crozet Master plan. The p~an to date has been responswe to me
Community and its vision for future growth. Throughout tt~e process the Community nas insisted that growth be tied to
infrastructure. Roads, the Library, Schools and water have been included in the infrastructure requirements.
Now is the time to make me plan work by tying growth to infrastructure funding and development. Don't allow future
development on Jarmen's Gap until the road in upgraded. Have in place a realistic funding plan for the two north south
roads that will be required. Begin now to demonstrate to the community that it is feasible to acquire land and to fund the
new street for the town center. Demonstrate to the Community that we can move forward realistically in terms of funding
an(] actual infrastructure development before we have a host of new communities in place with no roads etc.
One other real concern, The development of Crozet depends upon a clean, adequate, substantial water sqpply that can
survive an extended drought. All the water upgrades I nave seen do not address the long term needs of the County while
possibly threatening Crozet's water supply, The use of Beaver Creek as a back up to wider County needs is a short cited
approach. Beaver Creek is just able to provide the needed supply for an expanding Crozet. We need aionc, term,
permanent fix for the water supply County wide, That assurance needs to be in place long before we begin to grow in
Croze[.
This is the make or break point for the Crozet growth Dian. If the County can not prove that the infrastructure can be
established for the growth planned men this experiment will have failed big time and that will send a strong and Pasting
signal to the six other future growth areas in the County that they should not allow this process in their own back yards.
Dudley Robertson
4858 Highlands Place
Charlottesville, VA
8/11/2004
Ella Care¥
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cindy AIired-Jackson [Cindy_Allred-Jackson@antiochne.edu]
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:26 PM
9os@albemade.org
m rJce2006@mindspring.com
Crozet Master Plan Attn David Wyant
Dear David & board,
Crozet is s wonderful place no live. There ms a diversity of wildlife and native plants in
our neighborhoods. Our schools are good and people are friendly.
As more population is planned for it is essential that the financial resources are
available go keep these positive aspects from disappearing.
In fact the Board of Supervzsors has sn opportunity as well as responsilbility mo ~mprove
many of these aspeces.
My neighborhhod has seen the creation of a development where ~he builder wholeheartedly
ignored the plan approved by the planning commisszon and the BOS. When called co task for
this by the neighbors 'who had spent a year of conversation and meetings to create the
most poslmlve outcome for all parties) our county officials told him to submit a szte plan
revision.
No consequence for tearing down beautiful 30 and 40 year old trees or for moving building
placement that affects green space in the development,
From hearsay this has happened other mimes with this developer. When will a developer lose
the privledge so build mn our county after using enormous county resources co apporve
something our county is proud ~o offer mo the community?
If you and all our county officials don't plan for and finance the Crozet Community needs
such as traffic planning, more schools, parks & recreation, encourage small local
businesses, petmtlon for more postal service and communicacmons networks then we can only
expect for developers to pave over Crozet and build a mega shoppmng mall after 2 more
lanes gem added co US 250 That would be a real shame considering the energy and expense
that hundreds of Crozet residents and county planning staff have gmven co crea5e a model
community.
I encourage all of you mo make sure new construction ms intertwined with funding for the
resultant need for resources. Then I'll can still say I'm proud to be an Albemarle Count?'
resident.
Sincerely,
Cindy A]lred-Jackson
434-823-6419
Ella Carey
From: David V~/a nt
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:04 PM
To: 'michael griffin'; Board of Supervisors members
Cc: mrice2006~mindspring.cem
Subject: RE: Affention David VVyant
Much es we alt would like to see that work coordinated, Fm sure it will not happen. The road improvements are part of the
ClP and the present CIP was set about two years ago. Also the Service Authority does not coordinate their work with the
county CtP, since they work indepet]dent and on their needs. I will try to get some of these efforts working together during
the next several years through the county C1P Committee. If possible, that will be the first that has been done in my 30+
years in engineenng, Interagency cooperation is talked about by many, but done liffle by alt
David C. Wyan!
.... -Original Message ....
From: michael griffin [malito:emptygriff@msn.com]
Sent.' Honday, August 09, 2004/.0:26 PM
To: bes@albemarle.org
Cc." mrice2006@mindspdng,com
Subject: Attention David Wyant
In regard to the Crozet Master Plan review that is ongoing, please consider that road improvement will
be a necessary part of the process in the very near future. While the roads m~e being dug up for the
waterline replacement would be a good time to do some of the needed widening/repositioning/etc. This
would mean less disruption in the Iong nm as well as providing a great improvement for the people in
Crozet. This would show us that there is someone on the BOS who really wants to help the people in
their District
[ live in Laurel Hills north of the main road coming from Route 250. The plans that I have seen show
that the roads from Con Agra to the Dairy Queen are to be dug up in order to do the waterline work.
Also Railroad Ave. Both roads will need major improvement to address the Master Plan projections.
Why not now?.
Thanks for the oppommity to comment.
Michael T. Griffin
5801 Sunset Road
Crozet, VA 22932
823-2243
8/16/2004
Ella Carey
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:.
Beth C. Hodsdon [bchSs~virginia.edu]
Thursday, August 12, 2004 3:49 PM
bos~albemade.org
Crozet Master Plan-Attention David Wyant and Board of Suspervisors
Dear Merabers of the Board of Supervisors,
I am a resident of Crozet, living jusu to the North of the designated growth
area (1656 Mint Springs Road). I was unable to attend the public hearing yesterday on the
Crozet Master Plan, but I do want to write to ask that you either provide enough funding
To implement the P~an as growth occurs in Crozet or uake decisive action 5o slow the
growth until funding is available. Otherwise, our area will become unlivable, if a
burgeoning population overburdens counuy roads, schools, public uransportation and other
services. Our library is already 5oo small; our roads are crowded not only with cars but
also pedestrians and bike riders who are in the road because of the lack of sidewalks and
bike lanes. We do not want ~o become
29 North over again--a collection of unplanned subdivisions. Thank you for your
consideration.
Beth Hodsdon
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
CPA-2003-007. CROZET MASTER PLAN
l'l~e i=ollowing guidelines will 5e dsed.for thfi~ public'hba
' EACH SPEAKER' IS.ALEO'T,.TED 3 ~.;I~NuTI~S.' " · ' '
'ND V DUAL;S CANNOT; RELINQt,iI'~H THEIi~ 3, MINUTES T.O ANOTHER'
'SPEAKER.'", ' ' " . "' ' ' ' ~ ': '"" '
' INDIVIDUAb~; CAN ONI~Y. SIGN UP. OldE.' PERSON TO SPEAKJ :
PLEASE'G VE ANY. NRFT.'FEN S~,ATEMENTS' TO:TIdE.CI' ERK,.
NAME (Please print clearly)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
i22
23
PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)
RECEIVED AT BOS MEE'rlNG
about the need for funding for ~e~e. So
~mct~e ~d~g, ~as~e ~d~g.
Now, I c~ t~ a~ut my pet projects. E~em Ave. ~ a yew ~t pm of
~e ove~ su~ess of the Crozet ~r P~. U~o~tely, ~ere ~e ~o big ticket
ite~ as~c~ Mth Ea~em Ave.; ~e Lic~ole Creek ~dge ~d the r~oad
~de~s. S~ee the bridge wo~d cost more t~ tMce w~t ~e ~de~am wo~d cost
and ~m~ the bridge wo~d t~e residents away ~om do~to~ whereas ~e ~de~s
wo~d ch~el ~c towgd do,tom ~ we~ ~ e~ate ~e need for ~c to ~e ~e
We~m ~dge b~ge m ~av~e ~e r~oad tracks, I ~pe ~ Bogd ~ co~ider ~e
~o~ ~de~s ~ the ~t pfiofi~ new project ~ Crozet ~d ~d k ~ely.
S~ce the decision has been ~e to only reb~d the ~stem ~of J~'8 ~p
Road ~om Crozet Ave. m ~e en~ce m ~a~ocL I ~eve enou~ money ~s ~eady
~en a~ocated to ~mp~te tMt project; so I wo~d ask ~t J~'s Gap ~. be moved
back up on ~e S~ Ye~ PI~. I ~ow ~t there ~ ~ some concern ~om ~e M~o~
Ch~ch a~ut loo(~ so~ of~ p~g lot for ~e s~eet Md~g ~ i~ present
location ~ o~rs don't ~e the f~t t~ Ta~r St. ~d J~'s Gap ~. ~e so close
t~ether yet don't ~; m, 1 wo~d ~e m offer a co,rome. Mo~ the ~terse~ion of
J~s G~ Rd. ~d Crozet Ave. to ~e no~ side of~e MeXoft C~ch ~ ~i~ it
~h ~e New M~ St. ~d locate ~e ~op~ght the~. I wo~d ~so suggest ~at ~e
block of~e New M~ St. ~om Cro~r Ave. to ~gh St.
project. T~ wo~d ~co~hsh a n~r of~gs. Ta~r
s~cienfly ~ enou~ ap~; ~e ~e ~c~ ~t need m get m ~d ~om ~e 1~ ~d
wo~d Mve a safer en~ce; the stop~g~ at the Sq~e co~d ~ removed; ~t en~ce
to ~e Sq~e co~d ~ cto~d ~ ~c ~ ~e Squ~e co~d ~co~ a p~k ~d ~e
resta~s t~re co~d create ~ce out,or cffes. I wo~d ~so hope t~t
o~ of~e l~er y~d wo~d ~e w~t a ~ ~nefit t~ wo~d ~ m ~e c~
~ we~ ~ ~crease ~ prope~ v~ ~d domte the ri~-o
New M~ St..
T~ You
COUNTY OF Al ,BEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlof~esville, Virginia 22902-4,596
(43~ 296-5843 FAX r4341 296-5800
August 12, 2004
Dennis S. Rooke~
S*II~ H. T~omas
David C. Wyanr
Ms. Melissa Meeks
1352 Dudley Mountain Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Dear Ms. Meeks:
Enclosed please find the document proclaiming Women's Equality Day
which was adopted by the Board of Cou.aty Snpervisors on Augast 11, 2004.
Skncerely,
EWC:len
Enclosure
Prinfed on recycled paper
RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virg3ma, hereby proclaims
August 26, 2004,
WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY,
in remembrance of all of those women and men who have worked to develop a
more equitable community, a community that acknowledges both the real
similarities and the important differences between women and men.
Adopted on
August 11, 2004