HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-16 ACTIONS
BOard of Supervisors Meeting of June 16, 1999
June 16~ 1999
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to order. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Vice-Chairman. All BOS members present except
Marshall and Martin.
4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. None.
NONE.
5.1. Appropriation: Education, $9,982.59 (Form #98076).
ADOPTED.
5.2. Appropriation: 'Housing Initiatives Fund, $50,000 (Form
#98075). ADOPTED.
5.3. Resolution Granting SP-98-03, 360 Communications, Pursuant
to Court Order. ADOPTED.
6. SP-99-21. John Casteen (Signs #31&32). APPROVED w/6
conditions.
7. SP-99-23. Triton (Ramada Inn). (Signs #63,64&65).
APPROVED wi10 conditions.
Clerk: Include in appropriations letter to
Melvin Breeden and appropriate persons.
Clerk: Include in appropriations letter to
Melvin Breeden and appropriate persons.
Clerk: Forward signed copy to Larry Davis and to
attorney representing the applicant.
Clerk: Attach conditions (see attachment. A).
Clerk: Attach conditions (see attachment A).
8. SP-98-63. Trinity Presbyterian Church (Signs #34&35).
APPROVED wi6 conditions.
9. STA-99-01. ADOPTED attached ordinance. Clerk: Notify County Attorney that ordinance was
adopted and needs to be included in County Code.
10. ZTA-99-01. ADOPTED attached ordinance. Clerk: Notify County Attorney that ordinance was
adopted and needs to be included in County Code.
11. ZTA-99-02. ADOPTED attached ordinance. Clerk: Notify County Attorney that ordinance was
adopted and needs to be included in County Code.
12. ZTA-99-03. ADOPTED attached ordinance. Clerk: Notify County Attorney that ordinance was
adopted and needs to be included in County Code.
13. Update on .Juvenile Court Renovations. None.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Perkins said Board members received a letter from
Mr. Eric Haussmann, who had included a petition signed by
citizens asking that a community swimming pool be built in
Earlysville. Mr. Perkins said the County needs a policy on such
requests.
Mr. Bowerman said he hopes that a big basin located near the
Church of the Incarnation as part of a storm water project can
become a neighborhood park enhancement. He will work with
the appropriate parties in an attempt to acquire property and
obtain a necessary easement.
Ms. Thomas said when the Board decided year ago to allow
"mother-on-law" units as attachments to to homes, staff had
said they would provide statistics as to how many people are
taking advantage of this provisions. Mr. Cilimberg said Building
Codes and Zoning Services tracks these statistics.
The Board adopted a Resolution condemning the plan of VDOT
and the CTB to allow tall wireless telecommunications towers
within the 1-64 right-of-way.
15.
County Executive staff: Draft policy.
County Attorney, Planning staff, and Building
Codes and Zoninq Services staff: Examine the
issues for this project as a possible open space
feature in the Comprehensive Plan.
Amelia McCulley:
a later date.
Provide a report to the Board at
County Executive staff: Send copy of resolution to
appropriate ~arties.
· Mr. Perkins said that residents of Corville Farms are
complaining about Iow water levels.
16. Adjourn. At 9:45 adjourned to 7:30 p.m., June 22, 1999 in
Juvenile Domestic Relations Courtroom.
EnRineering staff:
Look into the matter.
Attachment A
CONDITIONS
SP-99-21. John Casteen (Signs #31&32).
2.
3.
4.
5.
No more than one employee shall be permitted.
No on-site sales;
All equipment shall be enclosed within the proposed building;
The area devoted to the home occupation shall not exceed 1,500 square feet;
Any building constructed to house the home occupation shall comply with the following
setbacks: front (existing public roads)-75 feet, front (internal public or private road)-25
feet, side-25 feet, and rear-35 feet; and
Use shall comPly with the following provisions of § 4.14 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance.
SP,99-23. Triton (Ramada Inn). Signs #63,64&75).
3.
The height of the tower shall not exceed seven (7) feet above the elevation of the top of
the trees within forty (40) feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified
statement on the height of the tallest tree;
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as fOllows:
a. The tower shall be painted to look like wood;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. The tower shall have no lighting;
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
a. The tower shall be located approximately as shown on the attached plan
prepared by staff and initialed "WDF 5/9/99";
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be enclosed within the tower or attached to the tower such that no
portion of the antenna is more than one-and-one-half (1.5) feet from the tower;
b. Satellite and m~crowave dish antennas are prohibited;
The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other
wireless telecommunications providers as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate
or utilize antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these
conditions:
(1) . Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site
plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that
it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in
good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the
site;
(2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable
evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location.
Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to,
evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other proivders to locate
on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and
site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County;
[The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this
special use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses
for this facility or this property.]
Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected
below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of
the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit
8.
9.
10.
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. Outdoor
lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only;
No trees of more than three (e) inches in diameter may be removed;
The permittee shall comply with § 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease
area shall not be required;
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date is use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; and
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not
later than July 1 of that year. The report Shall identify each user of the tower and shall
identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider.
SP-98-63. Trinity Presbyterian Church (Signs #34&35).
3.
4.
5.
6.
Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the Master Plan
Exhibit, dated May 18, 1999 including a maximum of one hundred-five (105) new parking
spaces and incidental improvements such a storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play
equipment, and walkways;
Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary to install the improvements shown on
the Master Plan Exhibit dated May 18, 1999;
Continuation of the preschool activity for up to sixty (60) children five (5) days a week
shall be allowed;
The church shall provide evidence of a maintenance agreement for Fontaine Avenue
Extended prior to approval of the final site plan;
Screening of the parking and new building areas shall be as shown on the Master Plan.
and
Amphitheater use shall be restricted to small outdoor gatherings. No mechanical sound
amplification shall occur in this area.
INTER
OFFICE
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ~
Appropriations Approved and Other Actions Taken on June 16, 1999
June 18, 1999
Attached are the original appropriation forms for the following items which were approved by the
Board at its meeting on June 16, 1999:
1)
2)
Appropriation: Education, $9,982.59 (Form #98076), and
Appropriation: Housing Initiatives Fund, $50,000 (Form #98075).
Attachments
CC: '
Roxanne White
Robert Walters
Kevin Castner
Jackson Zimmerman
Ginnie McDonald
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 98199 NUMBER 98075
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM HOUSING TO PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
I 1000 89000 563130 PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE $ 50,000.00
I 1000 81030 580050 HOUSING (50,000.00)
TOTAL $
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL $0.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE DATE
FISCAL YEAR:
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
98~99
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VARIOUS SCHOOL DONATIONS AND GRANTS.
CODE
I 3104 60251 601300
1 3104 60212 800100
1 3104 60216 800100
1 3104 60211 601300
1 3104 60211 800100
I 3104 60216 601300
1 2302 61101 601300
1 2114 61101 602000
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
NUMBER 98076
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO X
SCHOOL/GRANT
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
INSTIREC SUPPLIES $ 1,500.00
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,500.00
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1 500.00
INSTIREC SUPPLIES 1,750.00
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 250.00
INSTIREC SUPPLIES 340.00
INST/REC SUPPLIES 3,100.00
TEXTBOOKS 42.59
TOTAL $ 9,982.59
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 3104 18000 181231 LITTON FOUNDATION GRANT $ 4,500.00
2 3104 18000 181230 UVA FOUNDATION GRANT 2,000.00
2 3104 18000 181222 MJHS CHILDHEALTH GRANT 340.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION 3,100.00
2 2000 19000 190214 TEXTBOOK FUND 42.59
TOTAL $9,982.59
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #98076 in the
amount of $9,982.59 for various school donations and
grants.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
June 16, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on'May 24, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
Appropriation of $4,500.00. Murray Elementary, Woodbrook Elementary and Burley Middle School
received grant awards from the Foundation of the Litton Industries in the amount of $1,500.00 each.
These funds will purchase equipment such as a video microscope for Murray, 5 Apple presentations
systems and license for Woodbrook, and several World and United States Wall Maps for Burley.
Appropriation of $2,000,00 for Stony Point Elementary School. Stony Point Elementary received a grant
award from the UVA School of Education Foundation, Inc. in the amount of $2,000.00. This grant will fund
tl~ program What a Great Idea: Children Teaching Children. The fifth grade students will create and
distribute original and highly interactive books to help younger students in the school to learn to read.
Appropriation of $340.00 for Murray Elementary School. Martha Jefferson Health Services (MJHS)
awarded Murray Elementary a grant to fund the Child Health Improvement Initiative for preschool students.
Appropriation of $3,100.00 for Western Albemarle High School. Western Albemarle High School received
donations from Helen Lockwood in the amount of $100.00 and the Western Albemarle Band Boosters in
the amount of $3,000.00. These funds will be used to offset the cost of new band uniforms for the school.
Appropriation of $42.59 for the Textbook Fund. The textbook fund collected $42.59 this year from the
school for textbooks that were lost, damaged or sold. These funds will be used to purchase replacement
textbooks.
Appropriation of $4,225.01. Albemarle County SchoolS received a grant in the amount of $4,225.01 from
the State Department of Education. These funds will be used to pay for postage for schools to mail School
Performance Report Cards.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisor's approve the appropriations totaling $9,982.59, as detailed on
Appropriation #98076.
99.097
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AI,BE~E COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
May 25, 1999
f. Tucker,. Jr., County Executive
astner, Division Superintendent
or Appropriation
At its meeting'on May 24, 1999, the School Board approved the following
appropriations:
o Appropriation of $4,500.00. Murray Elementary, woodbrook Elementary
and Burley Middle schools received grant awards from the Foundation of
the Litton Industries in the amount of $1,500.00 each. These funds
will'purchase equipment such as, a video microscope for Murray, 5
Apple presentations systems and license for Woodbr0ok, and several
World and United States Wall Maps for Burley.
o Appropriation of $2,000.00 for Stony Point Elementary School. Stony
Point Elementary received a grant award from the UVA School of
Education Foundation, Inc. in the amount of $2,000.00. This grant
will fund the .program What a Great Idea: Children Teaching Children.
The fifth grade students will create and distribute original and
highly interactive books to help younger students in the school to
learn to read.
o Appropriation of $340.00 for Murray Elementary School. Martha
Jefferson Health Services (MJHS) awarded Murray Elementary a grant to
fund the Child Health Improvement Initiative for preschool students.
o Appropriation of $3,100.00 for Western Albemarle High School. Western
Albemarle High School received donations from Helen Lockwood in the
amount of.$100.00 and the Western Albemarle Band Boosters in the
amount of $3,000.00 The funds will be used to offset the cost of new
band uniforms for the school.
o Appropriation of $42.59 for the Textbook Fund. The textbook fund
collected $42.59 this year from the school for textbooks that were
lost, damaged or sold. These funds will be used to purchase
replacement textbooks.
Request for Appropriation
Page 2
o Appropriation of $4,225.01. Albemarle County Schools received a grant
in the amount of $4,225.01 from the State Department of Education.
These funds will be used to pay for postage for schools to mail School
Performance Report Cards.
It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation
ordinance to receive and disbursed these funds as displayed on the attachment.
smm
xc:
Melvin Breeden
Ella Carey
Page 3
Foundation of the Litton Industries Grant
Revenue:
2-3104-18000-181230
Expenditure:
1-3104-60251-601300
-60212-800100
-60216-800100
Foundation Litton Grant
Inet/nec Supplies
Machinery/Equipment
Machinery/Equipment
UVA
Revenue:
2-3104-18000-181230
Expenditure:
1-3104-60211-601300
-800100
MJHS
Revenue:
2-3104-18000-181222
Expenditure:
1-3104-60216-601300
School of Education Foundation Grant
Health
UVA Foundation Grant
Inet/nec Supplies
Machinery/Equipment
Improvement Grant
MJHS Child Health Grant
Inet/nec Supplies
Donation -Western
Revenue:
2-2000-18100-181109
Expenditure:
1-2302-61101-601300
Albemarle High School
Donation
Inet/nec Supplies
$4,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$4,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,750.00
$250.00
$340.00
$340.00
$3,100.00
$3,100.00
Textbook Appropriation
Revenue:
2-2000-19000-190214
Textbook Fund
$42.59
Expenditure:
1-2114-61101-602000 Textbooks $42.59
Request for Appropriation
Page 4
State Department Grant
Revenue:
2-2000-24000-240351
Expenditure:
1-2201-61411-520100
1-2202-61411-520100
1-2203-61411-520100
1-2204-61411-520100
1-2205-61411-520100
1-2206-61411-520100
1-2207-61411-520100
1-2209-61411-520100
1-2210-61411-520100
1-2211-61411-520100
1-2212-61411-520100
1-2213-61411-520100
1-2214-61411-520100
1-2215-61411-520100
1-2216-61411-520100
1-2251-61411-520100
1-2252-61411-520100
1-2253-61411-520100
1-2254-61411-520100
1-2255-61411-520100
1-2301-61411-520100
1-2302-61411-520100
1-2303-61411-520100
1-2304-61411-520100
State Dept Grant
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
Postal Services
$4,225.01
$157.98
$93.10
$119.19
$167.86
$218.64
$166.80
$62.06
$79.34
$18o.55
$90.28
$127.30
$57.13
$189.02
$94.51
$198.18
$164.68
$209.47
$177.38
$207.00
$221.81
$541.30
$339.24
$26.45
$335.74
$4,225.01
O~FFIGE OF THE PRINCIPAL
'.TELEPHONE (B04} 823-4314
FAX (804} 823-5121
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Western igh School
April 19, 1999
Donation
5941 I::K)CKFISH GAP TURNPIKE
CROZET, VIRGINIA 22932
We received the enclosed donation from a parent to use toward the purchase of new band
uniforms at Western Albemarle High School. We would like the mOney placed in 1-2302-
61101-601300. Let me know if you need any further information. Thank you.
AGC/Ib
Enclosure
Western Al igh School
OI~IGE OF THE PRINCIPAl.
FAX (804)823-5121
5941 ROCKFISH GAP TURNPIKE
CROZET, VIRGINIA 22932
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Sandy Morris, Fiscal Services
Anne Coughlin, Principal~~_.~~
April 29, 1999
Attached is a check in tho amount of $3,000.00~. Please deposit this into 1-2302-61101-
601300. The check is 'from our band boosters to offset the cost of the new band uniforms. The
boosters have been raising money to help with the cost and I believe they would appreciate
recognition by the school board. Thank you and let me know if you have any questions.
/lb
VIRGINIA
(t8-136/614
0'24805'
NO.
DATE AMDUNT
19/99 ~,~#3~ i~. ~
II"O2~P. 05," ~:051,~,Ot,*3r-.o~: :',0~.], 5g,~,2,'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOAI D OF SLrPEi VI$o s
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation for the Albemarle Housing Initiatives
Fund
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #98075 in the
amount of $50,000 to transfer the Albemarle Housing
Initiatives Fund to the Piedmont Housing Alliance
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, White, McDonald
AGENDA DATE,'
June 16, 1999
ACTION
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHM .ENT.S: ~
REVIEWED BY: 7
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors approved $50,000 for a Housing Initiative Fund in the current FY99 budget, which was
appropriated into the Housing Office budget. The idea of this flexible revolving fund had been recommended by
the County's Housing Committee, and in January 1999 the Committee officially approved a program design for
the use of these funds. The funds will primarily serve as "bridge funds" to assist affordable housing providers in
effectively utilizing or leveraging other federal, state and private funds for affordable housing. Targeted activities
for the fund are flexible rehabilitation, home-ownership for first time home buyers and creation of Iow cost rental
opportunities. The funds will be disbursed through grants, loans or deferred loans.
DISCUSSION:
The attached appropriation requests approval to transfer the FY99 allocation of $50,000 from the Housing Office
to the Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA), who will manage the funds and distribute them in the form of loans,
deferred loans and grants for affordable housing projects. Transferring these funds to PHA's management provides
more flexibility, since their non-profit status enables them to loan these funds, while the County by state statute
is not allowed to lend funds. Additionally, PHA will be able to use these local funds to leverage federal matching
funds for Albemarle County through the Community Development Financial Institution Funds (CDFI). Therefore,
our $50,000 initial contribution to PHA will enable the County to have an additional $50,000 in CDFI funds that may
be lent to affordable housing providers for as little as 1%.
In the FY00 budget, the Board approved the second round of Housing Initiative Fund monies to be directly
appropriated to PHA. Therefore, with this approved transfer of FY99 funds to PHA along with the FY00 allocation,
PHA will have $100,000 to use as local leverage for matching CDFI funds, enabling the County to have a potential
revolving loan fund of $200,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests approval of Appropriation #98075, which transfers $50,000 in Housing Initiative Funds from the
Housing Office budget to the Piedmont Housing Alliance.
99.099
Charlotte Y. Humpi'u'is
Forrest R. Mar~ha~ Jr.
June 23,1999
COUNTY OF Al REMARI .F.
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, V'wginia 22902-4,596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
M. E. Gibson Jr., Esquire
Tremblay & Smith, L. L. P.
105-109 E. High St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Gibson:
When I sent you the resolution granting SP-98-03 pursuant to court order, I neglected to
include the conditions. I understand that Ms. Carey FAX'd them to you, and I've enclosed a hard
copy for your records.
Sincerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
Enclosure
Printed on recycled paper
C~a~lotte Y, Humphris
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
COUNTY OF ALB~i_E
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, V'~ginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
~ H. Thon~
June 18,1999
M. E. Gibson, Jr., Esquire
tremblay & Smith, L.L.P.
105-109 E. High St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Gibson:
At its June 16, 1999 meeting, the BOard of Supervisors adopted a resolution granting SP-
98-03 pursuant to court order. I have enclosed a copy of the resolution for your records.
Sincerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
Enclosure
Printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION GRANTING SP 98-03
PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER
WHEREAS, on September 16, 1998, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
(the "Board") exercised its legislative authority and denied 360 Communications
Company's ("360 Communications") application for a special use permit ("SP 98-03") to
erect a one-hundred foot tower on the ridgeline of Dudley Mountain; and
WHEREAS, 360 Communications brought an action in the United States District
Court alleging that the Board violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because its
decision to deny SP 98-03 was not supported by substantial evidence and because its
decision had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 1999, the United States District Court adjudged that,
although the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence, the denial of SP
98-03 violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because it had the effect of
prohibiting 360 Communications from providing personal wireless services; and
WHEREAS, the United States District Court ordered that the Board grant SP 98-
03 within 45 days of May 19, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Board has directed that the decision of the United States District
Court be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that SP 98-03 is granted under protest
and only because this Board is ordered to do so by the United States District Court,
subject to the corrected conditions of approval set forth in the Staff Report for SP 98-03
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that a site plan waiver and a modificatiOn of Zoning
Ordinance § 4.10.3.1 to allow the tower to be located approximately forty feet from the
property line are granted as ordered by the United States District Court, subject to the
conditions attached hereto.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board reserves any and all rights that it
may have to seek a stay of the United States District Court's decision and to compel the
removal of all wireless facilities and enjoin all uses authorized by the granting of SP 98-
03 if the United States Court of Appeals determines that the Board's denial of SP 98-03
did not violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote
of 4 to 0, as recorded below, at a meeting hel~d_~[~.Ju~ne 16, 1999..,-'"'~
Clerk, Board of County Supervis.or~
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Humphris x
Ms. Thomas x
Mr. Marshall
Mr. Martin
(absent)
(absent)
Conditions of Approval of SP 98-03 and Related Approvals
SP 98-03
The height of the tower shall not exceed 100 feet. Whip antennas and
lightning suppression equipment not exceeding three (3) inches in
diameter may extend up to an additional twenty (20) feet above the top of
the tower.
2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
ao
The tower shall be designed so that, in the event of structural
failure, the tower and all of its components will remain within the
lease area.
The tower shall be of self-supporting lattice-type construction. Guy
wires shall be not permitted.
c. The tower shall have no lighting.
The tower shall be gray, blue or green in order to reduce its visual
impacts.
3. The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled
360 CommunicatiOns Dudley Mountain and initialed "WDF 7/14/98."
bo
The tower shall be located so that, in the event of structural failure,
the tower and all of its components will remain within the lease
area.
4. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
Omnidirectional antennas or whip antennas (also subject to
condition 1) shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height and seven
(7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the
tower.
Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed five (5) feet in height
or two (2) feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the
tower.
c. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
Antennas may be installed in addition to those installed by the
permittee when the tower is first constructed without amending this
special use permit, provided that all necessary building permits are
obtained from the building official and the antennas otherwise
comply with these conditions.
o
The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the
collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows:
ao
The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications
providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the
site, subject to these conditions.
Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver
of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a
letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to
allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such
other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site.
(2)
The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request,
verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to
allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort
includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee
has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower
and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site
owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle
County.
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 purposes of this condition, a
luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together
with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the
lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. All lighting shall be
shielded from Route 29 and Route 706. Outdoor lighting shall only be on
during periods of maintenance.
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment
building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall
obtain authorization from County staff to remove existing trees on the site.
The County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such
construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly
authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove existing trees
within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the
vehicular or utility access.
8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety
(90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is
discontinued.
10.
11.
The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per
year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each
user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless
telecommunications service provider.
The access road shall be subject to the following:,
a. The access road shall be gated.
The minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the
access road shall be 40 feet.
The access road above the 800 foot elevation shall be built with
side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter.
d. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section.
12.
No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses
shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls,
revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County
Engineer are employed.
Site Plan Waiver
The permittee shall obtain Planning Commission.approval of a
modification of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow activity on
critical slopes.
The permittee shall obtain approval of an erosion and sediment control
plan prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. One parking space shall be provided on the site.
June 16, 1999
H. W. Mills
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 M¢lntir~ Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(t!04) 296 - 5S:23
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
RE: Various Towers on 1-64
D~ar Mr. Mills,
Staff'has received your letters regarding four proposed towers in the right-of-way for 1-64.
four sites are:
The
2.
3.
4.
Southwest comer of 1-64/Route 616 interchange.
Northeast comer of the 1-64/Route 29 interchange.
Southeast comer of the 1-64/Route 250 (Shadwell) interchange.
South side ofi-64 east of Route 730 in the Keswick area.
All of the proposals are for "installation of a 250' cellular tower on state right of way". The
nature of the facilities proposed is inconsistent with past actions of the County, and the drat~
"Design Manual for Personal Wireless Service Facilities". For the construction of new, stand
alone facilities, the County has been encouraging the use of "Treetop Facilities". This type of
facility consists of a wooden or metal pole which allows for the antenna to be mounted such that
it is not more than I 0 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet of the facility. The encouraged
design also requires that trees near the facility, generally within 200 feet, be retained to help
minimize the visibility of the site. Naturally, the County encourages the use of existing facilities
where possible to alleviate the need for the construction of new facilities.
The County has not received the applications made to VDOT for these sites, a copy of the
application which is to be submitted to VDOT is attached. Without a copy of the application, and
the information which must be provided with the application it is difficult for the County to
conduct a meaningful review of the proposals.
Even without the information which is to be submitted, the County offers the following
comments on each proposal:
1. Southwest comer of I-64/Route 616 interchange.
This proposal for a 250 foot facility ag/pears to be unnecessary. An existing facility is located
approximately 1,000 feet to the west. This site currently provides sites for two personal wireless
service providers. Additional capacity does exist at this location however; modification to the
conditions of the special use permit previously issued by the County will be required. A site also
exists to the east in Fluvanna County. Use of these two facilities may alleviate the need for the
construction ora new site. The location of a 250 foot lighted facility in this area would be
inconsistent with the Entrance Corridor designation of Route 250 and 1-64 and the existing rural
character of the area~ Alternative siting opportunities exist and alternative construction
techniques exist which alleviate the need for the proposed site.
2. Northeast comer of the 1-64/Route 29 interchange.
This proposal for a 250 foot facility appears to be unnecessary. An existing high voltage power
line is located 4,000 feet to the east and an existing monopole supporting one user is located
5,000 feet to the west. Attachment to the existing monopole does not require a special use permit,
but. a building permit will be required. Attachment to one of the structures supporting the high
voltage power line h~s recently been approved. Additional attachments to any of the power line
structures will require ~ipproval of a special use permit. Use of these two facilities may alleviate
the need for the construction ora tower. The location ora 250 foot lighted facility in this area
would be inconsistent with the Entrance Corridor designation of Route 29 and 1-64 and the
existing character of the area. Alternative siting opportunities exist and alternative construction
· techniques exist which alleviate the need for the proposed site. (CFW Wireless (Intelos) has
c?s. tructed treetop facilities along Route 29 and the Route 29/250 Bypass to provide wireless
service in the area which would be covered by this proposed facility:)
3. Southeast comer of the 1-64/Route 250 (Shadwell) interchange.
This proposal for a 250 foot facility appears to be unnecessary. Existing strUctures and buildings
in the area may be able to support antennas that will provide the wireless coverage proposed.
Triton Communications (SunCom) recently received approval for two attachments to the high
voltage power line in the area. Additional use of the structures supporting the power line may
alleviate the need for this site. Additional attachments to any of the power line structures will
requiie approval of a special use permit. The location of a 250 foot lighted facility in this area
would be inconsistent with the Entrance Corridor designation of Route 250 and 1-64. The
proposed facility would be visible from Monticello. The location of a 250 foot lighted facility in
the foreground of the viewshed of such a designated landmark would be inconsistent with good
planning practices.
4. South side ofi-64 east of Route 730 in the Keswick area.
This proposal for a 250 foot facility appears to be unnecessary. This facility is located
approximately 9,000 feet from the facilities proposed at Route 616 and Route 250 (Shadwell).
This spacing appears to be closer than necessary. The use of the alternative sites previously
identified along with the possible construction of one or more "Treetop Facilities" appears to
alleviate the need for this site. The location of a 250 foot lighted facility in this area would be
inconsistent with the Entrance Corridor designation of Route 250 and 1-64 and the existing rural
character of the area. Alternative siting opportunities exist and alternative construction
techniques exist which alleviate the need for the proposed site.
All of the facilities are proposed within the County's Entrance Corridor Overlay District, which
requires approval of the building permit by the Architectural Review Board. The height of the
facilities are such that they will have to be lit. All of the sites would require a
variance/modffication of setback provisions of the County.
While County staffdoes not want to stop the implementation of Intelligent Transportation
Systems the proposed "towers" appear to greatly exceed what would be required to provide ITS.
Review by the County would allow staff to completely identify, alternatives to the construction of
the proposed facilities. Review would also allow the County to attempt to mitigate the impacts of
the facilities if they were to be constructed as proposed. Use of alternative antenna type and
o
mounting techniques can serve to reduce the visibility. Design and placement of ground based
equipment should also be reviewed by the County in an attempt to minimize the visibility of the
site. Use of greening measures, particularly for the site near Route 730, should be used to
minimize the visual and noise impact from 1-64 caused by the removal of existing vegetation.
All of the proposed sites are inconsistent with the goals of the County for the siting of wireless
facilities. The County would welcome the opportunity to work with the wireless service
provider(s) proposing these facilities to facilitate the deployment of their networks in a manner
consistent with the County's goals and the coverage/capacity objectives of the providers.
Since_rely.,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
q~imily Couric
Paul Harris
Mirth Van Yahres
LXHIBIT A: App!.!.cation
APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A COMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA ON STATE-OWNED LAND
Name of Wireless Communication Provider:
~ame of Company Applicant Company or Person:
Person to Contact:
FAX Number:
Desired Location:
Telephone Number:
Desired Elevation:
If this application is for placement of a new antenna tower, is there an
available existing structure that can be used instead?: YES [] NO ~
Attach a sketch of the area to be leased showing locations of the proposed
antenna or antenna tower, equipment building, ingress/egress path and utility
ilnes.
Equipment Building Size
Tyue of Exterior (brick,
(gross square feet):
steel, wood, etc.):
tPrepared By:
Title:
Company:
Signature Date
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-$841 FAX (804) 972-4060
FAX: (804) 296-5800
June 17,1999
The Honorable Shirley J. Ybarra
Secretary of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
1401 E. Broad Street, Room 414
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Secretary Ybarra:
We recently received notice from the Virginia Department of Transportation that several 250-feet
tall telecommunication towers are being proposed within the right-of-way of Interstate 64 in
Albemarle County. While the timing for response to these proposals has been very short, we do
plan to provide comments on this matter in the very near future. However, the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors is very concerned about these most recent proposals and has adopted the
attached resolution opposing the Virginia Department of Transportation's and the Commonwealth
Transportation Board's proposal.
We work diligently to protect the character of Albemarle County. The type of towers proposed will
significantly change the visual quality of the County. At a minimum, we urge you, the Virginia
Department of Transportation, and the Commonwealth Transportation Board to take no action on
these proposed towers until the Virginia Supreme Court decides the case, Board of Supervisors
v. Washington, D. C. SMSA, which challenges the authority of the Virginia Department of
Transportation to construct such towers without local approval.
Thank you for your immediate consideration of this matter and if you should have any further
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
RWT,Jr/dbm
99.031
Attachment
Sinc~rely,
~Robert W. Tucker, Jr. ~
~ounty Executive ~
Distribution List:
The Honorable James S. Gilmore, III
The Honorable John W. Warner
The Honorable Charles S. Robb
The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
The Honorable Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
The Honorable Emily Couric
The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres
The Honorable Paul C. Harris
Commissioner David P,. Gehr
Co~monwealth Transportation Board
,u~l'bemarle County Board of Supervisors
RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE PLAN OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD
TO ALLOW TALL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS
WITHIN THE INTERSTATE 64 RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, this Board has the authority to regulate the private use of land
through the planning, zoning and subdivision powers granted it by Virginia Code §§
15.2-2200 et seq.; and
.WHEREAS, over the past 31 years this Board has strived to improve the health,
safety and general welfare of the community through good planning and zoning
practices; and
WHEREAS, this Board has been notified that the Virginia Department of
Transportation ("VDOT") and the Commonwealth Transportation Board ("CTB") plan to
allow up to seven wireless telecommunications towers, each 250 feet in height, to be
erected in the County within the Interstate 64 right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, Interstate 64 is an entrance corridor within Albemarle County, and
the Board has adopted special regulations contained in an overlay zoning district to
protect the corridor and to preserve its natural, scenic, historic, architectural and cultural
resources, so as to attract tourists and other visitors, sustain and enhance the economic
benefits accruing to the County from tourism, and to otherwise promote the public
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the County and visitors thereto; and
WHEREAS, tall towers such as those proposed to be allowed by VDOT and the
CTB are not necessary for the purposes of VDOT or for the provision of personal
wireless services, have significant visual impacts that mar the landscape, destroy the
natural and scenic reSources of Albemarle County, irreparably damage the
attractiveness of the County to tourists and other visitors, and are otherwise not
consonant with the general welfare of the citizens of the County and visitors thereto;
and
WHEREAS, this Board supports wireless telecommunications and the erection of
wireless telecommunications facilities that are consistent with good planning and zoning
practices, and it has approved 29 of 35 applications for special use permits for such
facilities since 1990; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the many public hearings on special use permits for
wireless facilities, the wireless studies conducted by the County's staff and the County's
wireless consultant, and the valuable information provided by some wireless service
providers, this Board knows that wireless technology is constantly changing and
improving so that wireless service may be provided today by less intrusive and
destructive means than through the erection of tall towers, and that such alternatives
are reasonable and feasible as evidenced by the wireless infrastructures being pursued
by some wireless service providers in this County; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-2293 expressly grants to this Board the
authority to regulate the private use of land owned by the Commonwealth; and, this
Board has not been requested to consider or approve any privately owned or occupied
towers or related facilities within the Interstate 64 right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 33.1-183.1 requires that before the CTB may sell or
lease the airspace superjacent to any highway in the Commonwealth it must obtain this
Board's approval and comply with zoning regulations and take such other steps as this
Board deems proper to regulate the type and use of the improvements to be erected in
the airspace; and, this Board has not been requested to consider or grant such approval
or to impose such regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expressly preserves local
zoning authority over the placement and construction of wireless telecommunications
facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that this Board condemns the plan of
VDOT and the CTB to allow tall wireless telecommunications towers to be erected
within the Interstate 64 right-of-way as an unlawful usurpation and circumvention of the
planning and zoning authority delegated to this Board; and, this Board demands that
VDOT, the CTB and the wireless service providers that plan to locate on the proposed
towers comply with Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2293 and 33.1-183.1; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, even though this Board, VDOT and the CTB
are each instrumentalities of the Commonwealth, this Board must condemn VDOT and
the CTB for refusing to cooperate with this Board and the citizens of this County on this
important land use issue which is properly within the authority of this Board, not VDOT
or the CTB; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board condemns VDOT and the CTB for
proposing to take such actions without first soliciting comments from the County in a
timely manner by failing to allow County staff even the 30 day review period provided by
VDOT's own guidelines, and demands that VDOT extend the review period and conduct
properly noticed public hearings for each of the seven proposed towers to allow citizen
input into these important local land use decisions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board condemns VDOT's "Shared
Resources Program," which combines wireless telecommunications facilities with
proposed Intelligent Transportation System facilities, because the combination results in
towers much taller than necessary to serve VDOT's public purposes, to the detriment of
the general welfare of the citizens; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board demands that VDOT and the CTB
take no action on the proposed towers until the Virginia Supreme Court decides the
case, Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v, Washington, D.C. SMSA, a case
challenging the authority of VDOT to construct such towers without local approvals; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board will pursue any and all legal
remedies, if necessary, to assure that VDOT, the CTB, and the wireless service
providers proposing to erect or lease such towers and related wireless facilities comply
with Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2293 and 33.1-183.1, and all other applicable requirements.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote
of 4 to 0, as recorded below, at a meeting held_~_.g~ June 16, 1999......--"-)
Clerk, Board of Coun-'~y'Supervi.s.-or~
Aye Nay ~__.//
Mr. Bowerman x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Humphris x
Ms. Thomas x
Mr. Marshall
Mr. Martin
(absent)
(absent)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
1997 Assessment Sales Ratio Study
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Report by the Virginia Department of Taxation
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Woodzell
AGENDA DATE:
June 16, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
BACKGROUND:
The final 1997 Virginia Assessment Sales Ratio Study has been released by the Virginia Department of Taxation.
The study estimates the existing assessment sales ratio in each locality by comparing assessed values to the selling prices
of bona fide sales of real property. This ratio, when divided into the fair market value of real estate, provides an estimate of
the total true (full) value of real estate. In addition to this function, the study determines the average effective true tax rates
throughout the state. The effective true tax rate expresses the tax rate per $100 of true value and is an accurate means of
comparing the real estate tax on similar properties in different taxing jurisdictions. The effective tax rate is used in many
calculations throughout the state. Some local examples are: land use assessment, public service assessment, the revenue
sharing payment to the City of Charlottesville, and the composite index for distribution of state education funds.
The County of Albemarle is one of few localities in the state reporting all bona fide sales.
DISCUSSION:
The 1997 study generated an overall 96.87% median ratio and a 7.12% coefficient of dispersion for the County of Albemarle.
The year 1997 is a reassessment year. The median ratio is traditionally higher in a reassessment year than the year following
the reassessment. The median ratio is the comparison of assessed values to the selling price of bona fide sales of real
property. The coefficient of dispersion evaluates the level of uniformity of the assessments.
The Virginia Department of Taxation conducts sales ratio studies for 135 counties and cities in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
In addition to the 28 localities which undertake annual reassessments, 32 other localities conducted reassessments in 1997.
The combined median ratio and coefficient of dispersion for the County of Albemarle ranked 9th compared to the total 135
localities studied by the Virginia Department of Taxation.
RECOMMENDATION:
This information is presented for your information. It does not require any action.
99.098
Summary of Sales Ratio Studies for the County of Albemarle
~ ' Total Virginia * I * Total AlbemaHe * ~ Single Residential Urban
Study Last I Value Median Disper. Regres. ~ Number Median Oisper. ~ Number Median Disper. Regres.
Year R_Year~ Change Ratio Coefflc. Index I Sales Ratio Coefflc. I Sales Ratio Coeffic. Index
1975 1975
1976 1976
1977 1977
1978 1978
1979 1979
1980 1980
1981 1981
1982 1982
1983 1983
1984 1983
1985 1985
1986 1985
1987 1987
1988 1987
1989 1989
1990 1989
1991 1991
1992 1991
1993 1993
1994 1993
1995 1995
1996 1995
1997 1997
1998 1997
8.3% 30.5% 25.9%
8.1% 31.0% 25.5%
9.9% 55.6% 24.7%
13.4% 64.3% 20.5%
15.7% 66.1% 18.9%
12.8% 71.7% 19.7%
10.2% 77.6% 18.9%
5.3% 84.5% 16.0%
6.9% 85.3% 14.2%
7.2% 84.5% 13.5%
8.3% 86.1% 13.4%
14.0% 83.2% 13.4%
13.9% 80.6% 13.4%
16.2% 82.2% 13.6%
14.5% 81.2% 14.0%
7.8% 88.0% 14.4%
1.3% 91.0% 13.8%
-0.2% 91.7% N/A
1.2% 86.0% NIA
2.7% 91.3% N/A
2.9% 91.6% N/A
3.6% 91.5% N/A
1.13
1.13
1.16
1.12
1.06
1.11
1.10
1.05
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.04
1.o5
1.04
1.o5
1.o4
N/A
N/A
N/A
Single Residential Suburban
Number Median Disper. Regres.
Sales Ratio Coeffic. Index
Multi-Family Residential I Commercial/Industrial
I
Number Median Dtsper. Regres I Number Median Disper. Regres
Sales Ratio Coefflc. Index ~ Sales Ratio Coeffic. Index
N/A 13.6% N/A
N/A 13.2% N/A
604 90.3% 8.6%
609 79.6% 9.4%
650 81.0% 8.8%
630 74.4% 9.5%
608 87.3% 7.1%
494 87.9% 7.7%
676 94.1% 6.6%
625 92.5% 7.2%
674 95.5% 5.7%
624 93.3% 6.2%
622 94.3% 5.2%
612 88.3% 5.5%
614 87.3% 5.3%
631 61.9% 6.7%
641 92.7% 6.1%
649 93.1% 5.8%
325 96.6% 6.9%
399 96.3% 6.8%
N/A I 1,530 97.2% 8.7%
N/A I 1,550 98.4% 6.8%
3.9% 91.7% N/A N/A I 1.531 96.9% 7.1%
I
192 14.1% 5.0% 1.01
309 13.5% 8.7% 1.00
332 91.8% 5.9% 0.99
311 82.0% 7.6% 0.98
264 83.4% 6.3% 1.00
333 74.3% 8.2% 1.01
294 87.3% 5.8% 1.02
264 88.5% 6.0% 1.05
352 94.9% 5,7% 1.01
325 94.1% 6.3% 1.03
346 96.3% 4.9% 1.00
333 93.7% 5.8% 1.02
367 94.7% 4.5% 1.01
0 N/A N/A N/A
1 N/A N/A 1.00
294 82.1% 5.7% 1.02
0 N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 96.4% NIA 1.00
901 97.2% 6.1% 1.00
965 98.5% 4.5% 1.00
921 97,4% 5.4%
352 13.2% 14.5% 1.06
239 12.8% 14.8% 1.02
224 85.9% 14.7% 1.00
258 77.0% 11.7% 0.95
336 78.5% 10.8% 1.00
258 74.5% 12.3% 1.04
207 86.8% 9.2% 1.00
186 86.8% 11.3% 1.05
275 93.2% 7.9% 1.00
264 90.3% 7.7% 1.03
2~ 94.3% 7.1% 1.01
2~ 93.2% 6.6% 1.01
215 93.4% 6.5% 1.00
509 87.7% 5.7% 1.02
456 87.3% 5,7% 1.00
277 81.3% 7.4% 1.02
617 92:8% 6.1% 1.01
623 93.1% 5.8% 0.99
304 96.6% 6,6% 1.00
337 96.2% 7.0% 1.00
471 96.5% 12.2% 1.03
419 98.2% 11.2% 1.02
464 96.4% 9.5% 1.00
5 11.7% 39.3% N/A
3 N/A N/A N/A
3 N/A N/A N/A
2 N/A N/A N/A
5 95.3% 14.3% 1.16
4 78.2% 12.9% 0.96
6 84.1% 5.7% 0.98
6 88.0% 8.1% 0.98
17 96.2% 4.1% 1.03
5 95.8% 5.5% 1.01
15 97.8% 5.2% 1.01
12 94.8% 7.3% 1.01
11 97.3% 1.7% 1.01
84 90.9% 4.6% 1.00
117 87.9% 3.8% 1.00
18 87.1% 6.0% 1.01
7 92.6% 1.9% 1.00
N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 89.6% 8,8% 1.02
51 97.1% 5.2% 0.99
33 95.8% 7.8% 0.98
57 96.4% 4.1% 1.00
61 93.9% 4.8% 1.01
11 14.5% 16.4% N/A
9 12.7% 14.6% N/A
11 86.2% 17.2% N/A
11 76.7% 11.3% N/A
6 86.8% 19.2% 0.87
8 70.1% 14.40% 0.93
5 89.1% 10.20% 0.92
7 86.1% 23.50% 1.08
7 99.7% 4.90% 0.99
7 84.8% 3.90% 1.00
6 95.6% 12.60% 1.08
15 91.8% 13.90% 0.98
7 1~,7% 8.30% 1.00
2 NH NH 1.01
6 89.1% 11.20% 1.07
7 103.5% 9.60% 1.04
2 NH NH 0.~
3 NH N/A 1.02
0 N/A NH NH
40 97.4% 20.6% 0.93
40 99.1% 14.4% 1.03
27 95.0% 12.3% 0.99
Disper.. Coeffic.. = Coefficient of Dispersion The coefficient of dispersion is used to measure how closely Albemade's ratios are arrayed around the median ratio. The smaller the measure of dispersion, the greater
the uniformity of the ratios. The more closely the ratios are grouped around the median, the more equitable was the property assessment, since properties were assessed at similar rates. Experts feel that an index of
10 percent indicates a good distribution for residential properties.
Regres.. Index = Regression Index The regression index guages the relationships between the ratios of high priced and Iow priced properties to determine if the value of the property has any influence on the
assessment ratio. An index above 1.00 indicates that less expensive homes have a higher assessment sales ratio than more expensive homes: therefore, the assessments are regressive. Many experts believe an
index between .95 and 1.05 is reasonable.
N/A not available with current report format
Revised 06/09/99 Prepared by Robert Walters
Summary of Sales Ratio Studies for the County of AlbemaHe
I Agricultural/Undeveloped I Agricultural/Undeveloped
~ 20-100 Acres I Over 100 Acres
Study Last ~ Number Median Disper. Regres ~ Number Median Disper.. Regres
Year R_Year I Sales Ratio Coeffic. Index I Sales Ratio Coeffic.. Index
* Average Tax Rates *
Median Average Average
Assess Nominal Effective
Ratio Tax Rate Tax Rate
1975 1975
1976 1976
1977 1977
1976 1978
1979 1979
1980 1960
1981 1981
1982 1982
1983 1983
1984 1983
1985 1985
1986 1985
1987 1987
1988 1987
1989 1989
1990 1989
1991 1991
1992 1991
1993 1993
1994 1993
1995 1995
1996 1995
1997 1997
1998 1997
23 12.1% 22.0% N/A
25 12.1% 16.7% N/A
17 79.8% 21.9% N/A
11 80.2% 11.9% N/A
29 79.6% 16.3% 0.98
17 66,0% 24.50% 1.04
29 92.1% 10.40% 1.06
22 81.6% 16,00% 1.07
21 90.5% 9,50% 1.02
23 95.1% 10.90% 1.06
23 98.5% 8.10% 1.00
26 89.9% 11.70% 1.02
20 96.0% 8.20% 0.99
14 92,2% 8.70% 1.03
27 83.6% 12,40% 0.98
30 77,6% 10.40% 1.04
14 90.9% 13.30% 1,09
19 94.3% 16.69% 1.14
12 94.5% 10.91% 1.05
8 86.6% 9.9% 1.04
83 99.2% 11.2% 1.03
66 98.9% 8.9% 1.02
46 92.2% 13.3% 1.00
13 12.7% 14.4% N/A
19 11.7% 16.1% N/A
17 87.5% 10.5% N/A
5 74.9% 15.7% N/A
10 75.0% 12.2% 0.96
10 76.2% 11.70% 0.97
4 72.4% 16.30% 1.04
9 85.9% 8.70% 1.00
4 104.4% 7.60% 1,04
1 N/A N/A 1.00
6 87.0% 8.80% 1.04
4 84.3% 18.90% 1.00
2 N/A N/A 1.05
3 N/A N/A 1.00
7 92.2% 9.60% 1.00
5 94.4% 2.50% 1.00
1
N/A
N/A N/A 1,00
N/A N/A N/,~
13.6% 4.70 0.64
13.2% 4.80 0.63
90.3% 0.72 0.65
79.6% 0.72 0.57
81.0% 0.67 0.54
74.4% 0.67 0.50
87.3% 0.67 0.58
87.9% 0.77 0.68
94.1%
92.5%
95.5%
93.3%
94.3%
88.3%
87.3%
81.9%
92.7%
93.1%
I N/A N/A 1.00 96.6%
1 98.7% N/A 1.00 96.3%
2 70.6% N/A 0.96
3 98.7% N/A 0.99
12 89.1% 24.1% 0.93
97.2%
98.4%
96.9%
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.74
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.71
0.74
0.72
0.68
0.64
0.63
0.61
0.67
0.67
0.70
0.69
0.70
0.71
0.70
* Estimated True Value Taxable *
Real Public
Estate Service Total
I * Estimated True Value Per Capita *
True ~
Value I Real Public
Chang I Population Estate Sewice Total
895.796,000 62,897,000
949,195,000 65,368,000
1,063,692,000 68,355,000
1,239,284,000 71.706,500
1,414,876,000 75,058,000
1,634,054,000 81,522,000
1,750,341,000 86,351,000
1,793,088,000 89,974,000
1,990,763,000 103,720,000
2,112,285,000 99,517,000
2,385,291,000 107,563,000
2,538,079,000 114,333,000
2,855,907,000 120,204,000
3,174,398,000 137,382,600
3,754,984,000 146,429,000
4,183,152,000 165,551,000
4,659,370,000 173,615,000
4,806,786,242 181,571,450
5,227.733,908 188,566,393
5,369,525,286 195,549,967
5,677,358,961 206,010,001
5,787,970,132 207,680,207
6,041,067,553 219,839,788
958,693,000 N/A
1,014~563,000 5.8%
1,132,047,000 11.6%
1,310 990,500 15.8%
1,469,934,000 13.6%
1,715,576,000 15.1%
1,836,692,000 7.1%
1,883,062,000 2.5%
2,094,483,000 11.2%
2,211,802,000 5.6%
2,492.854,000 12.7%
2,652,412,000 6.4%
2,976,111,000 12.2%
3,311,780,000 11.3%
3,903,413,000 17.9%
4,348,703,000 11.4%
4,832,985,000 11.1%
4,988,357,692 3.2%
5,416,300,301 8.6%
5,565,075,253 2.7%
5,883,368,962 5.7%
5,995,650,339 1.9%
6,260,907,341 4.4%
46,700 19,182 1,347 20,529
48,200 19,693 1,356 21,049
50,000 21,274 1.367 22,641
49,950 24,814 1,436 26,250
49,900 28,354 1,504 29,858
55,800 29,284 1.461 30,745
56,800 30,816 1,520 32,336
57,500 31,184 1,565 32,749
58,200 34,206 1,782 35,988
58,600 36,045 1,698 37,743
60,200 39,623 1.787 41,410
60,900 41,676 1,877 43,553
61,700 46,287 1,948 48,235
63,200 51,449 2,227 53.676
65,600 57,317 2,266 59,583
68,040 61,481 2,433 63,914
69,700 66,849 2,491 69,340
70,300 68,375 2,583 70,958
71,700 72,911 2,630 75,541
73,700 72,857 2.653 75,510
75,500 75.197 2,729 77.926
78,400 73,826 2,649 76,475
79,200 76,276 2,776 79,052
Revised 06/09/99 Prepared by Robert Walters
Mc WoO
One James Center
901 East Cary Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Telephone/TDD (804) 775-1000 · Fax (804) 775-1061
Edward L. Flippen
etlippen~mwbb.com
May25,1999
Direct Dial: (804) 775-4380
Direct Fax: (804) 698-2019
Chairman of the Boards of Supervisors of each county and the Mayor or Manager of each
county, city, or town or equivalent officials in counties, towns and cities having alternate
forms of government in the Commonwealth of Virginia
Joint Petition of Dominion Resources, Inc. and Consolidated Natural Gas Company
For approval of agreement and plan of merger under
Chapter 5 of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia~ Case No. PUA990020
Attached is a copy of Order for Notice and Comment and Extending Time for Review
("Order") issued May 21, 1999, by the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Please take
notice of the public notice on page 5 of the Order.
ELF/gb
Attachment
Sincerely,
Edward L. Flippen
w'e,~.mwbb.com
BRUSSELS · CHARLOTTE · CHaRLOTrESmLL~ · CmCAGO · JACXSONVlLm · MOSCOW · NO~OLK · RICltMOND · TYSONS CORNER · WASHINGTON · ZOP, I~ (OF Co~sI~)
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
2j 3; AT RICHMOND, MAY 21, 1999
990520522
JOINT PETITION OF
DOMINION RESOURCES, INC.
CASE NO. PUA990020
and
CONSOLIDATED NATURAL GAS COMPANY
For approval of agreement and plan
of merger under Chapter 5 of Title 56
of the Code of Virginia
ORDER FOR NOTICE AND COMMENT AND EXTENDING TIME FOR REVIEW
On April 5, 1999, Dominion Resources, Inc. ("DRI") and
Consolidated Natural Gas Company ("CNG") (collectively, the
"Petitioners") filed a joint petition requesting approval,
pursuant to § 56-88.1 of the Code of Virginia, of a
proposed transaction that would result in CNG becoming a
wholly owned subsidiaSy of DRI. On May 6, 1999, the
Petitioners provided additional information clarifying and
amending the joint petition. The Petitioners subsequently
filed an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger
on May 21, 1999.
Staff advises that it considers the joint petition
complete as of May 21, 1999. In its May 21, 1999 filing,
Petitioners represent that they consider the joint petition
complete for purposes of § 56-88.1 and § 56-90 as of the
date of its most recent filing.
Having considered the above-referenced filings and
representations, we therefore deem the joint petition
completed as of its filing on May 21, 1999. Pursuant to
§ 56-88.1, the Commission has sixty (60) days after the
filing of a completed petition in which to approve or
disapprove such petition and may extend that time for a
period not to exceed an additional one hundred and twenty
(120) days. ·
We note that t~e issues involved in the joint petition
are complex and will require additional time for review.
As such, we are of the opinion that sixty (60) days is not
sufficient time in which to investigate fully matters
associated with the proposed merger. It is therefore
appropriate to extend the period for review of issues under
§ 56-88.1 for'a period up to one hundred and twenty (120)
days from the original sixty (60) day time period, or
through November 17, 1999.
We are also of the opinion that public notice should
be given and that interested persons should have an
opportunity to comment or request a hearing on the joint
petition. We are of the further opinion that, in the event
issues involving discovery should aris9 in this proceeding,
such issues should be. directed to a Hearing Examiner
assigned to hear such matters. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The date for issuance of a final order in this
proceeding be, and hereby is, extended for.one hundred and
twenty (120) days from May 21, 1999, to November 17, 1999.
(2) Petitioners shall promptly make a copy of their
petition and supporting material available to the public,
who may obtain a copy of the petition, at no charge, by
requesting it in writing from DRI"s counsel at the address
detailed below.
(3) Any interested person wishing to comment on the
petition shall, on or before July 13, 1999, address such
written comments to: Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State
Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O.
Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, and shall refer to Case
No. PUA990020~
(4) On or before July 13, 1999, any person desiring a
hearing in this matter shall file a request for hearing in
writing with Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation
Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118,
Richmond, Virginia 23218, and shall refer in his or her
request to Case No. PUA990020. Any request for hearing
3
shall detail reasons-why such issues can not be adequately
addressed in written comments.
(5) A copy of such comments and requests for hearing
shall simultaneously be sent to counsel as follows: Edward
L. Flippen, Esquire, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, LLP,
One James Center 901 E. Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia
23219.
(6) The Commission Staff shall review the petition
and shall file, on or before August 6, 1999, a report
detailing the results of its investigation.
(7) Petitioners shall respond to written
interrogatories within ten (10) calendar days after receipt
of same. Except as modified above, discovery shall be in
accordance with Part VI of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
(8) All future discovery issues are assigned to a
Commission He~ri~g Examiner for resolution. The Hearing
Examiner is directed to establish appropriate procedures to
resolve discovery issues as they arise.
(9) On or before June 21, 1999, the Petitioners shall
complete publication of the following notice as display
advertising, not classified, twice a week for two
consecutive weeks in newspapers of general circulation
throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia:
NOTICE OF THE JOINT PETITION OF
DOMINION RESOURCES, INC. AND
CONSOLIDATED NATURAL GAS COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER
CASE NO. PUA990020
Dominion Resources, Inc. ("DRI") and Consolidated
Natural Gas Company ("CNG") (collectively "the
Petitioners") filed a petition with the State Corporation
Commission requesting approval of a proposed transaction
which would result in CNG becoming a wholly owned
subsidiary of DRI. The petition, if approved, would result
in Virginia Natural Gas ("VNG"), a subsidiary of CNG, being
an indirect subsidiary of DRI.
A copy of the above-referenced petition is available
for inspection during regular business hours at the State
Corporation Commission, Document Control Center, First
Floor, Tyler. Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond,
Virginia. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the
Petition, at no charge, by requesting a copy in writing
from Petitioners counsel at the address noted below.
Comments on this petition or requests for hearing on
this petition, must be submitted in writing to Joel H.
Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document
Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, on
or before July 13, 1999, and any request for hearing shall
provide an explanation of why a hearing is necessary and
why such issues cannot be adequately addressed in written
comments.
Ail corr~sp0ndence should refer to Case No. PUA990020.
A copy of the comments or requests for hearing must also be
sent to counsel for the Petitioners as follows: Edward L.
Flippen, Esquire, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, LLP, One
James Center, 901 E. Cary Street, Richmond, virginia 23219.
If no sufficient requests for hearing are received, a
formal hearing may not be held.
DOMINION RESOURCES, INC. and CONSOLIDATED NATURAL GAS
COMPANY
(10) The Petitioners shall forthwith serve a copy of
this Order on the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of
5
any county and upon the Mayor or Manager of any county,
city, or town or equivalent officials in counties, towns
and cities having alternate forms of government in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Service shall be made by first-
class mail or delivery to the customary place of business
or residence of the person served.
(11) On or before June 30, 1999, the Petitioners
shall provide the Commission with proof of notice required
in Ordering Paragraphs (9) and (10).
AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk 'of
the Commission to: 'Edward L. Flippen, Esquire, Stephen H.
Watts, II, Esquire, and Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, Esquire,
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe LLP, One James Center, 901
E. Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; William P.
Boswell, Deputy General Counsel, Consolidated Natural Gas
Company, CNG Tower, 2ist Floor, 625 Liberty Avenue,
Pittsburgh, PennsYlvania 15222-3197; Donald A. Fickenscher,
Vice President , General Counsel and Corporate Secretary,
Virginia Natural Gas, Inc., 510~0 East Virginia Beach
Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23502; James F. Stutts, Vice
President and General Counsel Dominion Resources, Inc.,
P.O. Box 26532, Richmond, Virginia 23261; and James C.
Roberts, May & Valentine, L.L.P., P.O. Box 1122, Richmond,
Virginia 23218-1122; and the Commission's Divisions of
Public Utility Accounting, Ener95; Regulation and Economics
and Finance.
FAX (8041 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclnfire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832
q-rD (804) 972-4012
June 8,1999
Marilyn Gale
Roudabush, Gale & Assoc.,Inc.
914 Monticello Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE:
Official Determination Of Parcels Of Record / Development Rights - Section 10.3.1
Tax Map 86, Parcel 13, 13A, 16C1, 22A, 25 and 26 (Property of Hightop, L P)
Tax Map 86, Parcel 16A (Property of Elizabeth P. Scott)
Tax Map 86, Parcel 22, 23, 23A (Property of Frederic W. Scott, Jr.)
Tax Map 87, Parcel 2 (Property of Frederic W. Scott, Jr.)
Tax Map 87, Parcel 3 (Property of Carpenter Place, L P)
Dear Ms. Gale:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information you have submitted for the
above-noted properties. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official
determination, that these properties consist of the following separate parcels:
TMP 86-13
TMP 86-13A
TMP 86-16A
TMP 86-16C1
TMP 86-22
TMP 86-22A
Originally and now 140.4 acres (5 development rights)
Originally and now 205.314 acres (5 development rights)
Originally and now 1.59 acres (1 development right)
Created in 1987 and now 42.005 acres (3 development rights)
Originally 503.9 acres but by state route division and this
determination
North of Rt. 696 + 498.9acres* (5 development rights)
South of Rt. 696 _+ 5 acres* (2 development rights)
Never subdivided, Deeded as Life Estate only
(Remains part of parcel 22, north of Rt. 696)
* This acreage is estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed acreage.
The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of 1 development right per 2 acres, with five
being the maximum number of development rights allowed.
Parcel Determination for TMP86-13 Etc.
Page 2
June & 1999
TMP 86-23
TMP 86-23A
TMP 86-25
TMP 86-26
TMP 87-2
TMP 87-3
Originally 597.7 acres but by state route division and this
determination:
North of Rt. 696 _+ 300acres*
South of Rt. 696 _+ 297.7 acres*
Originally and now 2.6 acres
Originally and now 125.01 acres
Originally and now 26.53 acres
(5 development rights)
(5 development rights)
(1 development right)
(5 development rights)
(5 development rights)
Originally 185.9 acres, currently by County records 180 acres,
but by state route division and this determination:
North of Rt. 696 <2acres* (1 development right)
South of Rt. 696 __. 178 acres* (5 development rights)
Originally By County records, 469.797 acres but
By this determination 350.897 acres (5 development rights)
and,
Former P24 Originally and by this determination 14.6 acres
(5 development rights)
Former P24B Originally and by this determination 104.3 acres
(5 development rights)
Each of these lawfully separate parcels is entitled to the noted associated development
rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are only
hypothetical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots of less than 21 acres
allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, a "parent parcel"
may create as many parcels with a minimum of 21 acres as it has land to make. This
determination results in five more parcels than are shown with parcel numbers on the
County tax maps and six more development rights than noted in your request.
This determination considered the findings of Anne H. Sanford v. Albemarle County Board
of Zoning_ Appeals in recognizing separate parcels created by Virginia Department of
Transportation's maintenance of roads with either prescriptive easements or fee simple
ownership. Parcels 22 and 23 on tax map 86 and parcel 2 on tax map 87 all qualified for
additional development rights under this consideration. Parcel 22A was described in
DB453/035 (December 1968) and conveyed as "an estate for life", not as a division of land.
To have legally created this 4 acres as a parcel in 1968 would have required approval of
a subdivision under the County's subdivision ordinance. Therefore, it is not a "parcel of
record" and has no development rights under the zoning ordinance other than those
recognized for the parent parcel, 22. The County's real estate office assigned the parcel
number only so that the grantees could receive separate tax bills for their life estate.
* This acreage is estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed
acreage. The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of I development right per 2 acres,
with five being the maximum number of development rights allowed.
Parcel Determination for TMP86-13 Etc.
Page 3 June & 1999
For tax map 87 parcel 3, the descriptive clauses of the deed, which delineated the property
as consisting of "four (4) adjoining tracts" and further enumerated the tracts as numbers
1 through 4, giving deed books and page numbers with the acreage for each separate
tract, were the determining factors. This original deed is from Deed Book 421, page 55
and is dated August 1966 between National Bank and Trust Company, Executor under the
will of James S. Carpenter, and M. Y. Sutherland, Jr. This consideration is based on the
findings of the VA Supreme Court in the case, Fa/son v. Un/on Camp 224 VA 54. Three
of these tracts were carried by the County real estate records as separate parcels until
1985. The fourth was divided off parcel 3 in 1979 and is not part of this determination.
The most recent deed for tax map 86 parcel 16C1 at the date of adoption of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance is found in Deed Book 560, Page 411 when parcel 16C was
61.41 acres. The deed is dated July 3, 1974 from Constance A. Elliott and Richard D.
Anderson, Jr. as administrators of the Estate of Constance B. Anderson, to Richard D.
Anderson, Jr. Parcel 16C was then subdivided by surveyed plat in 1987 into two parcels,
t6C of 23.628 acres and 16C1 of 42.005 acres, and recorded in DB 975/603.
The remaining parcels in this determination are all straightforward chain of titles which
were legally created prior to 1980 and have not been divided since. The following list
notes the deed or plat of record used for each individual finding:
Tax map 86 parcel 13 DB557/471
Tax map 86 parcel 13A DB557/471
Tax map 86 parcel 16A DB557/471
Tax map 86 parcel 23A DB453/035
Tax map 86 parcel 25 DB553/024
Tax map 86 parcel 26 DB553/024
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty
(30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section
15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination
shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning
Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the
grounds for the appeal. In order for an appeal to be considered complete, it shall
include a completed application and $95 fee. The date notice of this determination was
given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me at your convenience.
Janice D. Sprinkle
Deputy Zoning Administrator
Parcel Determination for TMP86-13 Etc.
Page 4
June & 1999
CC:
Hightop, L P, 1801 Bundoran Dr., North Garden 22959
Elizabeth P. Scott, 1701 Bundomn Dr., North Garden 22959
Frederic W. Scott, Jr., Bundoran Farm, North Garden 22959
Carpenter Place, L P, 1701 Bundoran Dr., North Garden 22959
Dan Mahon, Planning Department
,/~laY Carver, Real Estate Department
la Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
NOTE: Five (5) additional parcels; Eleven (11) by Tax Map, sixteen (16) by determination
c C:~JAN'SLIANLTR~pardetSCOTT. doc
May 27, 1999
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-$823
John T. Casteen, IV
5680 Buffalo River Rd
Earlysville, VA 22936
RE: SP-99-21 John Casteen, Tax Map 19, Parcel 7E
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, ,at its meeting on May 18, 1999, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
No more than one employee shall be permited.
No on site sales.
All equipment shall be enclosed within the proposed building.
The area devoted to the home occupation shall not exceed 1,500 square feet.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 16, 1999. Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Senior Planner
WDF/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
William D. Frim, AICP
MAY 18,1999
JUNE16,1999
SP 99-21 John Casteen
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct an accessory structure .on approximately
2 acres, The accessory structure would be used for a home occupation class B. The proposed home
occupation is furniture making. The applicant has submitted a. description of. the request which is
included as Attachment C.
Petition:
Request for special use permit to allow a home occupation for a furniture making in accordance with
Section [ 10.2.2.31] of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for home occupations. The property, described
as Tax Map 19 Parcel 7E, contains 2 acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on the
west side Buffalo River Road [Route # 604] approximately 0.6 miles north of the intersection of Buffalo
River Road and Frays Mtn. Road [Route # 664]. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural.
Character of the Area:
The property under review is developed with.a single family home and small outbuildings. The area
surrounding the property consists of residential development and a mixture of wooded and open land.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance
and recommends approval.
Planning and Zoning History.:
No history is available on this property.
Comprehensive Plan: This area is shown as. Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan offers no specific comment regarding home occupations in the Rural Areas.
STAFF COMMENT:
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
adjacent property,
This proposal will not result in an increase in traffic volumes as no customer traffic to the site is
anticipated and no employees are proposed. The proposed activity involves the construction of a
structure to be used for the home occupation. The structure will be similar in size and design to a garage
customarily found on residential property. All activity will take place within the proposed structure.
The nearest dwelling is located approximately 200 feet to the north. The type of equipment used is
similar to that which may be found in a residential setting with a well supplied workshop. The nature of
the materials used, as described in the applicants letter (Attachment C) is such that staff does not
anticipate health or safety concerns. Staff opinion is that the proposed home occupation will have
minimal impact on the adjacent properties and should not result in a substantial detriment to adjacent
property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The site is in an area of rural residential development. The construction of a structure which has the
appearance ofa garage will not result in a change in the character of the dis/rict. The operation of the
home occupation will not involve on-site sales or employees. Staff opinion is that this home occupation
will not result in any increased levels of activity on site which would be inconsistent with the character
of the area.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as contained in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.
Staff is opinion is that this use will not conflict with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This use will not prevent by right use of adjacent' property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Home occupation permits are governed by Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed request
complies with the provisions of this section of the ordinance.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Staff is unable to identify any adverse impact this use would have on the public health and safety or
general welfare.
SUMMARY:
Staff has found the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. The proposed structure would appear similar to a garage normally found on a residential
prgperty.
2. Staff has found this proposal .consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1.
Staff has not found any factors which are unfavorable to this request. Therefore, staff is able to support
this request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of this request and recommends the following conditions.
2.
3.
4.
No employees.
No on site sales.
All equipment shall be enclosed within the proposed building.
The area devoted to the home occupation shall not exceed 1,500 square feet.
Any building constructed to house the home occupation shall comply with the following
setbacks:
Front (existing .public
roads)
Front (internal public or
private road)
Side
Rear
75 feet
25 feet
25 feet
35 feet
Use shall comply with the following provisions of section 4.14 of the Albemarle'County Zoning
Ordinance.
4.14.1 NOISE
All sources of noise (except those not under direct control of occupant of use, 'such as vehicles),
must not create sound or impact noise levels in excess of the values specified below when measured
at the points indicated. In addition, before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m., the permissible sound
levels at an agricultural or residential district boundary where adjoining industrial districts shall be
reduced by five (5) decibels in each octave band and in the overall band for impact noises.
4.14.1.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Noise shall be measured by means of a sound level meter and octave band analyzer, calibrated in
decibels (re 0.0002 microbar) and shall be measured at the nearest lot line from which the noise level
radiates.
4.14.1.2 .MEANING OF TERMS
Decibel means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound according to its
pitch:
Impact noises shall be measured by means of an impact noise analyzer. Impact noises are those
whose peak values fluctuate more than six (6) decibels from the steady values indicated on the sound
level meter set at fast response.
Octave band means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound according to
its pitch.
Preferred frequency octave bands means 'a standardized series of octave bands prescribed by the
American Standards Association in SI.6-1960 Preferred Frequencies for AcOustical Measurements.
Sound level meter means an electronic instrument which includes a microphone, an amplifier and
an output meter which measures a noise and sound pressure levels in a specified manner. It may be
3
used with the octave band analyzer that permits measuring the sound pressure level in discrete
octave bands.
Maximum Permitted Sound Levels (decibels)
Preferred Frequency Octave Bands
Location of Measurement
Octave band, . At residential At other lot lines
cycles/second district boundaries within district
31.5 64 72
63 64. 72
125 60 70
250 54 65
500 48 59
1000 42 55
2000 38 51
4000 34 47
8000 30 44
Overall for
impact noise 80 90
4.14.2 VIBRATION
The produce of displacement in inches times the frequency in cycles per second of earthborne
vibrations from any activity shall not exceed the values specified below when measured at the points
indicated.
4.14.2.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Earthborne vibrations shall be measured by means of a three component recording system, capable
of measuring vibration in three mutually perpendicular directions. The displacement shall be the
maximum instantaneous vector sum of.the amplitude in the three directions.
4.14.2.2 MEANING OF TERMS
Vibrations means the periodic displacement of oscillation of the earth.
Area of Measurement
Type of vibration
At residential At other lot lines
district boundaries within district
Continuous .00 .015
Impulsive (100 per
minute or less) .006 .030
Less than 8 pulses
per 24 hours .015 .075
4.14.3 GLARE
No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from flood lights or from high temperature processes such
as combustion, welding or otherwise, so as to be visible beyond the lot line, shall be permitted
except for signs, parking lot lighting and other lighting permitted by this ordinance or required by
any other applicable regulation, ordinance or law. However, in the case of any operation which
would affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall apply.
4.14.4 AIR POLLUTION
Rul6s of the State Air Pollution Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County. Such rules and
regulations include coverage of: emission of smoke and other emissions from stationary sources;
particulate .matter; odor; particulate emission from indirect heating furnaces; open burning;
incinerators; and gaseous pollutants.
4.14.5 WATER POLLUTION
Rules of the State Water Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County.
4.14.6 RADIOACTMTY
There shall be no radioactivity emission which would be dangerous to the health and safety of
.persons on or beyond the premises where such radioactive material is used. Determination of
existence of such danger and the handling of radioactive materials, the discharge of such materials
into the atmosphere and streams and other water, and the disposal of radioactive wastes shall be by
reference to and in accordance with applicable current regulations of the Department of Energy, and
in the case of items which would affect aircrait navigation or the control thereof, by applicable
current regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration, and any applicable laws enacted by the
General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the requirements of the Virginia Air
Pollution Act, whichever is greater.
4.14.7 ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE
There shall be no electrical disturbance emanating from any lot which would adversely affect the
operation of any equipment on any other lot or premises and in the case of any operation which
would affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall apply. ' '
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicant's information
D - Letter from the public
A:\SP9921 JOHN CASTEEN REPORT.DOC
5
6
MTN.
Farmington
Country Club
~Hyciraulic ~
I
Proffer
Mills
MontiCello .'
I
I
TO RUCKERSVILLE
Stony ~'~
EAR
Clsmont
TO PALMYRA
ATTACHMENT B
18
-ALBEMARLE
664
'e-I~AGfilCULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT
COUNTY
47A
x, //
"x, ~ ./
o x /
/ ~z
'SP-99-21 John Casteen /
-WHITE HALL AND
RIVANNA DISTRICTS SECT ION
19
ATTACHMENT C
Fern Hill Furniture Works
Special Use Permit Application Description
March 20, 1999
John Casteen
Overview
In support of my application for a special use permit to allow commercial .activity
in a residential area, this document will illustrate the character of my business, assess the
impact of its conduct on my neighborhood, and describe the building in which I propose
to work.
The Business
Fern Hill Furniture Works is a one-person sole proprietorship founded in January
1998. I started the business as a part-time enterprise to serve two purposes: first, to
provide a creative outlet for me to develop and sell my own furniture pieces, and second,
to augment the income I earn as a full-time professional furniture maker. I knew that I
would eventually either be independent or leave the trade, so I began testing the waters
and building my business and design skills through Fern Hill.
I build one-of-a-kind, traditionally constructed, bench-made pieces of furniture on
a commission basis. I also make kitchen implements, tools, jewelry boxes, and
lathe-turned wooden bowls. I do my work on a part-time basis and as such my output is
not enormous; my work process is design- and hand-work intensive, and my profit
depends on integrity of workmanship and the appeal of the material itself rather than on
high-volume sales and mass production.
II. Impact Statement
Some of my reasons for wanting to operate my own woodworking shop at my
home have to do with my desires to live and work in a clean, safe, and em, ironmentally
aware surrounding which plays a meaningful role in the economic and cultural life of my
community. My long-term intentions for Fern Hill, therefore, revolve around
sustainability and responsible citizenship; every aspect of the business, from the floor
plan to the business plan, takes these issues into consideration.
I build primarily solid wood residential furniture..I purchase most of my stock
from small, local lumberyards, and am dedicated to environmentally conscious use of
forest resources. I generally hand-pick my own lumber for color, grain, quality, and
figure, so I deal in small quantities selected specifically for a given project. I do not have
the capacity or intention to produce regularly kitchen or bathroom cabinets, architectural
woodwork, or other large-scale manufactured goods. Some of my customers are local,
but many live in other areas; I make most deliveries myself, but would send some pieces
· ' ATTACHMENT C
PAGE 2
long distance via UPS or common carrier, in which case I would pack the piece being
shipped and deliver it to the shipper.
The above facts reduce the scale of the commercial enterprise. I can all but
eliminate truck deliveries of lumber and sheet goods, since my scale is small enough to
avoid their necessity. Similarly, large tracks are not needed to pick up or deliver finished
goods. As I do not stockpile lumber, I can lower the square footage needed to produce
my furniture. And since my materials are mainly the same hardwoods growing here on
my property (.without the adhesives and man-made byproducts associated with the
processing of large quantities of plywood, particle board, and plastic laminates) I can
safely compost the sawdust and shavings I'll produce, thereby recycling waste.
The waste stream of a woodshop need not be large, and I intend to keep mine
reasonable and safe. Aside from the wood waste mentioned above, the other by-products
of my work are machinery noise md finishing waste. As I will later describe, I plan to
insulate my building for noise. My finishing process involves the use of a traditional
oil-and-wax finish, for which there are generally accepted practices of safety which avoid
pollution. I do not use the more volatile and toxic finishes (lacquer, etc.) and I do not
often use paint, so I make a practice of avoiding solvents and thinners as much as
possible. IfI thought a piece needed, or if a customer required, a finish that I was
uncomfortable working with, it would be in my best interest both financially and
environmentally to send the piece to a properly-equipped professional finisher.
III. The Building
The shop I propose to build for Fern Hill is meant to resemble a feature of the
residential landscape, not an industrial park. Its.design is that of a two-car garage with an
atti6, with the two floors totaling approximately 1500 square feet and connected by a
fold-down stair similar to those commonly used for access to attic spaces. My estimate
of square footage includes an enclosed and partitioned porch or lean-to on the rear of the
building, which will safely and quietly house my dust collector and air compressor.
My home is a traditional farmhouse --~';' ~*""~; ......... ,~ ,,,,~c
,,,La~ a ~L,,,,,..~-o,~,,~, ~,~,,, ~,,,,~, a rock and
cement foundation, and cedar siding. The shop building will share these architectural
features; I will use split-faced block for the foundation ~vith a regular garage-type cement
slab floor, then erect a conventional frame and platform structure over it. The building
will have two overhead doors facing the street and one entry door on an adjacent side.
On the ground floor will be my bench and the basic woodshop machines: table saw,
lathe, band saw, jointer, planer, and shaper. The floor plan also includes storage for hand
tools, small electric tools, and the aforementioned small supplies of lumbcr.
Approximately half of the upper story would house my drafting table and business office,
with the other half reserved for household storage.
The proposed building is similar in size and purpose to others in the area, and will
rcvgrt ~tsily t9 rosiglen~ii~l use shpulfl ~y w~fe' *lq~ I ~ver sell o~ home. I; will be
2
ATTACHMENT-C
situated exactly as a garage would be, making use of the private drive already in
existence. It would not be out of place either on my lot or in my neighborhood.
Since my business plan calls for limiting overhead through cost-cutting at every
level of making and selling my furniture, I have made a practice of finding retail outlets
for the smaller things I make. I d° not intend to have a showroom, a sign, or retail traffic
at my shop; I consult with my clients in their homes to settle on designs, since all of my
work is custom and.must relate to other parts of their interiors. While it is not
· inconceivable that a client might visit my home to check on the progress of a.particUlar
piece, such visits would be the exception rather than the rule: Every phase of the sales
process-- design work, selection of wood, hardware, and finish, and payment--is best and
most efficiently done either in my clients' homes or via telephone, fax, and e-mail..
The business I would like to conduct here at my home depends on quality, not
quantity, for its success; my idea is to have an economy of scale in cottage industry that
will provide me an income while avoiding the problems associated with large-scale
manufacturing. The combination of my business plan, work habits, and the building I
propose to build will give me a chance to do the work I enjoy in the setting where that
work is best done, and will do so without altering the rural/residential character of this
area.
I welcome the reader to contact me with any questions, concerns, or suggestions.
John Casteen
Fern Hill Furniture Works
5680 Buffalo River Road
Earlysville, Va. 22936
(804)964-9227
PAGE 3
3
J. ACCORDING TO THE FL~OOD INSURANCE RATE MAI~.4~.'D'~ED I~rl6-80
· '.ICOM .IV~NITY PANEL 5100(~5 0125,B), THIS~ROIDE~ DO~.S NOT LIE ~,* '"-
~ ZO~.'A (IO0'YEAR FLO:OD 'PLA~)'BUT~ LOCATED IN '~NE ~.>
%.- ~ ~, ~ -. . * ...... ' - ~.~ .-'., ' '- '~r' ~, .~ . ~ ,.'
A,~ESMT; ~0 V~G~JA ~,~LEPHON~ TEC~'A~';g~M~ANY,~-%.'. .
B? ESMT~'T'O VIRGINIA E~RICU& P~WER' CO.~P~Y ' ":~." ' .
~. .. -.....;. : .,3· ,'; ~.,~- ., ~ .~,~..~..'
T~IS.PROPERTY SUBJE~t"'.TO ESMT. T~%V~GINIA ~'ECTRIC & POWER
'273-594t. '' ':"
C~MPANY INSOFAR AS tT MAY APPLY :-'~. '--.:>' .-.
4. NO'"TITLE REPORT FURNISHED: ~THIS PR~ERTY',SUB~CT TO.ANY
ADDI~ONAL' ~ONDITIONS, UTILmES, EASEMEN~ ANDZOR. COVENANT~.
d, 'J' ~"~ "
THAT MAY EXIST,
RON "-'~ '
Fg. UNO
,~ON ~ b
o
S65'-18'00"E
FOUND ....
l
' 'Y~M. :q 9--71D,'' '"-' ' -
2.001 ACRES
O.D,' 1082.,;396
IRON
'~-FO~
,POLE ~':"
,FRAME
BLDG.
ATTACHMENT C
PAGE 4
S37O57'32"W
~?'.
T.M. 19-3 ,'
HOWARD A. & KAREN D, PAPE' l
D.B .920-73~, ?3? PLAT
~ ..,,;~. ,< ,~-~,;~: .
N587'30.2 i,,W
FOUND
65.46'
~.~..~A:- ~ ' . :;' .. ?' '. .--.'Z~,,,,~,,. ,
rUR£ O~-K-'i
ss.e~ ~ON--~- F--.~*5':8'oo"w
. ' ~ [ I FOUND..'["ADDIT,ONAL./6 '__ -~¢ lW l . (Dj9.' 583~ .ATI-". .~ -I . GRAVEL ROAD.,/
'.'-. ~. ~'
· . ;~. 9' -. -
:' ' : ' .~ l( I ~ ~~19.-7C~" . ,~, ! ';i-:-. " .T¢M. 19-~
~ONA'~N'T. KATZ ':'- ? ~' / '.,:_"~JAME~;;~i:~...,~I' Il'' ' & LIND~A,''.
~ON .'
.:-? ,, :
FOUleD
.;,, / ~..,__ ~ :- ~/ +, ~ ,:~.., -v'::,.. -. · .... "
:~,. ~;. _ [ MARSHALL' & REBA DAVIS.""
' ' " .~, -' , A '' , ' ' ' ~ ' ~ "-~t ', ~ ,- .'~'.m{ ."t.,. ,¢¢, '.'
~., , ' ' ' , '.~,, ~ ' ' ,.'~: '. . . '~' ~ . ~ ~" '-'-. ~ - .' ;~. '7 '~:~P~' ' ~' --~' ~,~-~.-
ATTACHMENT D
May 4, 1999
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing on behalf of my wife and myself to lend our unqualified support to John Casteen in
his quest for a special use permit for his furniture shop (SP 99-21 John Casteen). We are adjacent
property owners, and actually owned and lived in the Casteen's house from 1978 until 1990. The
property is flat, the entrance is safe, and I believe that the building that John described to me will
fit beautifully on his land. The type of business that he is attempting to start will not ~ncrease
traffic of Route 604, require many deliveries, or encourage much walk:in business. I do not
foresee this project placing any burden on the neighborhood.
There is a long and cherished tradition in this country for home occupations, and I cannot see how
a furniture shop could be anything other than an asset to any rural community. It will also
provide some measure of assurance knowing that one more neighbor will be home during the day,
as there have been many crimes in the Earlysville area in recent years. Maybe John's presence
will discourage some of the opportunistic burglaries that are becoming all too common ~n the
COunty.
I am not certain that I need to say much more than I have, as this seems a "no-brainer" to me.
John and his wife are very nice people, and while new to Earlysville, obviously already love our
community. I believe that it ~s incumbent upon all of us to encourage this type of endeavor in the
county, and I am sure that John's shop can be a shining example of how good this type of
business can be for our rural areas.
I hope that you ;viP. ~ant John Casteen his special use pe,nrni, t, so that he cmn get en w/th this
exciting project.
Yours truly,
Howard A. Pape
335Eliza Lane
Earlysville, VA 22936
973-6390 Home
973-9730 Business
-RECEIVED
FlAY A 1(3 g
Pt. ANNJNG .~D
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
May 27, 1999
D~pt.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
George Cumming
9211 Arboretum Parkway
Richmond, VA 23220
SP-99-23 Triton (Ramada Inn)
Tax Map 78, Parcel 45A
Dear Mr. Cumming:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 18, 1999, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
The height of the tower shall not exceed 7 feet above the elevation of the top of the trees within 25
feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree.
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be painted to look like wood;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. The tower shall have no lighting; and,
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
a. The tower shall be located approximately as shown on the attached plan prepared by staff'
and initialed "WDF 5/9/99"
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be enclosed with the tower or attached to the tower such that no portion of the
antenna is more than 1.5 feet fi.om the tower.
b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
Page 2
May 27, 1999
5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless
telecommunications providers, as follows:
a. The pennittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on
the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions:
(l) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the. waiver of the site plan
requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a
good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such
other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site; and,
(2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it
has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good
faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to
allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal
rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle
County.
[The use of this facility by additional telecommanication providers will require amendment of this special use
permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or this
property.]
Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a
horizontal plane nmning though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For
purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps
together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to
connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance
Only;
7. No trees of more than 3 inches in diameter may be removed.
o
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area
shall not be required;
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use
for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
10.
The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1
of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a
wireless telecommunications service provider;
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 16, 1999. 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 datel
Page 3
May 27, 1999
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Senior Planner
WOF/jcf
Cc: llv~a Carey
Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley
Steve Allshouse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
William D. Ffi , AICP
May18,1999
June 16,.1999
SP 99-23 Triton (Ramada Inn)
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is p~oposing to construct a treetop tower to support PCS antenna2
and design 0fthe proposed facility is shown on Attachment C.
The specific location
Petition:
Request for special use permit for 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. The property,
described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 45A, contains approximately 0.69 acres, and is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District at the intersection 6fRoute 250 East (Richmond Road) and 1-64. The property is
zoned RA, Rural Areas 'and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan designates
this property as Rural Area 4.
Character of the Area:
This site is located behind the Ramada Inn Hotel which is located at the intersection of 1-64 and Route
250. The location of the proposed site is in a grbve of trees. A sewage treatment plant which supports
the hotel is located on adjacent property. One dwelling is located approximately 200 feet to the south
RECOMMENDATION:
With revisions to the proposed location of the facility staff is able to recommend approval of SP 99-23.
Plannin~ and Zoning History:
None a3ailable.
Comprehensive Plan:
Staff notes that in order to construct the proposed facility no clearing for access and the provision of
electrical service will be required. Therefore, only the tower portion of this proposal has been reviewed
for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The only resources identified in the
Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan for this area is the Entrance Corridor (I-64)..Currently the
Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. No
provision of the Comprehensive Plan prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting Personal Wireless
Services.
The property has limited potential for Rural Use due to the parcel's location adjacent to 1-64 and the
sewage treatment facility. The small size of the parcel 0.69 acres makes agricultural use of the property
unlikely.
The location and design of the facility is such that the view from 1-64 will be limited. Staff is
recommending a modified location for the proposed facility. The location recommended by staff will
limit the visibility of the facility from both 1-64 and adjacent residential development.
The impact of this tower on resources identified in the Open Space Plan is, in the opinion of staff, not
significant due to the limited visibility of the tower.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address the issues of this request in four sections:
2.
3.
4.
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Reduction of setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
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
adjacent property,
The site recommended by staff is located in a grove of trees adjacent to Route 708. [The site originally
selected by the applicant was adjacent to the treeline. However, the site itself was in an open area.] Staff
has prepared a sketch which shows the tree height at various locations. The sketch was prepared in the
field and is based on staff observation only. [The applicant has agreed to moving the site and is
preparing a new survey.] This application is different than other "treetop" facilities reviewed by the
County. This application proposes to use a metal pole which will be painted brown instead of using an
actual wooden pole. The proposal for this site is to either have the pole extend 7 feet above the treeline.
with the antenna enclosed within the tower or with panel antenna mounted to the side of the pole. The
top of the facility will blend into the existing tree canopy in the area. The location of the facility
proposed by staff is such that it will have limited visual impacts to either 1-64 or the adjacent residential
property. Additional information may be provided by the public d~aring the public hearings on the issue
of potential impacts. Staff opinion is that with conditions approval of this request will not result in a
substantial detrlment to adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The County has over the years by its actions to approve and deny applications for wireless facilities
attempted to site these facilities in areas where they have limited impacts on the character of the
surrounding area. This facility is located in a wooded area which has been the favored approach of the
County. The existence of the trees will serve to hide the facility.
Staff opinion is that due to the limited visibility of the site the character of the district will not be
changed.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,-
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6
with particular reference to Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5 All of these provisions address, in one form or
another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service
as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff
opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance.
Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive
and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and
convenience for users of wireless phone technology.
With the uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposed tower will not restrict the current use, other by-right uses available on this site, or by-right
uses on any. 6ther property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate conditions
are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health,
safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies
and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues
of environmental effects with the following language: "No state or local government or instrumentality
thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities
on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities
comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility
the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement
will adequately protect the public health and safety.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by an,/
state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services,
Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor'the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision'of pei'sonal wireless
service. Staff does not believe that the special use permit process or the denial of this application has the
effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that
there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower
construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect
of prohibiting the provision of services.
Staff and the applicant have been unable to identify any existing locations for collocation, which would
eliminate the need for construction of a tower. Alternate sites for the construction of a new tower have
not been discussed.
Reduction of setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
As originally submitted this application included a request for reduction in setback from the public road.
Such a reduction requires a waiver which may be granted by the Planning Commission and a variance
which may only be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Typically, variances are considered prior to
Planning Commission review of the proposal. The applicant has made application to the Board of
Zoning Appeals. Staff has recommended a revised location for the facility which may alleviate the need
for a variance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hear the special use permit request prior
to the variance hearing. This will allow the Planning Commission to determine what, if any, location on
this property may be appropriate. The applicant will then be able to survey the site and the proPosed
facility and determine the exact location of the facility. This information will be necessary in order for a
variance request to be considered.
Section 4.10.3.1 states:
"The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos~ farm buildings,' agricultural
museums designed to appear as traditional farm. buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag
poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television
antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission ina specific
case; no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot-line than the height of the
structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in
height in a residential district. This.height limitation shall not apply to any of the above
designated structures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements".
Staff opinion is that this setback provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to
prevent safety hazards from the falling of material, such as ice, or the collapse of the tower itself. The
location proposed by staff is near the western property line which is owned by VDOT but is not used for
1-64. The area appears to have b~en acquired during the construction ofi-64 and due to the small size of
the parcel and presence of slopes made during the construction of 1-64 was retained. The adjacent parcel
has limited, if any, use, and the presence of the facility adjacent to the property line represents no safety
hazard or crowding of the land.
Staff has historically supported requests for modification to allow towers to be located closer to the
property line than the height of the tower when no option to relocate exists. In previous applications
denial of the modification request would require relocation of the tower to areas of critical slopes or to
areas which would require a substantially taller tower. In this case denial of the modification would
likely result in the site being moved out of the trees, making the site potentially visible from 1-64 and
making it visible to adjacent residential property
If the commission is able to support this request on the basis of its evaluation for compliance with the
provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 'approval of this modification is appropriate. Staff opinion is that approval
of the modification does not result in undue crowding of the land and does not represent a safety hazard.
Therefore, staff is able to support this request for modification of setback.
Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the
purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Generally the site review committee has
endorsed the use of site plan waivers for the establishment of telecommunication facilities. This general
endorsement is based on the relatively small area impacted by the proposed use and the ability to obtain
the required information through an erosion and sediment control plan and the building .permits. In this
case the construction of the facility will require activity only for the extension of utilities which are
currently on site and the placement of the tower and ground equipment. Based on the minimal activity
necessary for installation staff is unable to identify any purpose, which would be served by requiring the
submission ora site plan. Staff recommends approval ora full s. ite plan waiver subject to the following
conditions:
Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit;
Provision of one parking space.
SUMMARY:
This. summary is based on the siting of the facility in the location recommended'by staff.
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:'
The tower will provide increased wireless capacity, which may be considered consistent with the
provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5.
The tOwer will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties.
The design and siting of the tower as recommended by staff is such that it will have limited
impact on adjacent property or 1-64. ·
Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1. This site may have some visibility form 1-64 and adjacent residential development.
.The conclusion of staff is that the alternative site identified by staff is a superior siting option. The
impacts of this site on adjacent areas will be extremely limited. Therefore, staff recommends approval
of this request at the alternative location.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Stfiff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
(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 request 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 the Board's consideration and action.)
Recommended Conditions of Approval.
The height of the tower shall not exceed 7 feet above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet
of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree.
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be painted to look like wood;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. The tower shall have no lighting; and,
°
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
a. The tower shall be located approximately as shown on the attached plan prepared by
staff and initialed "WDF 5/9/99"
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna shall be enclosed with the tower or attached to the tower such that no portion of
the antenna is more than 1.5 feet from the tower.
b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
The tower shall be used, or have the potemial to be used, for the collocation of other wireless
telecommunications providers,.as follows:
a. . The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate
antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions:
(1) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan
requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make
a good faith effort to allow such location and Will negotiate in good faith with
such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site; and,
(2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request; verifiable evidence that
it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence ora
good faith effort includes, but is not limited to; evidence that the permittee has
offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for
reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider
within Albemarle County.
[The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this
special use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this
facility or this property.]
o
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 purpgses of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or
lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps,
and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of
maintenance only;
No trees of more than 3 inches in diameter may be removed.
The permittee sh~ll comply with section 5~1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
area shall not be required;
Fencing of the lease
The tower~ shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
10.
The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning .administrator Once per year, by not later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user
that is a wireless telecommunications service provider;
Should the Planning Commission support a waiver of the requirements ora site plan the Planning
Commission only must take the following action in order to authorize a site plan waiver.
A waiver of the drawing of a site plan has been granted in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2.
subject to the following conditions:
Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Provision of one parking space.
Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board.
Should the Planning Commission support a redUction in setback, the Planning Commission only must
take the following, action in order to permit the tower as. requested by the applicant:
A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow the location of the tower as shown on a plan
prepared by staff and initialed "WDF 5/9/99"
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicant's information
D - Plan prepared by Staff
A:\SP9923 RAMADA REPORT.DOC
ATTACI-iMENT'A
MTN.
I
I
I
,I
I
I
~ .J II
Farmington
Country Club
~Hydraulic
HARLOTTES-:
Albemarle
Mills
I
I
I
I
I'
SP-99-23
TO RUCKERSVILLE
11
1~68
Caners Mtn.
TO PALMYRA
· -'-:,V'~,:iALBEMARLE COUNTY
ATTACHMENT B
leo ·
m m m
MONTICELLO
RIVANN A' ' DISTRICTS
SECTION 78
ATTACHMENT C
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?
Rural - Zoned RA
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?
Because the top of the pole and antennas will be approximately the height of the top of the ~ree line, the
proposed use will have no adverse effect on the adjacent property. The proposed pole will not be readily
visible to the property owners adjacent to the Southern Sun parcels. The visibility of this site from
Interstate 64 from a moving car will also be limited - especially when the trees are in full foliage.
Neighboring parcel are improved with a hotel, signage, and a sewage treatment facility. The property
owners also own a rental house neighboring the site.
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property?
Because the district surrounding the property lies along an interstate and is surrounded by a variety of
mixed uses and signage, the character of the district surrounding the property will not be affected.
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance?
Although the property is zoned R-A, the Board of Supervisors l~as previously approved a similar facility on
a neighboring parcel. Therefore, Triton believes that this use is appropriate and is in general accord with
the direction that the planning staff has recommended and the direction that Albemarle County's
telecommunications consultant has recommended to the industry and presumably will recommend to be
adopted into the zoning ordinance.
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The use.is not in conflict of other uses permitted by right in the district. The small equipment cabinet w~ll
be unmanned. No vehicle traffic or noise will be generated by this use.
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?
Section 5.1.12 outlines public utility structures and uses.
As required by subsection (c), the applicant will remove or repair our addition to the tower if it falls into a
state of disrepair or threatens the safety of the general public.
How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?
With respect to the ability of the applicant to provide service to the community, this use will allow the
applicant to improve the quality, capacity and coverage of wireless phone services in the County. This will
improve the ability of citizens of the County to conduct business more readily and have use of the
applicant's services for recreational purposes. In addition, the applicant's services can be used in
emergency situations and can be utilized when traditional phone lines are out of service.
- ATTACHMENT C
PAGE 2
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours and any unique features of the use:
In the original description of the proposed Triton network that was discussed with the planning staff and
the Board of Supervisors, Triton described the need to place a facility along interstate 64, west of the Route
250 interchange. There are no existing towers or structures within the immediate vicinity offering enough
height to cover the same area. The Radio Tower located on Shadwell Mountain, north of 1-64 has no
additional capacity. Therefore~ Triton is proposing a shorter "tree top" pole. The need to place our
proposed facility in this area is imperative for the operation ofour network. Without a site in this area,
Triton would be unable to have connectivity between our sites. This most likely would result in dropped
calls and poor if not any coverage along 1-64 and Route 250.
The applicant proposes to place a facility on the property owned by Southern Sun, Inc. The pole will be
similar to the CFW site located in the Bell Air subdivision. The applicant proposes to place a pole on the
northern edge bordering 1-64. The pole would be approximately the same height of the tall trees on the
parcel. The applicant's equipment cabinet will be placed on a concrete pad at the base of the tower. The
dimensions of the equipment cabinet are 6'.;9" ft tall, 5' long and 3'-6,~wide. The applicant'will provide
landscaping as recommended by the County's Architectural Review Board.
* ~S~ WIRELESS OptiRange"
RS90-17-XXXP
I'RAh~MII'--t
C~NNEGTO~ 1
f
8~ ;
· -"~...ONNECTOR$
Electrical
Azimuth Beamwidth
Elevation Beamwidlh
Gain
Tran-~mit Polarization
Receive Polarization
Transmit Port [o Receive Port Isolation
Transmit Port to Receive Port Isolation
Front. to. Back Ratio
Electrical Downtilt Options
VSWR
Connectors
Power Handling
Passive Intermodulal~on
90~
16.5 dBi (14.4 dBd)
Vertical
Slant, _ 45'
~_ 40 dB
>_ 30 dB
_> 25 dB ~ 30 dB Typ.)
0-, 2", 4',, 6o
1352 Max
3;Type N or 7-16 DIN (female)
250 Watts CW
<-147 dBc (2 tone
@ +43 dBm {20W} aa,)
Chassis Ground
Mechanical
Descriptron
Dimensions (L x W x D)
Rated Wind Velocity
Equivalent Flat Plate Ar~a
Front Wind Load ~ 100 mph (161 kph)
Side Wind Load @ 100 mph (16'1 kph)
Weight
112in x 8in x 2.7Sin
(284.5 cm x 20.3 cm x 7 cra)
150 mph (241 krnJhr)
6.2 ft' (38 m')
179 lbs (796 N)
81lbs (274 N)
Note: Patent Pending and US'Patent mJmber 5, 757, 246.
Values and palms am rep~esentalNe and varialions may occur. Specifications may
change without noTce due to conUnuous product enhancements. DlgilJzed pa~tern
date is available from the factory or via ~he web sim www.ems~iraless.cam and
reflec~t all' updates.
Lightning Protection
Model Number Comments
MTG-P00-30 . ' ,.S_ta__nd_a_rd ..M.0.u.n! .(.Su.@plia..d...wit_h..an~_e.n.n_a.)., .M0unts.tg.,W, al[ o_r 1..5.j.n.~.bo .~,0_ in_cb.O_~D...P..oJ.e.. (3..~ .c..m..t@.l.2,7...cm)
MTG-DXX-30' "I' ' Mechanical Down, ltKits ' 0'-10°or0'- 15°Me~anicelDo~ntilt
MTC--CXX-30* - ......1 .... ~..[d st~ ~1~1'~-I{i~ .......................... ~ 'a'n't~- ~'~j~l~t- ~ ~ 2 'a n {'~r~ ~ ~-~' '1'~" ~'~ a ~
'. MTC--C02-30 .......... ! .... U-Bo t C I ~'~{e'r '~-o'u'~'t' I~ ~'t .................. § '~,~ ~'~ n~'~ ~-~'~'~',~ ~.~': ~', ~'~:§::~'e: ........
~- .... ~TE-~'~-~'~". :.: ...... :[ .... .St..._-a_a-:n.d..M_o.'u.'~i.:-.. :, :.:.::'::.: :.:':::' ..-.-PPJ_e.':d'j~et:e,r~:7:,~_'":-:i,5.~.-:"'--,.- ...............
:"' - .M.o.d.e!.n_u..m._b.e.r..s..h..o_w..~.r?.p_r.e.s.?.n.ts_.a.~Hes .o! .p.r..~. ucts. Se.e..m..o_u.n.~.g. op[ions s._ection ~o.r s. pe.ci~.c..m.o..d.e.l.r~u..mb, erI .......................
Elevation Elevation Elevation
Azimuth
O' Downtilt 2' Downtilt 4' Downtilt
256
EMS W/re/ess
(770) 582-0555
Elevation
6' Downtilt
Fax +1 (770) 729-0036
'OptiRange"
RS90-17-XX.XP
Electrical
Azimuth Beamwiclth
Elevation BsamwidlJ~
Gain
Transmi[ Polarization
Receive PoladzalJon
Transmit Port to Receive Port Isolation
Transmit Port to Receive Port Isolation
Front-to-Back Ratio
Electrical Down§It Options
VSWR
Connectors
Power Handling
Passive Intermodulation
Lightning Prol. ection
90°
6o
16.5 dBi C14.4 dBd)
Vertical
Slant, ± 45 °
_> 4O dB
_> 30 del
~_ 25 dB ~ 30 da Typ.)
0°, 2°, 4°. 6·
1.3S:1 Max
3;Type N or 7-16 DIN (female)
2S0 Watts CW
<-147 dBc (2 tone
~1 +43 dBm {20W} ea.)
Chassis Ground
Mechanical
Rated Wind Velocity
Equivalent Fiat Plate Area
Front Wind Load @ 100 mph (161 k,oh)
SHe Wind Load ~ 100 mi:ih (i61 ~h)
Weight
Dimensions (L x W x D) 112in x 8tn x 2.75in
(284.5 cm x 20,3 cmx 7 cra)
150 m, ph (241 kin/hr)
6,2/t L58 m')
179 lbs (796 N)
61 lbs (274 N)
34 lbs (1,54 kg)
Note; Patent Pending and US Patent number 5, 757,246.
Values and patterns are represents/Ne and variations may occur, Spe~ifi~alJons may
change wilhout no~Jce due to conllnuous product enhancements. Digilized pallern
data is available from Ihs factory or via Iris web r, Jle ',w~v. amswireless.corn and
reflect, all updates,
Model Number·
Description
Comments
....... M...T.G.:..P_0.0,.3__0 ............ Standard Mount .(.~Upplied wi.t.h.a_Qtg,.n.n..a.). Mo.u,,nts tq. Wall o~ !.5 ]n.ch tg,.,.S..0..]n__d3.O....D. :,,.F'_o,!.e,, (3.8 c,m. to_1_2.7._c~. ) . I
· ~T_.G.~_.0_2..~.q ....... :_ Swivel Mou~ ....................... · Mo..u..n.tiog.¥.t p.~.vi_dJ0g_~l.m._u_tl'j_a_dju_st_m_.e0_t, .......
MTG-DXX-30* Mechanical Downtlli Kits ' 0° - 10' or 0' - 15' Mechanical Downtilt ...... _
' 'M-T~--~-XX--;3'O~ ......... T-' Cluster M~](iid .................... ?i'a'ni~h~'s-'i~o_-~j~&E'~F~'ant'~66'~s '13'~" ~p_~r~ .............. ~.'.__
' '~'a---r~---/'or'' ........... :-' s-~,~'~o~h'~ ................. ,'~,;i;~h~&7~'~-i'~'~-~3 ':,~ ............................. _ ....
Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation
Azimuth
0° 'Downtilt 2° Downtilt 4' Downtilt 6' Downtilt
256 EMS Wire/ess 4-1 [770) 582-0555 Fax +1 (770) 729-0036
NAME: Hunters Hali
SITE
ATTACHMENT C
M~cj 14.00
2000 Feet
1000 Meters
Secondar7 SR/RoadlHwy RamD
., '~ Major Connector
'm'x.... mm State Route
~ Interstate/Limited Access
/-~' b'~.~ .... o,,,~ j-- -- Utility/Pipe
" ............ "~ '-'"'" ........ '~ ...... J'", .......... RailroaQ
PAGE 5
m i m m m ~m ~
9211 Arboretum Parkway, Richmond, Virginia 23236 ~la~ .6 1999
BAMADA INN kAND
RECEIVED . 2007 INN DRIVE'.
~ Z ~ ~ CHARLO~ESVILLE, VA. 22911
CV-1-310J
' Planning Dept.
~W ~ND SITE (MONOPOLE)
LEGEND " DRAWING'INDEX ' VmcmNmT~ MAP '
" ' PROJECT SUM ~AR"¢ '
ATTACHMENT C
PAGE 6
TRITON
PCS, Inc.
0 1 2
, .
RAMADA INN
P, AW LAND
CV-1.310J
2O97 INN DRIVE
CI.IN~O~ VA2291!
TITLE SHEEr
T-1
= = : · E:XBSTING~IIi~FDiC~
~ CX~SlW~G UnUIY PQL~
· C~NmOLP~TUSU)
· ~mNPW, E: CrCXJNO)
· STQNC BOUNO
GENERAL NOTES
i HDICSy C~Rli~'Y I~T IHC LA111U~C, LGflGITtJ0~ WaD
Or m~ fAA ~ITH ~HC FCU.0md0 ACOJL~.y~
e/. I~I(N IY (20) FI~:T ~IDtllC, M/.y
+/- flKTy (SO) FTC!
(rOUND)
iNT~I~T~T~ I~oUT~ 1-64
IdAP ! 07800-00-00-06000
RI'. 1.3 BOx 42
(:HN~OTT~S'~L~ VA 2290t
ZQI~C HC
A~A -, 4.370 A.C2~'S ~,
C~' ~TATt(:N
1401 CAST G STR$:~T
RIO~ICX~O, VA 23219
~ (~T)
/
!
/
/
,4,
/
/
/
EXISIIHG
\
%
,..% \
%
%
%
%
S~
MAP dr OTO0G-.QO-00-OSIQO
BOOK I0~0 PAG~ 038
,,, 6.320 ACRES t
QS~TE PLAN
SCN.E I" m ,30'
sca&E: I° ~. 3o'
'%
%
~RIPTION OF' LEASE AREA
It~nce S OO.0t'37" W
UNnee N 09-'~4'25' w
lo u~e POrn T er OCCa~ei~dG: ConLal,d,~ OQO ~.f.
ATTACHMENT C
PAGE 7
PCS, Inc.
0211 ARBOIICTUII PARKWAY
mCHMOH0, VA 23236
omc~ (m)4)' 32~s00
rAY: (~o4)
,41'LAE'I'IS GROUP, INC.
8~0 8(XJI.(~ SPRfl~S D~ I CS
I~U(~K). VA 23225
T[L: (617) 965-0789
FAX: (617) 965-0103
REVISION
RAMADA INN RAWLAND
SITE # CV-1.-310J
2O97 INN ORIVC
CHARLO~LLF., VA
SHEET TITLE
LAND SURVEY
SHEET NUMBER
C-1
ATTACHMENT C
. PAGE 8
I STON(~ 8OUNO (FOUNO) N
MAP I 07800-00-00-05100-, . / . ~=rr rm (205)
E~PUENT P~ ~ ' ~ ~
r~ ~a~ ~) I PCS, In:.
~1'13.g' ' t .~.j W~RE 9~
~8~5'32.5' = = ~ -~'~ P~AY
~0 --/. ~ ~ ~0~0 ~,V~
~'x~' ~D
~ WA~ ~
N. IN~ ~ ~--
'
M ~ _ _ _04 ~ 2 3/~ ~
.... x ~EO 6~ t~O PA~ O~
//// x,
"'x x,, .'
INST~ NEW' ·
12' ~
0 1 2
. I,,,I I I
, S~ Pm , x ~A INN
' , ~: ,--~.-o- '~ ~W~D ,
' CV-I~I~
' 2~7 INN DR~
~ - ~ ~ SI~ SPECIFIC INS~UC~ONS: ~0~ V~ ~11
% ~ , , ,
~ ~o.~4~ ~c~ u,~,o u~u,~s. ,~ to excav,~.~ ~ ~e
~ ', 030147 ;: ~on,~. c~mact~ ~ e~a~ ~ oum.~ excava~
~ ~ E~N~ ~AOU~[~ ~0 NEW E~T,, ~0 INF~M' ~E ~ ~i~ '
4. PR~R~ ~MEN~S USeD ~ eA~ ~ A ~R~Y ~F~MEO
BY A~S ~P IN~ ~CT ~814~10A~
5. ~ ~ UNM~D ~0 NEW ~ p~KING ~ ~IR~.
~..~. ATTACHMENT C
i ] ATTACHMENT 9
~OE
~0 KIRK ZIMMER >:E ~ }~ ~71NN~ n
ATTACH~ ~.~NT D
oF PROPO~D.t.E:A~ ~
E: N38-,OI'I3.g .
;TUOE: W78-25'32.5'
(L.: St,k2' ~
BOU~.-~
IRON PIPE:
~ ~ F /
ROINIA 0(PARTM[NT /
~M~D. VA 2~2t9 ~ ~
MAP A 07800-00-00-045A0
,f~'I'H[RN ~UN. INC.
7224 MERRIMAC TRAIL
~flLUAMSBURG. VA 25t85
O[ED 800K 1090 PACE 038
ZONE RA
AREA -, 0.690 ACRES t
/ MAP I 07800-O~
~..~.~~ ~ ,,,, '-' ml.0RE0
2102 HANSEN
O. IARLO'rT[S~LL
/
,/ !
/
/
/
/
!
f
VICINITY MAP ~'~ "" I LEGEND .
, :--- , -,,~- ,, TRITO
I ~ ,' ~.,,,,,, ,-,,,,,-- ',-- ./-.x - '~-.. .t-'t.;~,
---- ,.o,~ . / ~ 5 '- o " Inc
}
....... ~ ~ ro,c~ 'N , wY/ / ~"~) N ~"~ ~
' k /~--~-7 / 1~o'~ ~' N ~ Z~ ~
~-~* ~ ~~ ~,~ ...................
~~,~ · ~ /'~ ~ ,-~Y~
~'~~ /-~ , ¢~'//~ / ~~_~_. ~hl .-,, ~ ~, ~,.
~ ~~ -- ----~ ~.v,~ / ~M ~ /*7 ~-~s~, / ~W&' ~ ~R~ ~: P.e.
~VA~ ' ' ~ ~
,, ~... ,~.~ ~~~,~ / ? ,
~ ~-~ ~ '~.. ~{~ 5// / -'~o._ / i
'- ' .~ A ~/1~ ~~
~.1~ /, / //
T~ '- - - - . ~,,~ VA ~m // / //
~~ ~'~"~ ~ I ~ /// // .~07~~
~A~~~~ ~ ~ II1~1/',_ ~~_Y~ ~AMADA INN RA~AND
~ ~ ///~/ / % , ~ ......
~-~-~'~"'--' ~~ lA*l~ x, ' ~,~ ~ cv-,-~,o~
-'-"-- ///,/
~T~ A~~~.
---.--,- /I/? '--,, x,. , ,
'AA CER~RCA~ON · /~, / / , -,, ,
//// / " N ~~~~ LAND SURLY
'-~'"~~' ~'A/ ' ~-, ,, '
!//i ~a- . ,_ '
OA~ ~ / --, --~ --
9917trLR1.dwg .3-18-99 9:24:41 (=m EST __
~une 3, 1999
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning401 Mclntire & CommunitYRoad Devel°Pml~r~ADF~~'~,~-,~, OF SUPERVISORS
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-58~3
Fred Missel
The Cox Company
220 East High St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
SP-98-63 Trinity Presbyterian
Tax Map 76, Parcels 17C & 17C 1
Dear Mr. Missel:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 1, 1999, unanimously
recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors of the above-noted request for an expansion
to provide a gym, classroom, and parking addition at the rear of the existing church building.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the Master Plan Exhibit,
dated May 18, 1999 including a maximum of 105 new parking spaces and incidental
improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play equipment, and walkways.
2. Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary to install the improvements shown on the
Master Plan Exhibit dated May 18, 1999.
3. Continuation of the preschool activity for up to 60 children five days a week shall be allowed.
4. The church shall provide evidence of a maintenance agreement for Fontaine Avenue Extended
prior to approval.of the final site plan.
5. Screening of the parking and new building areas shall be as shown on the Master Plan.
6. Amphitheater use shall be restricted to small outdoor gatherings. No mechanical sound
amplification shall occur in this area.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 16, 1999. Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
Page 2
June 3, 1999
The Planning Commission also approved the critical slopes waivers with the following condition:
1. The reconstructed slope at the rear of the new building will have a bench at the top for safety
reasons.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc:
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Trinity Presbyterian Church
Amelia McCulley
Steve Allshouse
STAFF,PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
JUNE 1, 1999
JUNE 16, 1999
SP 98-63 Trinity Presbyterian Church and
SDP 99-024 Critical Slopes Waiver for Trinity Presbyterian Church Site Plan
.Applicant's Proposal: Trinity Presbyterian Church is planning an expansion to provide a gym, classroom, and
parking addition at the rear of the existing church building. The gym and classroom addition would be a 17,500
square feet in area, as shown on Attachment A. An additional 105 parking spaces are also proposed. A small
outdoor gathering area shown as an "amphitheater" is also proposed at the rear of the development.
The special use permit is required because of the expanded use on the site. A site plan has been submitted for
the proposed expansion which has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee. A critical slopes waiver has
also been requested for the project.
Petition: The first petition is for approval of a special use permit to allow an additional building and parking
and outdoor recreational area on a parcel in accordance with Section 13.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance which
allows churches by special use permit. The property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 17C & 17C 1 is located
in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District at 3101 Fontaine Avenue where Fontaine Avenue (old Route 29)
deadends near the northwest interchange ofi-64 and the route 250 Bypass. (See Attachments B & C.) The
property is zoned R1 Residential zoning district and is recommended for Neighborhood Density residential in
Neighborhood 6 of the Land Use Plan. It is also located in an Entrance Corridor with EC zoning.
The second petition is for approval of a critical slopes waiver, in accordance with Section 4.2.5 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the church is hilly and wooded. There are a few residences
nearby and agricultural/wooded open space. The Virginia Department of Forestry office is across Fontaine
Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit and waiver of critical slopes with
conditions.
Planning and Zoning History_: The church building was constructed in the early 1980's. The original site
plan was approved in 1981 and minor changes to the site were approved in 1982 and 1985 with the first building
addition. In 1987 a parking lot addition and screening plan were approved. In 1989 a special use permit was
approved for a preschool use. In 1991, the special use permit was amended to allow for use of modular
classrooms. In 1992, a minor site plan amendment was approved for a waste area. In 1993, a special use permit
amendment was approved to grade an area behind the modular classrooms, create a recreation area, create a
permanent stormwater basin, and establish limits of clearing. That amendment was modified in 1994 to add a
parking lot expansion. Construction approved in the 1993 and 1994 special use permits was never begun. The
current plan shows construction proposed in these same areas.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as neighborhood density residential in
Neighborhood 6.
Engineering Analysis: The County's Engineering staff has reviewed this request for engineering issues related
to health, safety, and welfare requirements. For some time, the Engineering Department has been concerned
about an existing pile of fill material in front of the church that currently interferes with drainage structures on
the site. The applicant has proposed to move the fill material to the rear of the property and construct a parking
lot in the area where the fill would be removed. Removing the fill will improve stormwater management, and
restore the existing basin to operating conditions. The fill material will be moved to the rear of the church,
where the building addition and other parking improvements are proposed. BMP's also are proposed in this
area of disturbance.
Regarding grading and critical slopes, the applicant has submitted a letter of request which is included as
Attachment D. Alternative locations for the church expansion were explored that did not disturb steep slopes at
the rear of the parcel; but, none o£the alternatives could satisfy the functional and aesthetic needs of the church.
As a result, the building addition and parking areas have been proposed to the rear of the existing church
building and, to do this construction, critical slopes disturbance would occur. As part of the benching of
material, an outdoor "amphitheater" area will be constructed. The critical slopes at the front of the lot were
manmade from the dumping of fill material. Over the last six years, vegetation has grown on the site and the
steep slopes are not as visible as they once were.
Engineering staff reviewed the request and has provided comments shown in Attachment E. Because there are
no technical engineering concerns that prohibit the development on areas of critical slopes, the Engineering
Department has recommended approval of the waiver. Staff also suggests that the rebuilt slopes to the rear of
the Youth Building be benched at the top for safety reasons. To allow for this benching and not disturb the
creek to the rear, it is recommended that the applicant should bring the building addition closer to the existing
building or slightly decrease the size of the new building. The applicant is also concerned about the safety of
the reconstructed slopes and has said that the church will make every effort to reconstruct the slopes so that
safety is enhanced and aesthetics are retained.
Zoning Considerations:.
The property also is located in an Entrance Corridor. The Design Planner has reviewed the request and her
comments are provided in Attachment F. The addition will not be visible from the Entrance Corridor and, as a
result, there will be no required Architectural Review Board review. The parking lot addition at the front, which
was added after the Design Planner did her original review, may be visible from the Entrance Corridor and the
Architectural Review Board will review this addition for visibility fi'om 1-64 at the site plan stage of the
development.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted
hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent property,
The church has been .active at this site since the early 80's. Congregational activity has continued to expand
over the last twenty years and the church has responded with building and parking lot additions over time. The
only area in which the County has received complaints has been with the "fill" placed on the parcel in 1993.
The County has asked the Church to remove or regrade this area and the Church plans to use the material for the
church addition, then pave the parking area. Because the adjacent uses are ora low intensity and because the
church acreage is so large, this addition is not viewed to be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. In the
amphitheater area, the church i's proposing to have class gatherings, social activities, and small group meetings.
No outdoor concerts with speakers are proposed for this area. As a result of the Iow intensity use and
undisturbed screening, the outdoor use is believed to be compatible with adjoining uses
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The R-1 residential district recognizes the existence of previously established low density residential districts in
the urban areas. It allows for low density residential uses and provides incentives for clustering and
development of residential amenities. Churches are often located in residential areas. This church addition is
not expected to change the character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
By supporting residents of the County in a residential area, the church appears to be in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the R1 residential zoning district.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
By-right uses in the R1 district are single family detached dwellings, cluster developments, and tourist lodging.
Special uses include community centers, clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal organizations, recreational facilities, and
the like. The proposed use is viewed as being in harmony with these uses.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations relating to churches.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit
process which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested.
The one area of concern which the staff had was the relatively high number of parking spaces in relation to the
area of assembly. There are 650 seats inside the sanctuary and 434 parking spaces are provided right now.
With the additional 105 spaces, the parking lot would have 539 spaces. On the surface this ratio of parking to
3
ass6mbly seems.extraordinarily high. What is driving the parking need, however, is the high church attendance
numbers and the overlap of use of the parking areas. There are approximately 1200 - 1300 attendees on any
given Sunday for the three services that begin at 8:20 a.m.; 9:45 a.m.; and 11:20 a.m. At present, cars park on
Fontaine Avenue in front of the Chinese Restaurant building and in the gravel area at the end of Fontaine near
the 1-64 right-of-way. The new parking lots are proposed to keep the parking on the church site.
A zoning issue has arisen which needs rectification prior to approval of the final site plan. Public road frontage
exists from Route 702, but access to the site is restricted by a previous special use permit to Fontaine Avenue
Extended, which is old Route 29. Public maintenance of this road was discontinued in 1971. Although VDOT
discontinued maintenance, it is not known who actually has responsibility for maintaining this old right-of-way.
The fee is owned by the Forestry Department but the road is not used by the Forestry Department. Staff
believes the issue ofmaintenarice of the roadway that provides access to the property is still unresolved. For
that reason, staff recommends that a maintenance agreement be provided before approval of the final site plan.
SUMMARY:
Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
Churches support residents in the County and are important to the moral fiber of the community.
The church has been active at this location for almost twenty years and the use has been compatible with
the adjoining uses for this same time period, with the exception of the complaints about the fill area.
The changes proposed are not anticipated to be detrimental to nearby or adjoining properties; the fill area
w/Il be removed with the construction activities supported by this special use permit.
Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
There is no known maintenance agreement for old Route 29 and this roadway provides primary access to
the site.
The additional parking areas proposed on-site create large impervious surfaces which in-tm can affect
water quality runoff. Proposed BMP's are provided to mitigate adverse impacts to water quality and
stormwater management is proposed on-site.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions:
1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the Master Plan Exhibit, dated May 18,
1999 including a maximum of 105 new parking spaces and incidental improvements such as storage sheds,
picnic tables, children's play equipment, and walkways.
2. Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary to install the improvements shown on the Master Plan
Exhibit dated May 18, 1999.
3. Continuation of the preschool activity for up to 60 children five days a week shall be allowed.
4. The church shall provide evidence of a maintenance agreement for Fontaine Avenue Extended prior to
approval of the final site plan.
5. Screening of the parking and new building areas shall be as shown on the Master Plan.
6. · Amphitheater use shall be restricted to small outdoor gatherings. No mechanical sound amplification shall
occur in this area.
Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waivers with the following conditions:
1. The reconsmacted slope at the rear of the new building will have a bench at the top for safety reasons.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Master Plan Exhibit
B. Location Map
C. Tax Parcel Map
D. Critical Slopes Waiver Request
E. Engineering Memo
F. Design Planner Memo
A:\sp9863 trinity.doc
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT B
.- SP 98-63 Trinity Presbyterian Church Addition
/
-'" SDP1999-024 Trinity Presbyterian church Site Plan
SAMUEL M ILL ER, SCOTTSVIL L E
AND dACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SECTION
76
6
~JNTAIN
m m
~SP 98-63 T~i~ ~sb~efi~ Ch~ch Addition '.
X.v ~ -x .'
8D~999-024 TdniW Presbyterian church Sit~
I
I
Monticello
-
1167
1168
~imeon
ATTACHMENT D
THE COX COMPANY
planners....' Landscape Architects
Ciwl Engineers · Urt~an Designers
Februcn-y' 23, 1999
Mr. Wcwne C'flimberg, Director
Pierre_lng crud Community Development
The County of Albemcn'le
401 M¢Intire Roczd
Chcclottesvflle, Virginia 22902
Trinity Church Youth Facility Expansion Project
Preliminary Site Plan - Waiver Request
Decrr Wayne:
With the submission of the preliminczw site plcm ond spec-lcd use permit cqopliccrtion for the TriniW
Church Youth Facih'ty, the crppliccmt seeks the Plonning Commission's relief from the criticcdslopes re-
strictions found in Section 4.2.3.2.of the County's Zoning Ordinance.
The accompcmying prelimincn'y plcm slope exhibit depicts the loccrtion of the relc~tfvely smcdI portion
of the property impacted by the buildiug progrorn with existing slopes equcd to or greczter thcm 25%.
Based on our cmcdysis of the site's topogrcrphy, shcrpe, loccrtion and size of the subject tract, it is our
opinion thcrt construction within the czrea of the 25% slopes will not be detrimentcd to the public
hecdth, sczfety or welfczre as well ars other considerations related to the objectives of the County's zon-
ing ordinance.
The Iocc~tion of the expcmsion building was finczlJzed only cater considerc~tion of three other cfltema-
tire sitings. The selected siting an'angement provides for the minimum disruption of the site while, ~
the some ~'ne, meeting the progrctrnmc~ic needs of the Church. The three options which were dis-
cccded did not fulfill the later. Further, the cdtematfve loccrtions created signih'cantly more difficult
grading conditions (both cu~ and fill) as well as conflicts with existing utfliW ec~sements and access
Given the recommended fincfl la%rout for the Youth Facility, I believe th~ the construction can be un-
dertaken in such c~ way crs to (a) provide for the orderly expcmsion of the Trinity Church infrastruc-
ture, (b) scl~dsty sound environmentcd engineering principles, pca-ticulc[rly those for enhanced slope
stc/o~]~.crtion in the vicinity of the building expcnsion, and (c) offer c: veryrec~onc[ble siting opportuni-
ty bcdanc, ed czgcdnst the gocd preserving the vczst majority of the site's criticcfl slopes and open space
804' 295' 7131
~20 East High Street
Chartottesvitla Virginia 22902
Mt. Wayne Cflimberg
Be: Tr~n/tyChurch~xponsionProject
Februcu723, 1999
Page2
From c~ broader perspective, the location of the planned addition is in the uplcmd portion of a small
subshed which originates on the subject Church property. The subject buildin{~ construction ~'fects
only on a small segment of the critical slopes and if will not have ¢m adverse impact on (my adja-
cent 'downstrecu¥~' properties. Further, the proposed on-site stormwater mancrgement basin (located
just below/he planned building) will reduce runoff qucmtities ~nd velocities below those which are
mandatory for the pre-development storm. This small basin will also be sized ar'~d shaped for water
qucflii%r considerations pursuant to Best Management Practices stand.ds crud criteria. Enhanced
slope stab~.ation and landscaping will be provided with the site improvements to improve upon the
existing unmanaged slope conditions,
In conclusion, I believe that the waiver of critical slopes in this pta [icular instc[nce wou/d be valid.
The site plan has been developed to promote the following objectives:
Enhance opportunities for slope stab~c~ion measures for the total project csec;
Provide high quality of temporcn7 and permgnent erosion and sediment control
practices;
Improve the handling and storage of storm drainage for the total site;
Create opportunities for BMP and drainage controls on the steep slopes on the
downhill side of the proposed building;
Develop storm retention facilities to delay and lessen runoff impacts below the
project area; and
Upgrade the landscaping for the project area.
I look forwcrd to your input and direction as we pursue the special use permit crud preliminary site
plan approval for the Church. Please do not hesitate to contact me if additional information is need-
ed in support of this request. With kind regards, I m'n
Yours very truly,
~Cox J~--~'(" pc. ¢
Bffuce Wardell,
David Turner, T~W ~ch B~g Co~~
ATTACHMENT E
COUNTY OF. ALBEMARLE
Department ofEngineenng & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Elaine Echols, Senior Planner
Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer ~
17 March 1999'
Trinity Presbyterian Church additions, Special Use Permit and Critical Slope
Waiver
The Engineenng Department has no additional comments on the Special Use Permit for Trinity
Presbyterian Church's proposed additions as shown on the preliminary site plan received on 28 February
1999. Refer to the comments of 8 March 1999 given for the preliminary site plan.
The waiver to develop on areas of critical slopes for the site plan referenced above has also been
reviewed. This is a large site with many areas of critical slopes tl'n'oughout the site. The applicant has
shown an area of critical slopes to be disturbed by the building addition directly in back of the existing
building. This area is approximately 0.2 acres of the site's 18 acres. Of the critical slopes shown about
85% are to be disturbed. There are many other areas of critical slopes on the site, with some minor areas
disturbed for the new travelway and parking area, and an old fill and basin area at the end of Fontaine
Avenue. The applicant is proposing to build a large fill slope for the building addition at the back of the
s~te. This 2:1 slope will be built over the critical slope area as shown on the site plan. Below each of the
concerns of section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is addressed:
"rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock;"
With proper construction of rebuilt slopes, movement of soil will not be a great risk. Proper
construction in this case would be benched, compacted and tested fill, in addition to vegetation
stabilization. It is recommended that shelves or slopes flatter than the 2:1 be considered. In
addition .soil matting or rock lining should be considered at the toe where the drainage channel
may contact the fill.
"siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water;"
With proper erosion control measures, inspected and bonded by the County, siltation will be
mitigated during construction. Proper vegetation establishment and stormwarer management
will prevent long term siltation problems. It is expected that a silt trap or basin at the toe of the
slope will be converted to a permanent stormwater management facility.
"loss of aesthetic resource;"
This site is a wooded ravine ~n back of the existing church and education buildings.
"greater travel distance of septic effluent"
This will not be a concern, as the site will be served by public sewer.
Base on the review above, there are no technical engineering concerns which prohibit the development
on areas of critical slopes as shown on the preliminary site plan. Therefore, the Engineering Department
supports the waiver. Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information.
Copy: SDP-99-024
File: memo.doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Elaine Echols, Senior Planner
Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer ~
17 May .1999
Trinity Presbyterian Church additions, Special Use Permit and Critical
Slope Waiver
This memo supplements the memo of 17 March 1999, as a new parking area next to the end of
the entrance road (old Rt. 29) has been proposed. The new parking area must be paved according
to Zoning Ordinance section 4.12.6.3, unless the vehicle trips per week are less than 350, which
may be the case if the new parking is designated as overflow parking.
The proposed parking area in front of the church will disturb a large area of critical slopes, which
is the site of an old earth stock pile. The critical slopes are actually the sides of these mounds of
stockpiled soil, which have been left in place for many years, and the sides of a sedimentation
basin which sits next to them. The critical slopes are about 0.9 acres, all of which will be
disturbed either by work on the basin, or the proposed parking area. Removing these old
stockpiles and making improvements to the basin will not raise any of the concerns as indicated
in section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. There are no engineering concerns which prohibit the
development of these areas. The Engineering Department supports the critical slope waiver.
Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information.
Copy: SDP-99-024
File: trinity4.doc
ATTACHMENT F
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 M¢Intire Road, Room 213
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
TO: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner
FROM: Margaret Pickart, Design Planner
Trinity Presbyterian Church: SDP 99-24
Tax Map 76, Parcels 17C and 17C 1
DATE:
March 24, 1999
I have reviewed the site plan dated February 22, 1999 and I have visited the site. The existing
church is minimally visible from the Entrance Corridors, and it appears that the proposed addition
would not be visible if: I) its overall height does not exceed that of the existing building, and 2) the
existing trees between the Entrance Corridors and the building are maintained. With these
conditions, it appears that ARB review will not be necessary.
Please notify me of any change to the proposed plan that might increase visibility of the
development, so that I may determine if ARB review will be required. Thank you.
ATTACHMENT A
MA~TEI~
?LAN
INTER
AP~roarl~ Boanl of Count' ~
O~ce of ~he Clo~k m tl~ Bo~t
401 ~clnfi~c Road
Char]ottcsvill~, V'u'ginia 22902-4596
80~-296-~43
OFFICE
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Larry Davis, County Attorney
Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk
Ordinances Adopted
June 23, 1999
At its June 16, 1999 meeting, the Board of Supervisors adopted four ordinances, STA-99-01, ZTA-99-
01, ZTA-99-02, and ZTA-99-03. Please find four copies attached, and include them in the County
Code. Thank you.
Enclosures
ORDINANCE NO. 99-18(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. 1.9
Application for land use permit; payment of delinquent taxes.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 1.9 Application for land use permit; payment of delinquent taxes.
Prior to initiation of the review of an application for a zoning map amendment, special
use permit, variance or other land use permit, the zoning administrator shall require the
applicant to produce satisfactory evidence that all delinquent real estate taxes owed to the
County which have been properly assessed against the subject property have been paid.
The applicable time periods for the review, recommendation and decision on an
application for a land use permit' shall be tolled until such evidence is received by the
zoning administrator.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
4 to .0 as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 16, 1999.
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman x
Ms. Humphris x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Thomas x
Mr. Marshall (absel~t)
Mr. Martin (absent)
~rlerk, Board of COunty Supe~rs
ORDINANCE NO. 99-14(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE II,
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Administration and Procedure, is hereby amended
and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-203 Fees.
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article II. Administration and Procedure
Sec. 14-203 Fees.
Except as otherwise provided herein, each subdivider shall pay a fee upon submittal of a
plat or other request provided herein, in an amount according to the schedule set forth below.
The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." Neither
the County nor the School Board of Albemarle County shall be required to pay any fee required
by this section if it is the applicant.
A. Preliminary plat for subdivision:
If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $570.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $880.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,060.00.
If subject to review by the agent:
(a) Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(1) or if all
(b)
(c)
(d)
lots front on an existing public street: $75.00.
1 to 9 lots: $285.00.
10 to 19 lots: $440.00.
20 or more lots: $530.00.
3. Reinstatement of review: $50.00.
Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a preliminary plat for the '
same property has been filed previously, shall be subject to the same
requirements.
B. Final plat for subdivision:
If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $570,00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $880.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,060.00.
If subject to review by the agent:
(a) Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(1) or if all
(b)
(c)
(d)
lots front on an existing public street: $75.00.
1 to 9 lots: $285.00.
10 to 19 lots: $440.00.
20 or more lots: $530.00.
3. Condominium plat: $80.00.
4. Reinstatement of review: $50.00.
In addition to the foregoing, if the subdivider is required to construct a
public street or a private road, he shall pay to the county a fee equal to the
cost of the inspection of the construction of any such street or road. These
fees shall be paid prior to completion of all necessary inspections and shall
be deemed a part of the cost of construction of the street or road for
purposes of section 14-413(B).
C. Plat for rural division: $75.00.
D. Plat for family division: $75.00.
E. Other matters subject to review:
1. Waiver, variation or substitution of subdivision requirements: $140.00.
Relief from plat conditions imposed by commission prior to the date of
adoption of this chapter: $140.00.
3. Appeal of plat to board of supervisors: $190.00.
4. Extension of plat approval: $35.00.
5. Request to defer action on plat to an indefinite date: $60.00.
6. Bonding inspection for plat: $45.00.
7. Vacation of plat or part thereof: $135.00.
(9-5-96, 12-11-91, 6-7-89, 4-17-85, 12-1-82, 12-14-77, 3-2-77, 11-10-76, 8-28-74 (§ 3); 1988
Code, § 18-43; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 99-14(1), 6-16-99)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
4 to 0 , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 1 _6~l,999.
,A. ye Nay~ard of-C~tintY Su~_//jorspery~
Mr. Bowerman x
Ms. Humphris x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Thomas x
Mr. Marshall (absent)
Mr. Martin (absent)
ORDINANCE NO. 99-18(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article IV, Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 35.0 Fees.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 35.0 Fees.
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning administrator,
the commission, or the board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth
hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such application. Neither the County nor the
School Board of Albemarle County shall be required to pay any fee required by this
section if it is the applicant.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original 1980
development rights have been exhausted under "family division" as defined under
section 18-56 of the subdivision ordinance - $175.00. (Amended effective 1-1-
94)
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Commercial use - $780.00.
4. Industrial use - $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility- $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities - $810.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to allow
minor expansion of a non-conforming use -$85.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94)
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children -
$390.00. (Added 6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $780.00. (Added 6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00. (Amended 7-8- 92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $665.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres - $815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $815.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment - $175.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $95.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning
administrator's decision) - $95.00, to be refunded if the decision of the zoning
administrator is overturned.
e. Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential - $945.00, plus $10.00/unit.
2. Non-residential - $1,260.00, plus $10.00/1000 square feet.
f. Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site development
plan - $900.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site development
plan- $630.00.
: 4. For site development plan waiver - $215.00.
5. For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size, location -$75.00.
b) Major - commission review - $215.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board - $160.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of super visors - $190.00.
8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of supervisors -
$150.00.
9.Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be refunded. $50.00
fee shall be required to reinstate project.
g. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape waiver by
agent - $140.00.
h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site development plan:
1. Road- $15.00.
2. Development - $20.00.
i. Extending approval of site development plan - $35.00.
j. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use permit or
zoning map amendment:
1. To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the first bond
estimate - $45.00.
1. Zoning clearance - $25.00.
m. Accessory lodging permits - $25.00.
n. Official Letters:
1. Of determination - $60.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00.
3. Stating number of development rights - $30.00.
o. Sign Permits:
1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by the architectural
review board - $25.00.
2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board - $60.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter 22,
Title 15.2 of the Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall
exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section. Failure to pay all applicable fees shall
constitute grounds for the denial of any application. For any application withdrawn after
public notice has been given, no part of the fee will be refunded. (Amended 5-5-82; 9-1-
85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7-.8-92)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
4 to 0., as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 16, 1999.
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman x
Ms. Humphris x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Thomas x
Mr. Marshall (absent)
Mr. Martin (absent)
4
ORDINANCE NO. 99-18(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III,
District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.0.
Sec. 5.1.11.
Sec. 10.2.2.
Sec. 22.2.2.
Sec. 24.2.2.
Definitions.
Commercial kennel, veterinary, animal hospital.
By special use permit.
By special Use permit.
By special use permit.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.0 Definitions.
Animal Shelter: A facility which is used to house or contain animals and which is owned,
operated, or maintained by a duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare society,
society for prevention of cruelty to animals, animal rescue group, or any other such duly
incorporated organization devoted to the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of
animals.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.11 Commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital:
animal shelter.
Each commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital and
animal shelter shall be subject to the following:
ao
Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no
structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to
any agricultural or residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements,
an external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty
(50) feet of the animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick,
or other material approved by the zoning administrator; (Amended 11-15-89)
b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two
hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed
Sec.
do
confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line
shall not exceed forty (40) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89)
In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. Noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not
exceed forty (40) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89)
In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive
activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is
required to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and
board may require among other things: (Amended 11-15-89)
-Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts;
(Added 11-15-89)
-Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or
other means. (Added 11-15-89)
Article III. District Regulations
8. (Repealed 3-5-86)
9. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5).
10. (Repealed 11-11-92)
11. (Repealed 3-15-95)
10.2.2 By special use permit.
1. Community center (reference 5.1.04).
2. Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.02).
3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athleticfacilities (reference 5.1.16).
5. Private schools.
6. Electrical power substations,
transmission lines, pumping
exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and
substations and appurtenances.
7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil
stations and appurtenances, unmanned telephone
relay towers,
12. Horse show grounds, permanent.
13. Custom slaughterhouse.
14. Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance
standards in 4.14).
15. Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled persons as described in section
15.1-486.2 of the Code (reference 5.1.07).
16. (Repealed 11-15-95)
17. Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14).
18. Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance
standards in 4.14).
19. Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.01).
20. Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05).
21. Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14)~
22. Country store.
23. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. (Amended 11-8-89)
24. (Repealed 11-8-89)
25. Flood control dams and impoundments.
26. (Repealed 11-8-89)
27. Restaurants and inns located within an historic landmark as designated in the
comprehensive plan provided such structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or
inn; in such case the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the
architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith.
(Amended 11-8-89)
28. Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.
29. Boat landings and canoe livery.
30. Permitted residential uses as provided in section 10.5.
Sec.
31. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
32. Cemetery.
33. Crematorium.
34. Multi-crypt mausoleum.
35. Church building and adjunct cemetery.
36. Gift, craft and antique shops.
37. Public garage. (Added 3-18-81)
38. Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82)
39. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4- 28-82)
40. Borrow area, borrow pit not permitted under section 10.2.1.18. (Added 7-6-83)
41. Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29). (Added 1-1-87)
42. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations which are related to,
and supportive of the RA, rural areas, district (reference 5.1.27). (Added 12-2-87)
43. Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30). (Added 12-2-87)
44. Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92)
45. Farm sales (reference 5.1.35). (Added 10-11-95)
46. Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38) or off-site employee
parking for an industrial use in an industrial zoning district (reference 5.1.39).
47. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11).
22.2.2 By special use permit.
1. Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited to amusement
centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil
transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone
exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers,
substations and appurtenances.
3. Hospitals.
4. Fast food restaurant.
5. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
6. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section
18.0, residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such
conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4.
7. Hotels, motels and inns.
8. Motor vehicle sales and rental in communities and the urban area as designated in the
comprehensive plan. (Added 6-1-83)
9. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-4)
10. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84;
,Amended 9-9-92)
11. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption
exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right,
not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than
domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89)
12. Body shop. (Added 9-9-92)
13. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11).
Sec. 24.2.2 By special use permit.
1. Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers,
bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
2. Septic tank sales and related service.
3. Livestock sales.
4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.08).
6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil
transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone
exchange centers, micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers,
substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12).
7. Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13).
8. Contractors' office and equipment storage yard.
9. Auction houses.
10.
Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section
18.0, residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such
conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4.
11. Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11). (Added 1- 1-83)
12. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added t 1-7-84)
13. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84;
Amended 9-9-92)
14.
Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption
exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right,
not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than
domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89)
15. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.1.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-
91)
16. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of_
4. to 0 , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 16, 1999.
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman x
Ms. Humphris x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Thomas x
Mr. Marshall (absent)
Mr. Martin (absent)
Clerk, Board of County Supervis~
Memo
To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
From:Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning
CC: Ella Carey, Clerk to Board of Supervisors
Date: 06/08/99
Re: Planning Commission Actions
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 25, 1999,
unanimously endorsed the following resolutions of intent:
STA-99-01: Resolution of intent to amend section 14-203 Fees of the Subdivision
Ordinance to .eliminate all application, inspection and other fees for any project
owned by Albemarle County or the Albemarle County Public School System.
ZTA-99-01: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend section 35.0 Fees of the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate all
application, inspection and other fees for any project owned by Albemarle County or
the Albemarle County Public School System. (Ron Keeler)
ZTA-99-02: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend section 35.0 Fees of the Zoning Ordinance to require payment of
delinquent real estate taxes on properties subject to a zoning application or approval.
ZTA-99-03: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to: define "animal shelter;" provide for "animal
shelter" by special use permit in the C-1 Commercial, HC Highway Commercial and
IRA RUral Areas zoning districts; and provide supplementary regulations applicable to
"animal shelter."
· Page 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISO~S
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review the above-noted petitions at its
June 16, 1999 meeting. Attached please find staff reports, which outline these
resolutions.
RSK/jcf
ATTACHMENTS
· Page 2
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RON KEELER
MAY 25, 1999
JUNE 16, 1999
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ZTA-99-01:
STA-99-01:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE IN RELATION TO FEES FOR COUNTY
PROJECTS
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE IN RELATION TO FEES FOR COUNTY
PROJECTS
BACKGROUND:
Currently, fee schedules in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances apply to development
reviews for projects owned by Albemarle Couhty and the Albemarle County Public School
System. However, County projects are exe~apt from building permit/review fees. In January,
1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning and
Subdivision ordinances to eliminate all application, inspection and other fees for any project
owned by Albemarle County or the Albemarle County Public School System.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED:
The public purpose to be served by these amendments should relate to the public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. For many years, it has been County
policy that County projects should satisfy the same compliance and review processes as private
property owners. However, payment of fees for County owned projects is contrary to the
efficient operatiOn of government and good financial management. Therefore, the purpose of
these amendments is to eliminate all application, inspection and other fees for County projects,
while maintaining the same compliance/review processes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that a definitive public purpose is served by exempting County projects from
the Zoning and Subdivision ordinance fee schedules. Accordingly, staff recommends
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment A) and Subdivision Ordinance (Attachment B)
which would eliminate all application, inspection and other fees for any project owned by
Albemarle County or the Albemarle County Public School. System.
Draft: June 9, 1999
ORDINANCE NO. 99-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article IV, Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 35.0 Fees.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 35.0 Fees.
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning administrator,
the commission, or the board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth
hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such application. Neither the County_ nor the
School Board of Albemarle County shall be required to pay any fee required by this
section if it is the applicant.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original 1980
development rights have been exhausted under "family division" as defined under
section 18-56 of the subdivision ordinance - $175.00. (Amended effective 1-1-
94)
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Commercialuse - $780.00.
4. Industrial use - $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities - $810.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to allow
minor expansion of a non-conforming use -$85.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94)
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children -
$390.00. (Added 6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $780.00. (Added 6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00. (Amended 7-8- 92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $665.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
do
Draft: June 9, 1999
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres - $815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $815.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment - $175.00.
Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $95.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning
administrator's decision) - $95.00, to be refunded if the decision of the zoning
administrator is overturned.
Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential - $945.00, plus $10.00/unit.
2. Non-residential - $1,260.00, plus $10.00/1000 square feet.
Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site development
plan - $900.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site development
plan - $630.00.
4. For site development plan waiver ~ $215.00.
5. For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size, location -$75.00.
b). Major - commission review - $215.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board - $160.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of super visors - $190.00.
Draft: June 9, 1999
8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of supervisors -
$150.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be refunded. $50.00
fee shall be required to reinstate project.
g. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape waiver by
agent- $140.00.
h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site development plan:
1. Road- $15.00.
2. Development - $20.00.
i. Extending approval of site development plan - $35.00.
j. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use permit or
zoning map amendment:
1. To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the first bond
estimate - $45.00.
l. Zoning clearance - $25.00.
m. Accessory lodging permits - $25.00.
n. Official Letters:
1. Of determination - $60.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00.
3. Stating number of development rights - $30.00.
Draft: June 9, 1999
o. Sign Permits:
1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by the architectural
review board - $25.00.
2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board - $60.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter 22,
Title 15.2 of the Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall
exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section. Failure to pay all applicable fees shall
constitute grounds for the denial of any application. For any application withdrawn after
public notice has been given, no part of the fee will be refunded. (Amended 5-5-82; 9-1-
85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
__ to __., as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Marshall
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
4
Draft: June 9, 1999
ORDINANCE NO. 99-14( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE II,
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Administration and Procedure, is hereby amended
and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-203 Fees.
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article II. Administration and Procedure
Sec. 14-203 Fees.
Except as otherwise provided herein, F~_ach subdivider shall pay a fee upon submittal of a
plat or other request provided herein, in an amount according to the schedule set forth below.
The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." Neither
the County nor the School Board of Albemarle County shall be required to pay any fee required
by this section if it is the applicant.
A. Preliminary plat for subdivision:
If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $570.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $880.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,060.00.
If subject to review by the agent:
(a) Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(1) or if all
(b)
(c)
(d)
lots front on an existing public street: $75.00.
1 to 9 lots: $285.00.
10 to 19 lots: $440.00.
20 or more lots: $530.00.
3. Reinstatement of review: $50.00.
Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a preliminary plat for the
same property has been filed previously, shall be subject to the same
requirements.
B. Final plat for subdivision:
Draft: June 9, 1999
If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $570.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $880.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,060.00.
If subject to review by the agent:
(a) Two-lot subdivision as described in,section
lots front on an existing public street: $75.00.
(b) 1 to 9 lots: $285.00.
(c) 10 to 19 lots: $440.00.
(d) 20 or more lots: $530.00.
Condominium plat: $80.00.
Reinstatement of review: $50.00.
14-232(B)(1) or if all
Plat for rural division: $75.00.
Plat for family division: $75.00.
Other matters subject to review:
o
4.
5.
6.
7.
Waiver, variation or substitution of subdivision requirements: $140.00.
Relief from plat conditions imposed by commission prior to the date of
adoption of this chapter: $140.00.
Appeal of plat to board of supervisors: $ t 90.00.
Extension of plat approval: $35.00.
Request to defer action on plat to an indefinite date: $60.00.
Bonding inspection for plat: $45.00.
Vacation of plat or part thereof: $135.00.
In addition to the foregoing, if the subdivider is required to construct a
public street or a private road, he shall pay to the county a fee equal to the
cost of the inspection of the construction of any such street or road. These
fees shall be paid prior to completion of all necessary inspections and shall
be deemed a part of the cost of construction of the street or road for
purposes of section 14-413(B).
Draft: June 9, 1999
(9-5-96, 12-11-91, 6-7-89, 4-17-85, 12-1-82, 12-14-77, 3-2-77, 11-10-76, 8-28-74 (§ 3); 1988
Code, § 18-43; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Marshall
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RON KEELER
MAY 18, 1999
JUNE 16, 1999
ZTA-99-02:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF DELINQUENT
REAL ESTATE TAXES ON PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO A ZONING
APPLICATION OR APPROVAL
BACKGROUND:
This proposal originated from the Development Departments' Work Program with Building
Code and Zoning Services as the lead department and input/support by the County Attorney's
office and Planning staff as well as cooperation/input from the Department of Finance. This
provision would apply only to permits sought under the Zoning Ordinance and would not apply
to subdivision reviews. Several hundred permits are sought annually through the Zoning
Ordinance to which this provision would be applicable (See Attachment A for a summary of
questions from Zoning/Planning and responses by County Attorney's office). In January, 1999.
the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to consider amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance to require payment of delinquent real estate taxes on properties subject to a zoning
application or approval. The Director of Finance strongly supports the proposed amendment.
ENABLING LEGISLATION:
Section 15.2-2286. B. of the Code of Virginia states that:
Prior to the initiation of an application for a special exception, special
use permit, variance, rezoning or other land use permit, or prior to the
issuance of final approval, the authorizing body may require the applicant
to produce satisfactory evidence that any delinquent real estate taxes
owed to the locality which have been properly assessed against the
subject property have been paid.
This is a permissive as opposed to mandatory provision of the Code. The provision offers two
methods of implementation (evidence/payment before processing or evidence/payment before
final approval). Staff would recommend that evidence be required prior to processing since some
applications are "one step." In addition, in the case of a withdrawal, the provision would be
ineffective. Also, under the proposed amendment, .the applicant would not be required to provide
this information- a computer inquiry would be made by staff for each application in a
coordinated effort with the Department of Finance.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED:
The public purpose to be served by this amendment should relate to the public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The General Assembly has availed
localities a mechanism for the collection of delinquent property taxes. Staff opinion is that this
enabling legislation is reflective of the public necessity as represented by budgetary and financial
considerations and is a prudent tool for the efficient operation of government and good financial
management.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that a definitive public purpose is served by requirement that delinquent taxes
be paid. Accordingly, staff recommends amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require
payment of delinquent taxes prior to processing of applicable zoning permits (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENT A
The following is a series of questions from Zoning and Planning and responses from the County
Attorney's office about' the Code of Virginia provision related to delinquent real estate taxes.
Section 15.2-2286 (B) reads as follows:
B. Prior to initiation of an application for a special exception, special use permit,
variance, rezoning or other land use permit, or prior to the issuance of final
approval, the authorizing body may require the applicant to produce satisfactory
evidence that any delinquent real estate taxes owed to the locality which have been
properly assessed against the subject property have been paid.
Question # 1: Section 15.2-2286 (B) allows the County under zoning regulation to
require that the applicant provide evidence that delinquent taxes have been paid "which have
been properly assessed against the subject property." I read this to apply only to the property
under review and not all property which may be owned by an applicant. Is this a correct reading
Response: Yes. It applies only to the property under review, not to all of the property
owned by the applicant/owner in the County.
Question # 2: The delinquent tax provision cited above applies to zoning ordinances. I
have found no corresponding language for subdivision ordinances. Can it be applied indirectly
(i.e.- subdivisions must comply with applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance)?
Response: No. The class of approvals that triggers section 15.2-2286 (B) is limited to
those under the zoning ordinance. Also, we don't think that a zoning clearance is within the
class of"other land use permits," since a zoning clearance is not a permit to use land in a
particular way, but is merely a certification that what is being done on the property conforms to
the zoning ordinance.
Question # 3: How does this provision apply to properties in multiple names or in the
name of a trust, partnership or some other kind of ownership ?
Response: Section 15.2-2286(B) doesn't care the applicant or the owner is. If there are
delinquent taxes imposed on the property that is the subject of the application, we can require
that they be paid.
Question # 4: How would this provision apply to applications like home occupation:
class A, sign permits or accessory tourist lodging which are issued by the zoning administrator?
Response: I would consider home occupation class A permits, sign permits and any other
permits required by the zoning ordinance, whether issued by the zoning administrator, the BZA
or the BOS, to be "land use permits" within the meaning of section 15.2-2286 (B).
Draft: June 9, 1999
ORDINANCE NO. 99-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY-OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. 1.9
Application for land use permit; payment of delinquent taxes.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 1.9 Application for land use permit; payment of delinquent taxes.
Prior to initiation of the review of an application for a zoning map amendment, special
use permit, variance or other land use permit, the zoning administrator shall require the
applicant to produce satisfactory evidence that all delinquent real estate taxes owed to the
County which have been properly assessed against the subject property have been paid.
The applicable time periods for the review, recommendation and decision on an
application for a land use permit shall be tolled until such evidence is received by the
zoning administrator.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Marshall
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
FROM:
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning
DATE: June 16, 1999
"Animal Shelter" in the C-1 Commercial District
On May 25, 1999, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that "animal shelter" be
allowed by special use permit within the RA Rural Areas, HC Highway Commercial and C-1
Commercial zoning districts. Analysis of the use within the C-1 zone was not included in the
staff report, but was discussed at the hearing (Attachment A- Planning Commission draft minutes
of May 25, 1999). The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss "animal shelter" as a use by
special permit within the C-1 Commercial zone.
Staff believes that "commercial kennel" is a current use most akin to animal shelter and a
conservative approach would be to allow animal shelter only in those zones currently permitting
commercial kennel (i.e.- RA and HC). Allowing animal shelter in other zones could invite future
requests to add commercial kennels into those districts. Therefore, staff had taken a conservative
approach and recommended that "animal shelter" be permitted by special use permit within the
RA Rural Areas and HC Highway Commercial zones as these districts currently allow
"commercial kennel".by special use permit (Attachment B).
The SPCA expressed concern that commercial zoning in the immediate area of the site (i.e.- west
of Berkmar Drive) is C-1 and that obtaining HC zoning may be difficult. Staff confirmed that to
date, HC zoning has been confined to the east side of Berkmar Dr.
Staff offers the following comments regarding allowance for "animal shelter" within the C- 1
zone as a general matter and allowance within the C-1 zone as applicable to the SPCA:
1. As stated in the staff report, an SPCA is in the nature of a public service and the
Albemarle SPCA contracts with the County and City for certain services. Generally, public uses
and semi-public uses which are good for the moral, educational and other demands of the
community should be encouraged under zoning regulation. A commercial kennel, while
performing a service, is a commercial use which may not offer the same public benefits as an
animal shelter.
2. The SPCA indicated to the Planning.Commission a desire that the new facility be fully
enclosed, an improvement over the, existing facility. The C-1 zone currently allows veterinary
and hospital which are generally enclosed facilities. Animal shelter, commercial kennel and
veterinary and animal hospital would be required to comply with identical supplementary
regulations. If commercial kennel were to be included within the C-1 zone at some future date, it
could be restricted to enclosed facilities only, if deemed appropriate.
3. The Planning Commission recommended a more restrictive definition of animal
shelter, specifically restricting the use to incorporated organizations, thus establishing a
legislative intent not include a wide array of similar facilities.
4. If similar uses such as commercial kennel were to be included in the C-1 zone, most
assuredly, the use would be subject to special use permit review as well as supplementary
regulations intended to address objectionable aspects.
In conclusion, staff had taken a conservative approach and did not originally recommend animal
shelter in the C-1 zone. Staff's concern was in regard to possible introduction of commercial
kennel at some future date, which is somewhat countered by the comments above. The County
Attorney's office has revised the proposed ordinance in accord with the Planning Commission's
action (Attachment C).
ATTACHMENT A
ZTA 99-03
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to define "animal shelter"; provide for "animal shelter" by special use permit in the C-1
Commercial, HC Highway Commercial and RA Rural Areas zoning districts; and provide
supplementary regulations applicable to "animal shelter."
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, indicating that the amendment was initiated by the Board at the
request of one Board member. Mr. Keeler stated that the SPCA - given the acquisition of right-of-
way for the new bypass - will now have most of their building within the right-of-way. He reported
that the SPCA would llke to remain on the property, and in discussions with the Zoning
Administrator, it became evident that there is no provision in the ordinance currently that is
comprehensive enough to include the SPCA. Mr. Keeler noted that while the amendment would
affect more than just the SPCA, staff does not believe that it is likely there would be a host of animal
shelter applications.
He said that "animal shelter" is defined in the Code of Virginia (not in the Land Use section) as "a
facility which is used to house or contain animals and which is owned, operated and maintained by a
duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare society, society for prevention for cruelty to
animals, animal rescue group, or any other organization devoted to the welfare, protection, or
humane treatment of animals." Mr. Keeler added that if the Commission feels that the wording of
"any other organization devoted to the welfare, protection, or humane treatment of animals" makes
the definition too broad, than the language could be deleted.
Mr. Keeler stated that the initial resolution he drafted for the Board recommended consideration be
given to the rural areas, highway commercial, and Cl. Mr. Keeler explained that staff recommended
in the rural areas and highway commercial because "commercial kennels" are already permitted by
special use permit in those areas; he added that in the C1 district - by special use permit- the
Zoning Ordinance provides for veterinary offices and hospitals. "The reason it may be appropriate
within the C I district is due to the location of their actual site, zoning in that area - on the west side
of Berkmar Drive - commercial zoning is C 1. There is some concern that getting Highway
Commercial zoning there, even if it's limited to the SPCA, may be difficult because it's been the
Board's policy not to jump across Berkmar Drive with heavy commercial zoning."
Mr. Keeler concluded that staff is recommending the ZTA in all three districts, noting that it
stipulates a special use permit and thus provides the "security" of special permit review. "The only
issue regarding including it by special permit in the C 1 district is it may be difficult in the future if
someone seeks an amendment to the C 1 for a boarding kennel, it may be difficult to not allow a
boarding kennel if you allowed an animal shelter.., one difference that staff sees here is that the
SPCA is in the nature of a public service...whereas a boarding kennel is simply a commercial
enterprise. We may be able to distinguish along that basis." He added that veterinary offices and
animal hospitals are granted by special use permit in the C1 district, and the SPCA would be subject
to the same supplementary regulations. Mr. Keeler noted that Mr. Kamptner has drafted a revised
ordinance to include animal shelter by special use permit in the C 1, Highway Commercial district,
and Rural Area districts.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were other zoning districts considered that were rejected by staff.
232
Mr. Keeler replied that staff looked at districts that included commercial kennels, which seemed to
be the use "most kindred" to the SPCA use. He indicated that he understood the new SPCA facility
to be enclosed, which is not always the case with boarding kennels. Mr. Keeler said that while many
localities provide for kennels in industrial districts, the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance had been
amended so many times before it was newly adopted in 1980, the industrial and commercial districts
were mixed and the Board wanted the new industrial districts to be specifically industrial. He added
that the SPCA has looked for a different location for a number of years, but has not been able to
locate an appropriate site.
Mr. Rieley said, "My inclination is to make [the amendment] as broad as possible because it's a
special use permit anyway, and to make it as easy as possible for organizations like the SPCA to
have as broad a spectrum of sites to choose from as possible.., my inclination would be to include as
many of these [districts] as we think could reasonably be expected to provide sites."
Mr. Keeler commented, "I think we would have to re-advertise to include industrial districts."
Mr. Kamptner said that allowing an additional use could be considered an intensification of the use.
Mr. Keeler said, "I reviewed ordinances from other localities and .... only one other ordinance that I
looked at - and I think that was Henry County - actually mentioned animal shelter as a use, and it
was included in their definition of kennel. Almost everyone permits kennels under rural areas in
their agricultural districts." He continued that he had drafted the resolution text for the Board, and
the County Attorney's office drafted the resolution - which included C 1.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Dan Meador, an Albemarle County SPCA Board member, addressed the Commission and
introduced other Board members. He spoke on behalf of the Board, indicating that they do support
the zoning text amendments and asked that they be as broad as possible. Mr. Meador said that the
SPCA Board supports the amendments to allow an animal shelter by special use in the C1, RA, and
HC districts. "We do think it is particularly important that it be available in the C 1, given what's
going on in our neck of the woods on the west side of Berkmar Drive." Mr. Meador said that some
of the parcels to the south of the SPCA have been rezoned C 1, including the parcel directly adjacent
to the south of their site.
Mr. Meador added that their intent is to build a new animal shelter on Berkmar Drive, and stated that
they do provide a public service - a pound - that is required by statute. "By contract with the
county, for many years we have se~ed as that pound...it's something that the county is required to
have, and by this relationship with the county, we have served as the pound for the county [and the
City]... which is one reason we would like to rebuild in reasonable proximity to the City." Mr.
Meador said last year, the SPCA received almost 4,800 dogs and cats. He urged the Commission to
recommend to the Board that the ordinance be amended to allow the animal shelter by special use
permit in RA, HC and C 1.
233
Mr. Rieley asked if there had been a specific site identified on Berkmar Drive for the new SPCA
facility.
Mr. Meador replied that Tax Map 45, Parcel 86 - which runs from Woodbum Road where the
present shelter access is located to Berkmar Drive - is the parcel intended for the new site. He said
that the proposed Route 29 by-pass takes approximately 3 acres of their 9.1 acre parcel, leaving a
nice 5.88 acre parcel on Berkmar Drive across from "Adventureland" amusement area.
Mr. Keeler noted a sketch provided to Commissioners of the road plans, which clearly go "right
through the main building." He added that the acquisition would take most of the other buildings.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Berkmar Drive site was a "rural enough location for an SPCA."
Mr. Meador responded that it is an appropriate location in a commercial area, because the SPCA
board is considering adding spay/neuter services at the new facility, making it more like a veterinary
office/animal hospital. Mr. Meador continued that because they have animals for adoption, it is
important that they receive consumer traffic, and the exposure on Berkmar Drive would "do
wonders" for placing animals in good homes. He added that the purchase/adoption fee of animals is
similar to retail, and the boarding of animals is similar to that of a kennel.
Mr. Finley asked if it is required for an adopted cat or dog to be spayed or neutered.
Mr. Meador replied that people who adopt the animals agree in writing that they will spay or neuter
them, but the enforcement of that is "uneven." He added that it would be a great benefit to reducing
the unwanted animal population if they could spay/neuter them before they leave the shelter.
Mr. Mike Foreman, SPCA Director, addressed the Commission. He reported that Virginia law
stipulates that adopted pets be spayed or neutered when adopted from a shelter. He said that in 1998,
1,073 dogs and 1,023 cats were adopted; another 400+ stray dogs and 60+ stray cats were returned to
their owners. Mr. Foreman emphasized that their location is very important because the animal
control divisions have easy access to the shelter, and the nearby shopping activity provides needed
traffic tothe shelter. "If we were put in an area away from this area that we're currently [in], I think
it would drastically affect adoptions." He mentioned other shelters in other counties where
adoptions are very low, because of the distant rural settings of their shelters. Mr. Foreman added
that the noise situation will be greatly reduced with the new indoor facility, and added that studies
show that animals have a better living situation when in an indoor kennel.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if anyone could form an "animal rescue group" without certification, and
expressed concern that the word "or" in the general provisions defining animal'shelter could leave a
broad interpretation. Mr. Rieley suggested rewriting the language to say "or any other duly
incorporated organization devoted to the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of animals."
Fellow Commissioners agreed with the language change.
234
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of ZTA 99-03 with the
language change. Mr. Rieley noted that the SPCA work is some of the most important work in the
community. The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business
Mr. Loewenstein asked if Commissioners needed to do anything with the Design Standards Manual.
Mr. Keeler indicated that other Commissioners had expressed an interest in having more time to
review the manual. Mr. Rieley said he was supposed to be on the committee, but never received
notice of the meeting. Mr. Keeler said that the committee has not met in a very long time, and noted
information in Commissioner packets from the Land Use Regulation Committee. Mr. Keeler said he
would like to get the item back on the agenda for June 8th.
New Business
Mr. Loewenstein said he had received a letter from Brian Carlson of State Farm Insurance inviting
all Commissioners to join an ad-hoc group of Charlottesville business and education leaders for a
presentation and a workshop on June 14th from 9:30 - 11:00 a.m. at Monticello High School. The
keynote speaker will be Dr. Tom Toberman of the Virginia Employment Commission, and a
reception will be held afterwards. Mr. Loewenstein said the group - which includes the
superintendents of both Charlottesville and Albemarle schools, Chamber of Commerce officials, etc.
- has been meeting for the past year to discuss area workforce issues. He said that because of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 that will significantly change how workforce recruiting, training
and employment are conducted throughout the U.S., the group has invited Commissioners to join the
dialog. Call 980-4646 for more information.
Mr. Finley said he would be absent on June 15t~ and would not chair the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
235
ATTACHMENT B
STAFF PERSON:~
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RON KEELER
MAY 25, 1999
JUNE 16, 1999
ZTA-99-03:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR ANIMAL SHELTER IN
SEVERAL ZONING DISTRICTS
BACKGROUND:
At request of a Board member, staff prepared a resolution for Board consideration to initiate
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow relocation of the SPCA. The Albemarle SPCA,
Inc. which serves the City and County is situated on 9.1 acres between Berkmar Drive Extended
and Woodbum Road with current access to Woodbum Road. Construction of the Rte. 29 By-
Pass would take some of the existing building development (Attachment A). The SPCA
proposes to reconstruct on the remainder of the parcel and take access from Berkmar Drive
Extended.
Staff recommended that the Board:
--- include into 3.0 DEFINITIONS of the Zoning Ordinance "animal shelter" as defined
by the Code of Virginia;
--- permit "animal shelter" by special use permit within the RA Rural Areas and HC
Highway Commercial zoning districts; and
--- make "animal shelter" subject to the supplementary regulations applicable to
commercial kennels, veterinaries and animal hospitals.
On March 17, 1999, the Board adopted the resolution as presented and requested that the
Planning Commission hold public hearing on the resolution and return its recommendation to the
Board at the earliest possible date.
ENABLING LEGISLATION:
Section 15.2-2280 provides that localities in zoning regulation may "regulate, restrict, permit and
determine.., the use of land, buildings, structures and other premises for agricultural, business,
industrial, residential, flood plain and other specific uses." Section 15.2-2286 provides authority
to require special exception (special use permit) review for uses within a zoning district.
ANIMAL RELATED USES: GENERALLY:
Review of planning literature shows a wide range of treatment for animal related uses. Generally,
in agricultural areas, the keeping of livestock and poultry is included in the definition of
"agriculture." "Right-to-Farm" legislation has sought to limit local regulation of agricultural
activities. This limitation of regulation has not been extended in the same manner to "companion
animals" (pets).
The Code of Virginia defines "animal shelter," in part, as "a facility which is used to house or
contain animals," and defines animals as "any nonhuman vertebrate species except fish" and
includes fish under certain circumstances. Therefore, an animal shelter may house livestock,
fowl, companion animals and virtually any other vertebrate. Given this background, staff has
reviewed the Zoning Ordinance for similar uses in an effort to identify appropriate zoning district
designations.
ANIMAL RELATED USES: ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
The Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance contains definitions for: agriculture; hog farm; home
garden; commercial kennel; livestock; poultry; and commercial stable. In 1987, the definition of
home garden was added to the ordinance, permitting the cultivation of flowers, vegetables, fruit
and the like while prohibiting the keeping of poultry and livestock. This action clarified that
agriculture was restricted to the RA Rural Areas and VR Village Residential zones.
The use most similar to animal shelter is commercial kennel in that the majority of the animals
accommodated at the SPCA are dogs and cats (Henry County includes animal shelter in the
definition of commercial kennel). Commercial kennels are allowed by special use permit in the
RA Rural Areas and HC Highway Commercial zoning districts and, in both cases, this use is
subject to supplementary regulations.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED:
The public purpose to be served by this amendment should relate to the public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. There is a public purpose to be served
by providing for continuation of the SPCA. The County contracts with the SPCA to
accommodate animals delivered by the Albemarle County Animal Control Officer (The
telephone directory lists the SPCA under Albemarle County). Staff believes the general public
would assume that any community would welcome the services of an SPCA, although
endorsement of actual locatiOn is a separate consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
A review of the specifics of the SPCA proposal has not been made at this time. As with any
other zoning text amendment associated with a specific development proposal, staff would
recommend that the amendment and specific case be viewed independently. It should also be
recognized that the proposed amendment would make this provision available to any
"organization devoted to the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of animals."
Staff recommends that an SPCA or similar organization as defined by the Code of Virginia as an
"animal shelter" is an important element to any community as are other uses such as fire/rescue
squads, churches, day care centers and other uses which may not be "public uses," but provide
Draft: June 10, 1999
ORDINANCE NO. 99-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III,
District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.0.
Sec. 5.1.11.
Sec. 10.2.2.
Sec. 22.2.2.
Sec. 24.2.2.
Definitions.
Commercial kennel, veterinary, animal hospital.
By special use permit.
By special use permit.
By special use permit.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.0 Definitions.
Animal Shelter: A facility which is used to house or contain animals and which is owned,
operated, or maintained by a duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare society,
society for prevention of cruelty to animals, animal rescue group, or any other such duly
incorporated organization devoted to the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of
animals.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.11 Commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospitala
animal shelter.
Each commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital and
animal shelter shall be subject to the following:
ao
Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no
structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to
any agricultural or residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements,
an external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty
(50) feet of the animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick,
or other material approved by the zoning administrator; (Amended 11-15-89)
b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two
hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed
Draft: June 10, 1999
Co
confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line
shall not exceed forty (40) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89)
In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. Noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not
exceed forty (40) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89)
In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive
activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is
required to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and
board may require among other things: (Amended t 1-15-89)
-Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts;
(Added 11-15-89)
-Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or
other means. (Added 11-15-89)
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil
transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances, unmanned telephone
exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers,
substations and appurtenances.
7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
8. (Repealed 3-5:86)
9. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5).
10. (Repealed 11-11-92)
11. (Repealed 3-15-95)
o
4.
5.
6.
Private schools.
Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16).
Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit.
1. Community center (reference 5.1.04).
2. Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.02).
Draft: June 10, 1999
12. Horse show grounds, permanent.
13. Custom slaughterhouse.
14. Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance
standards in 4.14).
15. Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled persons as described in section
15.1-486.2 of the Code (reference 5.1.07).
16. (Repealed 11-15-95)
17. Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14).
18. Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance
standards in 4.14).
19. Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.01).
20. Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05).
21. Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14).
22. Country store.
23. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. (Amended 11-8-89)
24. (Repealed 11-8-89)
25. Flood control dams and impoundments.
26. (Repealed 11-8-89)
27. Restaurants and inns located within an historic landmark as designated in the
comprehensive plan provided such structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or
inn; in such case the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the
architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith.
(Amended 11-8-89)
28. Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.
29. Boat landings and canoe livery.
30. Permitted residential uses as provided in section 10.5.
Sec.
Draft: June 10, 1999
31. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2).
32. Cemetery.
33. Crematorium.
34. Multi-crypt mausoleum.
35. Church building and adjunct cemetery.
36. Gift, craft and antique shops.
37. Public garage. (Added 3-18-81)
38. Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82)
39. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4- 28-82)
40. Borrow area, borrow pit not permitted under section 10.2.1.18. (Added 7-6-83)
41. Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29). (Added 1-1-87)
42. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations which are related to,
and supportive of the RA, rural areas, district (reference 5.1.27). (Added 12-2-87)
43. Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30). (Added 12-2-87)
44. Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92)
45. Farm sales (reference 5.1.35). (Added 10-11-95)
46. Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38) or off-site employee
parking for an industrial use in an industrial zoning district (reference 5.1.39).
47. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11).
22.2.2 By special use permit.
1. Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited to amusement
centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil
transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone
exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers,
substations and appurtenances.
Draft: June 10, 1999
3. Hospitals.
4. Fast food restaurant.
5. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
6. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section
18.0, residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such
conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4.
7. Hotels, motels and inns.
8. Motor vehicle sales and rental in communities and the urban area as designated in the
comprehensive plan. (Added 6-1-83)
9. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-4)
10. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84;
Amended 9-9-92)
11. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption
exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right,
not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than
domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89)
12. Body shop. (Added 9-9-92)
13. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11).
Sec. 24.2.2 By special use permit.
1. Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers,
bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
2. Septic tank sales and related service.
3. Livestock sales.
4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.08).
6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil
transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone
exchange centers, micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers,
substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12).
Draft: June 10, 1999
7. Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13).
8. Contractors' office and equipment storage yard.
9. Auction houses.
10.
Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section
18.0, residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such
conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4.
11. Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11 ). (Added 1- 1-83)
12. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-84)
13. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84;
Amended 9-9-92)
14.
Uses permitted by right, not served by Public water, involving water consumption
exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right,
not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than
domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89)
15. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.1.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-
91)
16. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to __, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Marshall
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
applicant may have to remove a few of the bushes to be able to access the tower. She concluded by
stating that she believes this to be an improved application, and the adjacent property owner - Mr.
Sprouse - seemed to agree.
Mr. Thomas asked where the tower was located in the original plan, and Ms. Thomas responded that
it was approximately 20 feet northeast of the new proposed location. She indicated that she had met
with Mr. Sprouse and Kevin Arnold from CFW on the site for approximately 45 minutes to discuss
the new location and how it would be maintained.
The applicant, Dick Shear, Site Acquisition and Construction Manager for CFW, addressed the
Commission. Mr. Thomas asked him about the height of the antenna. Mr. Shear responded that the
application is written so that the pole can be 10 feet above the highest oak tree, noting that the
antennas would be on the pole and would not project above it. Mr. Loewenstein asked if the height
had been changed to 6 feet, but Ms. Thomas informed him that it was the Arrowhead site that had a
6-foot limit.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 99-15 with conditions as
recommended by staff. Mr. Thomas asked~ about the size of the lightning rod; Ms. Thomas
explained that the rod is about the size of a pen in diameter, and extends two feet. The motion
passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of the site plan waiver
associated with SP 99-15 with conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed
unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmarm moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of the setback waiver
associated with SP 99-15. The motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Items
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report on three Zoning Text Amendments and one Subdivision Text
Amendment, indicating that all were initiated by resolution by the Board of Supervisors. He stated
that he would report on STA 99-01 and ZTA 99-01 together because they both deal with fees for
county projects. Mr. Keeler reported that under current ordinances, there is no provision for the
Zoning Administrator or Planning Department to not charge fees, resulting in those departments
charging other departments fees for reviewing plans and thus shifting money back and forth. He
stated that the amendments would do aWay with fees for county-initiated and school board projects.
STA 99-01
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to amend section 14-
203 Fees of the Subdivision Ordinance to eliminate all application, inspection and other fees for any
project owned by Albemarle County or the Albemarle County Public School System.
23O
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the resolution was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of endorsement of STA
99-01. The motion passed unanimously.
ZTA 99-01
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to amend section
35.0 Fees of the Subdivision Ordinance to eliminate all application, inspection and other fees for any
project owned by Albemarle County or the Albemarle County Public School System.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the resolution was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of endorsement of ZTA 99-01. The
motion passed unanimously.
ZTA 99-02
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to amend section
35.0 Fees of the Subdivision Ordinance to require payment of delinquent real estate taxes on
properties subject to a zoning application or approval.
Mr. Keeler reported that ZTA 99-02 deals with the requirement to pay delinquent real estate taxes on
properties that are subject to the zoning application or other approval. He stated that the ordinance
comes from the Code of Virginia and is a permissive, not mandatory provision within the code. Mr.
Keeler stated that the code offers two methods of implementation: payment or evidence if no
payment is due before processing of an application; payment or evidence before final approval of an
application. Staff has recommended that payment be due before processing of the application, and
reported that this amendment was an effort involving three departments and the county attorney's
office. He noted that there would be coordination between the development departments and the
Department of Finance, and inquiry regarding tax payments would be made internally due to its
confidential nature. Mr. Keeler added that the requirement would apply to several hundred
applications per year, and the Director of Finance "wholeheartedly supports this effort."
Mr. Loewenstein asked what the dollar value of these applications might be. Mr. Keeler responded
that he did not know.
Mr. Keeler proceeded to read the language for the amendment as outlined in his report.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the item was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of ZTA 99-02 as presented by
staff. The motion passed in a 4-1 vote, with Mr. Rieley dissenting.
231
ZTA 99-03
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to define "animal shelter"; provide for "animal shelter" by special use permit in the C-1
Commercial, HC Highway Commercial and RA Rural Areas zoning districts; and provide
supplementary regulations applicable to "animal shelter."
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, indicating that the amendment was initiated by the Board at the
request of one Board member. Mr. Keeler stated that the SPCA - given the acquisition of right-of-
way for the new bypass - will now have most of their building within the right-of-way. He reported
that the SPCA would like to remain on the property, and in discussions with the Zoning
Administrator, it became evident that there is no provision in the ordinance currently that is
comprehensive enough to include the SPCA. Mr. Keeler noted that while the amendment would
affect more than just the SPCA, staff does not believe that it is likely there would be a host of animal
shelter applications.
He said that "animal shelter" is defined in the Code of Virginia (not in the Land Use section) as "a
facility which is used to house or contain animals and which is owned, operated and maintained by a
duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare society, society for prevention for cruelty to
animals, animal rescue group, or any other organization devoted to the welfare, protection, or
humane treatment of animals." Mr. Keele~ added that if the Commission feels that the wording of
"any other organization devoted to the welfare, protection, or humane treatment of animals" makes
the definition too broad, than the language could be deleted.
Mr. Keeler stated that the initial resolution he drafted for the Board recommended consideration be
given to the rural areas, highway commercial, and C 1. Mr. Keeler explained that staff recommended
in the rural areas and highway commercial because "commercial kennels" are already permitted by
special use permit in those areas; he added that in the C 1 district - by special use permit - the
Zoning Ordinance provides for veterinary offices and hospitals. "The reason it may be appropriate
within the C1 district is due to the location of their actual site, zoning in that area - on the west side
of Berkmar Drive - commercial zoning is C 1. There is some concern that getting Highway
Commercial zoning there, even if it's limited to the SPCA, may be difficult because it's been the
Board's policy not to jump across Berkmar Drive with heavy commercial zoning."
Mr. Keeler concluded that staff is recommending the ZTA in all three districts, noting that it
stipulates a special use permit and thus provides the "security" of special permit review. "The only
issue regarding including it by special permit in the C 1 district is it may be difficult in the future if
someone seeks an amendment to the C 1 for a boarding kennel, it may be difficult to not allow a
boarding kennel if you allowed an animal shelter.., one difference that staff sees here is that the
SPCA is in the nature of a public service...whereas a boarding kennel is simply a commercial
enterprise. We may be able to distinguish along that basis." He added that veterinary offices and
animal hospitals are granted by special use permit in the C1 district, and the SPCA would be subject
to the same supplementary regulations. Mr. Keeler noted that Mr. Kamptner has drafted a revised
ordinance to include animal shelter by special use permit in the C 1, Highway Commercial district,
and Rural Area districts.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were other zoning districts considered that were rejected by staff.
232
Mr. Keeler replied that staff looked at districts that included commercial counts, which seemed to be
the use "most kindred" to the SPCA use. He indicated that he understood the new SPCA facility to
be enclosed, which is not always the case with boarding kennels. Mr. Keeler said that while many
localities provide for kennels in industrial districts, the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance had been
amended so many times before it was newly adopted in 1980, the industrial and commercial districts
were mixed and the Board wanted the new industrial districts to be specifically industrial. He added
that the SPCA has looked for a different location for a number of years, but has not been able to
locate an appropriate site.
Mr. Rieley said, "My inclination is to make [the amendment] as broad as possible because it's a
special use permit anyway, and to make it as easy as possible for organizations like the SPCA to
have as broad a spectrum of sites to choose from as possible...my inclination would be to include as
many of these [districts] as we think could reasonably be expected to provide sites."
Mr. Keeler commented, "I think we would have to re-advertise to include industrial districts."
Mr. Kamptner said that allowing an additional use could be considered an intensification of the use.
Mr. Keeler said, "I reviewed ordinances from other localities and .... only one other ordinance that I
looked at - and I think that was Henry County - actually mentioned animal shelter as a use, and it
was included in their definition of kennel. Almost everyone permits under rural areas in their
agricultural districts." He continued that he had drafted the resolution text for the Board, and the
County Attorney's office drafted the resolution - which included C 1.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Dan Meador, an Albemarle County SPCA Board member, addressed the Commission and
introduced other Board members. He spoke on behalf of the Board, indicating that they do support
the zoning text amendments and asked that they be as broad as possible. Mr. Meador said that the
SPCA Board supports the amendments to allow an animal shelter by special use in the C 1, RA, and
HC districts. "We do think it is particularly important that it be available in the C1, given what's
going on in our neck of the woods on the east side of Berkmar Drive." Mr. Meador said that some
of the parcels to the south of the SPCA have been rezoned C1, including the parcel directly adjacent
to the south of their site.
Mr. Meador added that their intent is to build a new animal shelter on Berkmar Drive, and stated that
they do provide a public service - a pound - that is required by statute. "By contract with the
county, for many years we have served as that pound...it's something that the county is required to
have, and by this relationship with the county, we have served as the pound for the county [and the
City]...which is one reason we would like to rebuild in reasonable proximity to the City." Mr.
Meador said last year, the SPCA received almost 4,800 dogs and cats. He urged the Commission to
recommend to the Board that the ordinance be amended to allow the animal shelter by special use
permit in RA, HC and C 1.
233
"~ Mr. Rieley asked if there had been a specific site identified on Berkmar Drive for the new SPCA
facility.
Mr. Meador replied that Tax Map 45, Parcel 86 - which runs from Woodbum Road where the
present shelter access is located to Berkmar Drive - is the parcel intended for the new site. He said
that the proposed Route 29 by-pass takes approximately 3 acres of their 9.1 acre parcel, leaving a
nice 5.88 acre parcel on Berkmar Drive across from "Adventureland" amusement area.
Mr. Keeler noted a sketch provided to Commissioners of the road plans, which clearly go "right
through the main building." He added that the acquisition would take most of the other buildings~.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Berkmar Drive site was a "rural enough location for an SPCA."
Mr. Meador responded that it is an appropriate location in a commercial area, because the SPCA
board is considering adding spay/neuter services at the new facility, making it more like a veterinary
office/animal hospital. Mr. Meador continued that because they have animals for adoption, it is
important that they receive consumer traffic, and the exposure on Berkmar Drive would "do
wonders" for placing animals in good homes. He added that the purchase/adoption fee of animals is
similar to retail, and the boarding of animals is' similar to that ora kennel.
Mr. Finley asked if it is required for an adopted cat or dog to be spayed or neutered.
Mr. Meador replied that people who adopt the animals agree in writing that they will spay or neuter
them, but the enforcement of that is "uneven." He added that it would be a great benefit to reducing
the unwanted animal population if they could spay/neuter them before they leave the shelter.
Mr. Mike Foreman, SPCA Director, addressed the Commission. He reported that Virginia law
stipulates that adopted pets be spayed or neutered when adopted from a shelter. He said that in 1998,
1,073 dogs and 1,023 cats were adopted; another 400+ stray dogs and 60+ stray cats were returned to
their owners. Mr. Foreman emphasized that their location is very important because the animal
control divisions have easy access to the shelter, and the nearby shopping activity provides needed
traffic to the shelter. "If we were put in an area away from this area that we're currently [in], I think
it would drastically affect adoptions." He mentioned other shelters in other counties where
adoptions are very low, because of the distant rural settings of their shelters. Mr. Foreman added
that the noise situation will be greatly reduced with the new indoor facility, and added that studies
show that animals have a better living situation when in an indoor kennel.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if anyone could form an "animal rescue group" without certification, and
expressed concern that the word "or" in the general provisions defining animal shelter could leave a
broad interpretation. Mr. Rieley suggested rewriting the language to say "or any other duly
incorporated organization devoted to the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of animals."
Fellow Commissioners agreed with the language change.
234
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of ZTA 99-03 with the
language change. Mr. Rieley noted that the SPCA work is some of the most important work in the
community. The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business
Mr. Loewenstein asked if Commissioners needed to do anything with the Design Standards Manual.
Mr. Keeler indicated that other Commissioners had expressed an interest in having more time to
review the manual. Mr. Rieley said he was supposed to be on the committee, but never received
notice of the meeting. Mr. Keeler said that the committee has not met in a very long time, and noted
information in Commissioner packets from the Land Use Regulation Committee. Mr. Keeler said he
would like to get the item back on the agenda for June 8th.
New Business
Mr. Loewenstein said he had received a letter from Brian Carlson of State Farm Insurance inviting
all Commissioners to join an ad-hoc group of Charlottesville business and education leaders for a
presentation and a workshop on June 14th from 9:30 - 11:00 a.m. at Monticello High School. The
keynote speaker will be Dr. Tom Toberman of the Virginia Employment Commission, and a
reception will be held afterwards. Mr. Loewenstein said the group - which includes the
superintendents of both Charlottesville and Albemarle schools, Chamber of Commerce officials, etc.
- has been meeting for the past year to discuss area workforce issues. He said that because of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 that will significantly change how workforce recruiting, training
and employment are conducted throughout the U.S., the group has invited Commissioners to join the
dialog. Call 980-4646 for more information.
Mr. Finley said he would be absent on June 15th and would not chair the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
235
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN DA TITLE:
Court Study Unit
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on Court Study and Juvenile Court
renovation/expansion.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White
AGENDA DATE:
June 16,1999
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
IN FORMATION:
Over a year ago, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville contracted with the firm of Mosely, Harris and McClintock
(MH&M) to stucty the County and City court facilities. The scope of work included the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, both
Circuit Courts and Clerks, both General District Courts, the Commonwealth Attorney's offices, both Sheriff's departments and the
Court Services unit. A joint committee, consisting of county and city staff have worked with MH&M over the past year to: 1 )
evaluate the physical condition of the court facilities; 2) study the court functions and space utilization within each of the facilities;
3) analyze caseload projections and future space needs; 5) recommend facility modifications, additions or new construction,
inc]uding parking solutions for current and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
At this time, the consultants with the help of the committee have developed several scenarios and phasing options and have
prepared schematic drawings and cost summaries of the proposed improvements. These improvements include renovations to
the J&D Court, additions and/or renovation to the City and County Courthouses, the construction of a new combined courthouse
on High Street and at least two parking structure options. Before proceeding any further, the committee feels that the community,
including both the Board of Supervisors and City Council, should have an opportunity to look at the possible alternatives and
provide input prior to the final recommendation phase. A public meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 22nd at the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courthouse to hear a presentation by the MH&M consultant, John J. Moore II1.
Without going into great detail pdor to next Tuesday's presentation, the following renovation and expansion projects are designed
to bring the court facilities up to currant standards and provide facility space for the next 20 years:
new combined District Courthouse on East High Street that will include 2 juvenile and domestic relations court rooms and
County General District Courts;
An expanded District Courthouse that will replace the current J &DR Courthouse and will include a City District Court and
third Juvenile Court;
Two alternatives for a 295 space parking structure, one that impacts the historic jail located behind the J&D R building
between 4"~ and 5~ streets. One alternative builds the parking structure on the site of the old jail, while the second alternative
leaves the old jail, but takes the community attention home.
An expanded County Circuit Courthouse that will provide additional space for the Commonwealth Attorney and an additional
Circuit Court in the vacated space of the current General District Court;
An expanded City Circuit Courthouse that will provide a second City Circuit Courtroom and space for both the City and
County sheriff's departments;
possible stand alone facility for the Court Services Unit;
AGENDA TITLE:
June 16, 1999
Page 2
Court Study Unit
Attached for your information are two schematic drawings that depict Phases 1 and 2, as well as future phases, and preliminary
budget estimates for these proposed phases. As proposed, Phase I includes the new combined J&DR Court and the Albemarle
General District Court, the 4th street parking deck and renovation of the old J&DR court building. Phase I also includes the cost
of reusing the old jail, if that design alternative is selected. The cost of Phase I is approximately $20.5 million.
Phase 2 replaces the current J&DR Courthouse with a new expanded facility to include a new City District Court and a 3r~ J&DR
Court. The total cost of Phase II is $5.6 million
The "Future Phases" include the renovation and expansion of the County Courthouse and the City Courthouse.
An optional future phase is a new Court Services building at a cost of $2.3 million.
Site Plan Phases 1 and 2 shows the new combined court facility on High Street and the parking structure with the old jail kept
intact. In this scenario, the Community Attention Home at the back NW corner of the property has been displaced by the parking
structure, thus incurring an additional replacement cost. The schematic drawing, "Site Plan - Future Phases", shows the fully
built out combined District Courthouse (the current juvenile court building has been replaced), the expansion of the City and
County Circuit Courts and the optional Court Services Unit facility. In this scenario, the parking deck is built on site, but re places
the old jail while keeping the Community Attention Home.
Also attached are two sheets that provide background information on the caseload trends for both the city and county courts from
1988 to 2015 and the projected staffing levels from 1998 through 2018.
After next Tuesday's meeting, a model of the Court Square expansion and renovation project will be on view for approximately
three weeks in City Circuit Court. From mid-July, the model will be on display in the lobby of the County Office Building. On
August 5th, the committee will hold a second workshop at the county to give the public another opportunity to learn about the
project and ask questions. Public input will be encouraged through comment sheets available at each presentation and e-mail
or phone contact with committee members. Summary information on the project will also be available on both the City and
County's web pages. A press briefing will be held on Thursday, June 17a to increase public exposure for the June 22na meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is for information only prior to next Tuesday's presentation and requires no Board action at this time.
99.102
SITE PLAN -
PHASES 1~ & 2
CHARLOTTESVILLE / ALBEMARLE COUNTY COURT FACILITIES STUDY
April 26, 1999
Preliminary Budget Estimate
SUMMARY
Phase I
A. New Combined J&DR / General District Court Building
G. 4th Street Parking Deck - approximately 295 spaces
H. Adaptive Re-use of Old Jail
I. Renovation of Old J&DR Court Building
$12,230,000
$6,352,000
$958,000
$948,000
TOTAL $20,488,000
Phase 2 C. Combined J&DR / Genl. Dist. Court Bldg. Expansion $5,584,000
Future Phases
J. County Courthouse Renovation and Expansion
K. City Courthouse Renovation and Expansion
$4~71,000
$7,325,000
TOTAL $11,696,000
TOTAL COST IN 1998 DOLLARS - ALL PHASES
$37,76~,000
Optional Future Phase
P. New Court Services Unit (Juvenile Probation) Bldg. $2,342,000
(Some savhags may be realized in the construction cost of the Combined J&DR / General
District Court Building expansion if this separate building is constructed for Court Services
instead of locating it in the basement of the court building.)
Space Management Consultants, Inc. 6.5 Moseley Harris and McClintock
CHARLOTTESVILLE / ALBEMARLE COUNTY COURT FACILITIES STUDY
April 215, 1998
Ae
Preliminary Budget Estimate
PHASE 1 - NEW COMBINED DISTRICT COURT BUILDING
J&DR COURT / CITY AND COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURTS
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Building Construction
Interior Finished Space
Interior Shell Space
Covered Service Area
Sitework Construction
55,000 SF @ $140
5,000 SF @ $80
3,100SF@ $80
$7,700,000
$400,000
$250,000
$650,000
Construction Cost Subtotal
$9,ooo,ooo
OTHER COSTS
Furniture
Property Acquisition Allowance
Geotechnical Study
Boundary and Topographic Survey
Testing and Inspections
Architectural/Engineering Services
Data/Telephone Allowance
Moving Expenses Allowance
Pemitting and Utility Connection Fees
L~gal Expenses
Financing Expenses
$500,000
$6OO,OOO
$10,000
$1.5,000
$90,000
$800,000
$75,000
$30,000
Assmed waived
Not incIuded
Not included
Other Costs Subtotal
$2,120,000
Project Cost Subtotal
Recommended Project Budget Contint~ency
TOTAL
$11,120,000
$1,110,000
$12,230,000
Space Management Consultants, Inc. 6.5 Moseley Harris and McClintock
CHARLOTTESVILLE / ALBEMARLE COUNTY COURT FACILITIES STUDY
April 26, 1999
Ce
Preliminary Budget Estimate
FUTURE PHASE - EXPANSION OF COMBINED J&DR COIJRT/
GENERAL DISTRICT COURT BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Building Construction
Finish Out Phase 1 Shell Space in Basement
Sitework Construction
26,000 SF~ $150
5,000 SF~ $70
$3,900,000
$350,000
$125,000
Construction Cost Subtotal
$4~375,000
OTHER COSTS
Furniture
Property Acquisition Allowance
Geotechnical Study
BoundmT and Topographic Survey
Testing and Inspections
Architectural/Engineering Services
Data/Telephone Allowance
Moving Expenses Allowance
Pemitting and Utility Connection Fees
Legal Expenses
Financing Expenses
$225,000
None required
$10,000
$5,000
$44,000
$390,000
$25,000
$10,000
Assumed waived
Not included
Not included
Other Costs Subtotal
$709,000
Project Cost Subtotal
$5,084,000
Recommended Project Budget Contingency
TOTAL
$500,000
$5,584,000
Space Management Consultants, Inc. 6.5 Moseley Harris and McClintock
CHARLOTTESVILLE / ALBEMARLE COUNTY COURT FACILITIES STUDY
April 26, 1998
Preliminary Budget Estimate
FUTURE P]~ASE - 4TH STREET PARKING DECK
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Building Construction
Upper Level - Elevation 485
4th Street Level - Level 465 - 475
Level 455 - 465
Level 445 - 455
Level 435 - 445
Sitework Construction / Demolition
22,ooo SF @
22,000 SF @
22,000 SF ~
22,000 SF ~
22,000 SF @
$30
$35
$46
$55
$65
$660,000
$770,000
$1,020,000
$1,210,000
$1,430,000
$250,000
Construction Cost Subtotal
$s,340,o00
OTHER COSTS
Furniture
Property Acquisition Allowance
Geotechnical Study
Boundary and Topographic Survey
Testing and Inspections
Architectural/Engineering Services
Data/Telephone Allowance
Moving Expenses Allowance
Pemitting and Utility Connection Fees
Legal Expenses
Financinl~ Expenses
None requieed
None required
$5,000
$3,000
$54,000
$380,000
None required
None required
Assumed waived
Not included
Not included
Other Costs Subtotal
Project Cost Subtotal
Recommended Project Budt~et Contingency
TOTAL
$442~00
$$,782,o0o
$570,000
$ ,35a,ooo
* Approximately 295 spaces
Space Management Consultants, Inc. 6.5 Moseley Harris and McClintock
CHARLOTTESVILLE / ALBEMARLE COUNTY COURT FACILITIES STUDY
April 26, 1998
Preliminary Budget Estimate
PHASE 1 - ADAPTIVE REUSE OF OLD JAIL
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Building Construction
Perimeter Wall Reconstruction
Sitework Construction
3,900 SF~ $150
$590,000
$50,000
$75,0O0
Construction Cost Subtotal
$715~00
OTHER COSTS
Furniture
Property Acquisition Allowance
Geotechnical Study
Bounda~ and Topographic Survey
Testing and Inspections
ArchitecturaVEngineering Services
Data/Telephone Allowance
Moving Expenses Allowance
Pemitting and Utility Connection Fees
Legal Expenses
Financing Expenses'
Not included
None required
None required
Included in Court Building Cost
$8,000
$140,000
$,10,000
$5,000
Assumed waived
Not included
Not included
Other Costs Subtotal
$163,000
Project Cost Subtotal
,Recommended Project Budget Contingency ,,
TOTAL
$878,000
$80,000
$958,000
Space Management Consultants, Inc. 6.5 Moseley Harris and McClintock
CHARLOTTESVILLE - ALBEMARLE COUNTY COURT FACILITIES STUDY
I
I
I
Table 2.3 CASELOAD TRENDS FOR CHARLOTTESVILLE COURTS
Circuit Court General District Court J&DR District Court
Year Civil Criminal Total Criminal Traffic Civil Total Juvenile DR Total
1988 501 641 1,142 7,197 7,168 7,132 21,497 1,006 962 1,968
1989 599 765 1,3~ 6,8~ 7,917. 7,656 ~,435 980 1,270 2,250
1990 5~ 535 1,119 6,517 7,402 8,835 22,7~ 1,146 1,485 2,631
1991 624 691 1,315 5,825 7,453 10,659 23,937~ 1,297 1,699 2,996
1992 577 698 1,275 6,015 5,658 11,663 23,536 1,505 2,204 3,709
1993 619. 649 1,268 5,145 - 6,046 11,1~ ~,325 1,464 2,762 4,~6
1994 604 575 1,179 4~1 4,964 9,141 18,646 1,686 2,578 4,264
1995 619 808 1,427 4,629 6,144 10,047 20,820 1,638 2,383 4,021
1996 521 904 1,425 4,740 6;~3 10,282 21,245 1,724 2,290 4,014
1997 567 1,100 1,667 4,876 8,115 10,670 23,661: 2,070 2,367 4,437
1998 588 939 1,527 4,500' 7,000' 11,429 ~,429 2,064 2,916 4,980
1999 590 976 1,565 4,500* 7,000' 11,739 23,239 2,175 .3,082 ~,257
2000 591 1,013 1,603 4,500' 7,000' 12,049 23,549 2,287 3,249 5,535
2005 597 1,197 1,794 4,500* 7,000* 13,601 25,101 2,843 4,081 6,924
2010 603 1,381 1,984 4,500' 7,000* 15,152 26,652 3,400 4,913 8,313
2015 609 1,565 2,174 4,500* 7,000* ~6,704 .28,704~ 3,957. 5,746 9,703
~efen~ ~n 1997 and 2015
42 465 507 (376) (1,115) 6,034 43,~3 1,887 3,379 5,266
~men~ ~n 1~7 a~ 2015
7.4% 40.6% 30.4% -8.4% -13.7% 56.6% 19.2% 91.2% 142.8% 118.7%
Projections based on linear least squares.
· A~lUC~nents ma~e to c~i~inal and traffic case flings for ~e GDC t~y SMC. in ~1~n ~h ~ A~iministm~'e Office of ~e Su~'eme Court of Virgr~a.
Take~ from Supreme Court of Virginia. Office of the Executive Secretary
Table 2.4 CASELOAD TRENDS FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY COURTS
Circuit Court General District Court J&DR District Court
Year Civil Criminal Total Criminal Traffic Civil Total Juvenile DR Total
~ii~,~.~.k.~... ~ '.~;.~i.'~i:i;:i=iii~.: ,. ::.: ?..;_:. ::... .i: :".i: ii~ii:~;~?..~:::i.?~-~';~"." ~ :..::?::?ili!: '.:,:~....~:::?~i:~i:~i~::~:..!: :.?;..:..i ~!il,;:~· .:;~:...::????~;;i'¥1:~!i:i;ii!ii?~:~ii:ili~;i:~?/,~ii!?,ii!ii!;iii.!ii!i
1988 771 399 1,170 3,163 11,729 6,358 21,250 1,374 830 2,204
1989 767 468 1,235 3,333 12,624 6,160 22,117 1.362 1,035 2,397
1990 928 460 1,388 3.386 12,431 7,842 23,659 1,468 1,203 2.671
1991 940 427 1,367 3,197 11,272 8,647 23,126 1,562 1,532 3,094
1992 953 581 1,534 3,196 10,207 9,206 22,609 1,600 1,625 3,225
1993 988 650 1,638 3,302 11.367 10,526 25,195 1.734 1,844 3,578
1994 934 522 1,456 3,241 9,388 10,190 22,819 1,677 1,843 3,520
1995 979 685 1,664 3,440 10,566 9.623 23,629 2,087 1.898 3,985
1996 843 830 1,673 3.377 11,306 6.789 21,472 2,114 1,694 3,808
1997 891 911 1,802 3,540 12,007 7,381 22,928 2,595 1,538 4,133
1998 962 881 1,843 3,458 10,605' 9,221 23,284 2,418 2.025 4,443
1999 974 933 1,907 3,483 10.605' 9,393 23,481 2,538 2,119 4,658
2000 985 985 1,970 3,509 10,605' 9,566 23,680 2,659 2,214 4.872
2005 1,042 1,246 2,289 3,636 10,605' 10,427 24,668 3,259 2,687 5.946
2010 1,099 1,508 2,607 3,764 10,605' 11,289 25,658 3,860 3,160 7,020
2015 1,156 1,769 2,925 3,891 10,605' 12,151 26,647 4,461 3,633 8,094
Difference between 1997 and 2015
265 858 1,123 351 (1,402) 4,770 3,719 1,866 2,095 3,961
% Difference between 1997 and 2015
29.7% 94.2% 62.3% 9.9% -11.7% 64.6% 16.2% 71.9% 136.2% 95.8%
· Adjustn~ents made to ~mffic case filings for ~e GDC by SMC. in consultation ~ the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Projections based on linear least squares.
Take~ ~ Supreme Court of Virginia. Office of the Executiv~ Secretary
2.5
The following is a summary of staff projections for all courts and related departments.
Court and Related Departments
Albemarle Circuit Court
Albemarle Circuit Court Clerk
Albemarle General District Court
Albemarle General District Court Clerk
Albemarle Commonwealth's Attorney
Albemarle Sheriffs Department*
subtotals
Charlottesville Circuit Court
Charlottesville Circuit Court Clerk
Charlottesville General District Court
Charlottesville General District Court Clerk
Charlottesville Cormnonwealth's Attorney
Charlottesville Sheriffs Department
subtotals
Combined J&DR Courts
J&DR Court Clerk
J&DR Court Services
CASA
Personnel Projections
1998 2008 2018
3 3 6
10 13 16
1 3 4
7 9 11
8 14 19
16 23 30
Includes 2 circuit court judge~
Includes 2 GDC judges
Excludes part4im¢ deputies
42 64 86
2 3 3
8 9 10
1 2 2
7 8 9
15 18 22
ll 12 15
Includes I circuit court judge
Includes I GDCjudge
44 52 61
5 7 12
9 12 16
30 38 46
4 5 6
subtotals
TOTALS
48 62 80
134 178 227
,c;nace Mano~,ement Con.cultants. ]nc
CITY OF CHARLOTFESVII J JE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI JE
P. O. Box 911
charlottesVille, VA 22902
Telephone 804-970-3302
401 Mdnlire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Telephone 804-296-5841
June 7, 1999
Growth in the area's general population coupled with increasing demands placed on our local
criminal justice system have overburdened the existing court facilities which serve
Charlottesville and Albemarle County. These deteriorated and overcrowded facilities require
immediate attention so.that our community's criminal justice functions can be carried out safely
and comfortably.
About a year ago, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle engaged the firm of
Moseley Harris & McClintock (MH&M) to study the County and City Court facilities located in
down. town Charlottesville. A joint committee, consisting of both County and City staff, directed
the work of MH&M and asked them to: a) evaluate the physical condition of the courts
facilities; b) study the court functions and space utilization within each of the facilities; c)
analyze caseload projections and future space needs; and d) recommend facility modifications,
additions or new construction to include parking solutions that will meet current and future needs
of the court system.
Our consultants have concluded their study and are prepared to summarize their .findings and
recommend physical improvements. These improvements include renovations to the J&DR
court, additions and/or renovation to the City and County court houses, the construction of a new
combined court house on High Street and at least two parking structure options. One of the
parking options impacts the historic jail which is located behind the J&DR building between 4th
mad 54 streets.
Because this project will require a substantial commitment of financial resources from both the
City and County it is critical that the public be aware of and involved in the process of evaluating
and discussing the options that have been identified by the study.
The committee would like to share the results of the study with you and obtain your feedback.
Accordingly, you are invited to a public presentation to be held June 22, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the
main courtroom of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on High Street.
Thank you in advance for your participation in this most important project.
12hief of Facilities
City of Charlottesville
Roxanne White
Assistant County Executive
County of Albemarle
From:
Subject:
Date:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Ella Washington Carey, CMC,
Reading List for June 16, 1999
June 10, 1999
April 7, 1999
April 14, 1999
April 21, 1999
Mr. Martin
Ms. Humphris
Ms. Thomas
/ewc
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
Eric Haussmann
5880 Buck Ridge Rd
Earlysville, VA 22936
June 6, 1999
To the County Supervisors,
At a recent Earlysville Fire Department fund raiser, I initiated a petition on an issue which is of
continued interest for the Earlysville community. The signatures were gathered only during the
time of my visit, and everyone solicited provided their signature!
The first petition addresses a need which has been discussed at length and for some time in the
Earlysville area. That is the request for the creation of a County outdoor swimming pool, not
unlike the one in Crozet, and for a recreation center, not unlike the one in Greenwood. I first
moved to Earlysville in 1987, and have witnessed many changes over the years. It is time to
provide some more recreational alternatives to the many families and people who live in the
northwest section of our beautiful county! We've even tried to seek public tennis courts.
While Earlysville is no longer considered a county growth area, it has numerous established
neighborhoods, and actually has grown in the past few years. Much of your attention, quite
naturally, has been given to the Rt 29 corridor and Forest Lakes/Hollymead growth and sprawl.
However, we Earlysville area residents want you all to recognize and accede to our requests to
see some recreational services established in our area.
As more signatures are gathered at future Earlysville neighborhood meetings, and EARL
meetings, they will be forwarded accordingly. I am willing to work with the county planners and
yourselves to learn what our options are in terms of establishing these recreational services. Your
thoughts are also welcome.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PETITION FOR..POOL/REC CENTER IN
~LYSVILLE
We, the undersigned citizens of Albemarle County, do
hereby request the development of a community center
and outdoor pool in the Earlysville area. One possible
location is at the former Murray Plant on Reas Ford Road.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
~1~[~'~7''~'q:; ~ ~ -, ~. F~--,
PETITION FOR POOL/REC CENTER IN
EARLYSVILLE p.2
NAME ADDRESS
P
DATE
JUNE I~, 1999
EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION
[ MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
PURSUANT tO SECTION 2. I -344(A) Of THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
AND STAFF rEGARDING PENDING LITIGATION CONCERNING A
POLICE MATTEr, PENDING LITIGATION REGARDING THE
tRANSITION OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TO TOWN
STATUS, AND PROBABLE LITIGATION REGARDING A ZONING
MATTER.